COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Supportive Analytical Document Accompanying the document 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 Adriatic and Ionian Region
Date: 2014-06-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Adriatic Sea, Ionian Sea, Mediterranean region (EU), Western Balkans, action programme, economic growth, marine environment, regional aid, regional cooperation, shipping policy, sustainable development, tourism













EUR-Lex - 52014SC0191 - EN











|



52014SC0191

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Supportive Analytical Document Accompanying the document 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 Adriatic and Ionian Region /* SWD/2014/0191 final */









Table
of contents
1..... Introduction...................................................................................................... 6
1.1.     Policy
context.................................................................................................... 6
2..... Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties 6
2.1.     Lead DG............................................................................................................ 6
2.2.     Consultation
of interested parties...................................................................... 7
2.2.1.       Consultation process............................................................................ 7
2.2.2.       Consultation results............................................................................. 9
3..... Problem definition....................................................................................... 12
3.1.     Main
challenges characterising the Region...................................................... 12
3.1.1.       Heterogeneity.................................................................................... 12
3.1.2.       Lack of effective coordination/cooperation between countries and
funds        12
3.1.3.       Weak implementation of EU policies................................................ 13
3.1.4.       Need for strengthening existing inter-governmental cooperation
structures      13
4..... Problem definition by topic.................................................................... 15
4.1.     Pillar
1 – Blue growth...................................................................................... 15
4.2.     Pillar
2 – Connecting the region...................................................................... 17
4.3.     Pillar
3 – Environmental quality...................................................................... 19
4.4.     Pillar
4 – Sustainable tourism........................................................................... 21
5..... Added value of an EU Strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian Region     22
5.1.     Promoting
a cross-sector approach.................................................................. 22
5.2.     Moving
from words to action: The Action Plan.............................................. 22
5.3.     Mobilising
the whole spectrum of relevant existing funds.............................. 23
5.4.     Supporting
accession and exploiting synergies with other macro-regional strategies      23
5.5.     Strengthening
compliance with EU legislation and policies and governance for implementing the
Strategy............................................................................................................ 24
5.6.     Improving coordination between existing
cooperation mechanisms............... 25
6..... Options regarding the Commission's role...................................... 25
6.1.     The
options...................................................................................................... 25
6.2.     Analysis
of impacts of the different options................................................... 26
7..... Comparing the options............................................................................... 29
8..... Environmental, Social and Economic Impact Assessment... 34
9..... Monitoring and evaluation................................................................... 36
10... Conclusion........................................................................................................ 37
 Executive Summary Sheet 
 Supportive analytical document on the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region 
 A. Need for action 
 Why? What is the problem being addressed? 
 The Adriatic-Ionian Region is heterogeneous in terms of economic and administrative capacity. This makes cooperation between participating countries challenging. The EU Strategy for the Region addresses this problem by identifying four interdependent thematic pillars covering topics relating to challenges and opportunities specific to the Region. Transboundary/transnational by nature, these pillars will therefore all benefit from increased coordination on the part of the participating countries. However, since existing cooperation frameworks in the Region are primarily sector-based or do not match the geographical scope of the Strategy, in the absence of a joint strategic framework for cooperation facilitated by the EU, challenges to joint action are likely to persist. 
 What is this initiative expected to achieve? 
 The general objective of the Strategy is to promote sustainable economic and social prosperity of the Adriatic-Ionian Region through growth and jobs creation, by improving its attractiveness, competitiveness and connectivity while at the same time preserving the environment and ensuring healthy and balanced marine and coastal ecosystems. It will also contribute to EU integration of participating Western Balkans pre-accession countries. 
 What is the value added of action at the EU level? 
 The added value of EU action consists in: (i) promoting a cross-sector approach; (ii) moving from words to action through an Action Plan; (iii) mobilising the whole spectrum of relevant existing funds; (iv) supporting accession and exploiting synergies with other macro-regional strategies; (v) strengthening compliance with EU legislation and policies and governance for implementing the Strategy; and (vi) improving coordination between existing cooperation mechanisms 
 B. Solutions 
 What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why? 
 In accordance with the European Council conclusions, macro regional strategies should involve no new funding, no new institutions and no new legislation at EU level. The initiative therefore aims at making better use of existing resources, legislation and institutions. As it adopts an integrated approach, it will assist implementation of legislation, align existing sources of funding and build on the capacity of existing institutions to cooperate in the Region. 
 Who supports which option? 
 The European Council in its conclusions of December 2012 requested the Commission to submit a macro- regional strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian Region, building on experience gained through macro-regional strategies in the Baltic Sea and Danube Regions. 
 C. Impacts of the preferred option 
 What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? 
 The benefits of the preferred option are to facilitate identification of shared strategic objectives and actions needed for attaining these objectives. Involvement of the European Commission is limited to facilitating and coordinating development of strategic governance structures for implementing the Action Plan accompanying the Strategy. 
 What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? 
 The initiative is financially neutral for the European Commission. As far as requirements in terms of staff are concerned, experience from the EU Strategies for the Baltic Sea and the Danube Regions suggests that 3-5 full time equivalents are required for facilitating and coordinating the macro-regional approach. These requirements are expected to be met through redeployment internal to the Commission with job descriptions amended so as to reflect objectives laid down in the Strategy and to accommodate needs arising from initial support in implementing the Strategy. Commission staff should furthermore be supplemented by a number of cost-free national experts seconded by participating countries. 
 How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected? 
 There is no explicit regime for micro-enterprises and SMEs as the Strategy is limited to coordinating regional, national and European instruments. The regime for micro-enterprises and SMEs is determined by parameters included in individual operational programmes and by the legislation in place. 
 Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? 
 National budgets and administrations would be positively impacted through a shift in prioritisation. National governments would however be requested to second staff to the European Commission at their own expense. 
 Will there be other significant impacts? 
 Other impacts may occur, but these cannot currently be identified. 
 D. Follow up 
 When will the policy be reviewed? 
 The Strategy will be reviewed regularly and possibly revised in light of emerging needs. 
1.           Introduction 
The European
Council of December 2012 requested the European Commission to present an EU
Strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian Region (EUSAIR) by end 2014[1]. This request follows the creation of the two macro-regional
strategies, the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, and the EU Strategy for
the Danube Region, developed under the coordination of the European Commission
respectively in 2008/2009 and 2011, and currently in the phase of implementation.
1.1.        Policy
context 
In its
conclusions on the Integrated Maritime Policy of 19 December 2011, the Council
expressed support for the on-going work of Adriatic and Ionian Member States to enhance maritime cooperation with non-EU neighbours in the area within the
framework of a macro-regional strategy. 
On 30 November
2012 the Commission adopted the Maritime Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Seas[2]. The EUSAIR builds upon
– and integrates – this Strategy, taking into account the discussion of the added
value of the overall macro-regional approach. Following this discussion, on 27 June
27 2013, the European Commission issued a broadly positive assessment of the added
value of the macro-regional strategies[3],
reinforced by wide support from the other EU-institutions, notably the Committee
of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee. 
As with the Maritime Strategy, the EUSAIR builds
on the Adriatic and Ionian Initiative, which covers eight countries: four EU
Member States (Croatia, Greece, Italy, and Slovenia) and four non-EU countries
(Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia). The Strategy remains
open to other partners in the Region. The EUSAIR also builds upon existing
cooperation between countries of the Region, e.g. EU cross-border and
transnational cooperation programmes. 
2.           Procedural issues and consultation of interested
parties
2.1.        Lead
DG
The EU Strategy for the Adriatic- Ionian
Region is coordinated by DG Regional and Urban Policy, in close cooperation with
DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries in charge of maritime and marine aspects. This
document has been prepared by DG Regional and Urban Policy with technical support
from experts and from a Commission inter-service working group..
2.2.        Consultation
of interested parties
2.2.1.     Consultation process
The Strategy is based on three main
information sources:
(1)              
A socio-economic analysis identifying the needs
of the Adriatic and Ionian Region carried out by DG Regional and Urban Policy,
in cooperation with external experts (overview in Annex 1 and 6).
(2)              
Expertise from the Commission and other EU
institutions:

 DG Regional and
     Urban Policy, expertise drew on experience gained through preparation of
     the two macro-regional strategies for the Baltic Sea and Danube Regions.
 DG Maritime Affairs
     and Fisheries drew in particular, on experience gained through preparation
     of the Maritime Strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian Seas. This strategy now
     forms an integral part of the wider Adriatic-Ionian macro-regional Strategy.
     Inter-service meetings and consultations with relevant DGs within the
     European Commission, notably DG Agriculture and Rural Development, DG
     Climate Action, DG Enlargement, DG Employment, Social Affairs and
     Inclusion, DG Energy, DG Enterprise and Industry, DG Environment, the Joint
     Research Centre, DG MOVE, DG Research and Innovation and the
     Secretariat-General, provided further sources of expertise informing
     preparation of the Strategy and its accompanying Action Plan.

·        
Other EU Institutions, in particular the
Committee of the Regions, and its Adriatic-Ionian interregional group, and the
European Economic and Social Committee, made proposals of substance through
their opinions and debates.
(3)              
Consultation of interested parties
Under the lead of DG Regional and Urban
Policy, in June-July 2013 and in close cooperation with National Contact Points
(NCPs) from all eight participating countries, the Commission developed a
Discussion Paper on an EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region. Following
the recommendation contained in the Commission Report on the added value of
macro-regional strategies (to limit the number of themes), in the light of
extensive contacts between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the eight
countries and the Commission, as well as of the consultation process for the
Maritime Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Seas, this Discussion Paper limited
itself to suggesting four interdependent themes to be addressed by the EUSAIR:
"Driving innovative maritime and marine growth"; "Connecting the
region" (transport and energy); "Preserving, protecting and improving
the quality of the environment" and "Increasing regional
attractiveness" (tourism). 
Alongside the first theme, directly derived
from the Maritime Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Seas of November 2012,
the three other themes were identified as presenting challenges and
opportunities that could only (or more effectively) be respectively tackled and
seized through concerted and coordinated action at a transnational or
macro-regional level. For instance, discussions suggested that, for Theme 1, individual
countries would not be able to ensure sustainable use of deep water resources[4]. The same was seen to apply
to important challenges and opportunities in terms of transport, energy and the
environment. These themes also clearly related to key objectives of Europe 2020
and South-East Europe 2020 for the Western Balkan countries, best achieved
through cooperation. 
Connectivity, environment and tourism are
indeed the themes that the Adriatic-Ionian Initiative
(covering the same group of countries) identified since 2000 as issues of
common strategic relevance to all eight countries concerned and that, since
then, are the subject close cooperation among them. 
The work of analysis carried out by four
external experts further confirmed that the four themes matched needs - or
challenges - as well as opportunities of strategic importance for allowing the
Region to make headway towards the general objective of sustainable economic and social prosperity through growth and jobs
creation, attractiveness, competitiveness and connectivity, while preserving
the environment as well as a healthy and balanced marine and coastal
ecosystems.

The EUSAIR Discussion Paper was issued on 9
August 2013 as the key basis for an extensive consultation of stakeholders in
the Region conducted in the period September – December 2013. It aimed at
reaching out to the relevant stakeholders and at gathering their ideas
regarding the four themes in order to make sure that the Strategy was realistic
in its premisses, appropriate in its objectives, and responded to genuine needs
among the Region's inhabitants. In line with the principle of ownership, the
consultation process was conducted under the responsibility of the NCPs
fulfilling a role of national coordinators in charge of preparing the Strategy.
One EU Member State and one non-EU country were appointed for coordinating the theme
of their choice as follows: 
 Themes || Coordinators 
 1.  Driving innovative maritime and marine growth || Greece and Montenegro 
 2.  Connecting the region (transport, energy) || Italy and Serbia 
 3.  Preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment || Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina 
 4.  Increasing regional attractiveness (tourism) || Croatia and Albania 
DG Regional and Urban Policy also
launched an on-line consultation – based on the EUSAIR Discussion Paper
mentioned above. The consultation – which was open for 12 weeks, from 25
October 2013 until 17 January 2014 - addressed all interested parties,
especially regional and local authorities, inter-governmental and
non-governmental bodies, international financial institutions and the private
sector. It was also open to individual citizens. The on-line public consultation
was structured around a set of open questions regarding the Strategy (Annex 2).
The results of the consultation was published on the website of DG Regional
Policy (Summary of the responses to the Public consultation is provided in
Annexes 3 and 4). The list of the authorities / organisations / citizens who
replied is in Annex 5.
All four themes were endorsed
during the consultation process. Among many others, the following contributions
were gathered:
·        
On 14 November 2013, DG Maritime Affairs and
Fisheries, in cooperation with DG Regional and Urban Policy, organised a
Stakeholder Seminar on "Boosting Blue Growth in the Adriatic-and Ionian
region: towards and Action plan for the EUSAIR";
·        
The Adriatic-Ionian interregional group, set up
by the Committee of the Region, collected views and proposals from their members
– through meetings and questionnaires – and forwarded their contributions to
the Commission on 13 December 2013; 
·        
Upon request from the Commission, the European
Economic and Social Committee on 21 January 2014 issued an Exploratory Opinion
based on the EUSAIR Discussion Paper.
2.2.2.     Consultation results
Overall, the consultation process
emphasised that tackling shared challenges and opportunities in relation to the
four themes requires coherent, integrated and coordinated approaches on the
part of the countries involved. Neither unilateral national approaches nor
sector-based approaches would suffice. Unsustainable use of marine and coastal
area resources, fisheries and aquaculture management, mobility and transport,
including cruise tourism, were emphasised as areas requiring joint responses.
For example, since the countries of the Adriatic-Ionian Region share the same
sea basin, unsustainable use of resources or non-compliance with European
standards (e.g. in terms of pollution or over fishing) in one country were seen
to have considerable impacts on the situation in other countries in terms of environmental
quality or competitiveness. 
Particular aspects were furthermore
foregrounded under each theme. Under Theme 1, blue growth was recognised as key
to promoting sustainable economic development and jobs as well as business
opportunities around the sea basin. Under Theme 2, overcoming disparities in terms of transport and energy networks, reducing
bottlenecks at borders and improving efficiency in infrastructure
networks and regulatory frameworks, were seen as
pre-conditions for a balanced socio-economic growth in the Region. The same
applies for increasing the Region's accessibility, attractiveness and
competitiveness. Under Theme 3, reducing pressure on marine, coastal and
terrestrial ecosystems as well as pollution of the sea and halting loss of
biodiversity and habitats, also inland, were identified as major issues.
Lastly, diversified, high quality tourism products and services available
all-year, also in the hinterland, and sustainable and responsible tourism
management, were identified as important sources for boosting business and
creating stable jobs.
The consultation also showed that, in
addition to having cross-border impacts, certain challenges also influence different
segments of the Region's economy. Examples are the link between the
attractiveness of the Region for tourism, including the opportunities for jobs
and growth, and accessibility and connectivity in the Region. Other examples
underlined the importance of environmental quality for tourism, but also for
fisheries and aquaculture. The analysis that the external experts carried out
parallel to the consultation, further confirmed close interdependencies between
the four themes and the importance of approaching them in an integrated manner,
while taking into account disparities between EU Members States and non-EU
countries. 
Lastly, the process underlined that
administrative and institutional capacity-building remained important issues in
the Adriatic-Ionian Region. Provided strong political support and efficient governance
systems were secured at the national level, an EU strategy could play a central
role for implementing actions at the macro-regional level. The process also
brought home the message that the Strategy could help strengthen the capacity
of existing cooperation arrangements - of which all or several participating
countries were members - to deliver tangible results. 
Inputs received
furthermore argued that:
(1)       
An integrated approach on e.g. environment D mobility
D socio-economic development D human resource
development etc. would improve tackling of issues usually
viewed in isolation. This would allow for synergies and better planning;
(2)       
An inclusive and result oriented approach,
covering more experienced and "new" EU Members States, as well as candidate
and potential candidate countries, could improve the effectiveness of responses in
the whole Region, aligning all relevant EU policies and funds, and would support
the accession process. 
(3)       
Wider macro-regional solidarity would allow for
equitable profit/burden sharing. It was thus argued that, for each country to
achieve its objectives, inputs were needed from the other participant
countries. 
The consultations lay bare some differences regarding priorities to
be pursued. These differences resulted from recent history, socio-economic
disparities and differences in institutional capacities. The consultation
process thus revealed expectations and interests in relation to the Strategy
that varied according to the country from which the replies came, rather than according
to the particular sector or type of stakeholders concerned. 
In broad terms, three groups of countries
could be distinguished:
·        
Greece and Italy, as the largest countries in the area, often appeared to be the main driving force
behind the Strategy. Besides showing high levels of interest in the Strategy as
a tool for better coordinating policies in the Region, both countries also
expect the Strategy to help endow southern Europe with a positive and business-friendly
spirit. Moreover, the fact that both countries hold EU Council Presidency in
2014, added momentum to their engagement.
·        
Croatia and Slovenia were hoping to benefit from policy coordination helping, inter alia, their
maritime sectors to develop. Also, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro expected the Strategy to help develop their maritime sectors and to foster
administrative cooperation. As for Serbia, its main priority concerned Pillar
2, including both transport and energy. 
·        
All countries put emphasis on actions fostering
economic growth, whereas the protection of natural resources and ecosystems -
above all the Adriatic and Ionian Seas themselves - received scant attention. Replies
from non-EU countries presented their involvement in the EUSAIR work as
bringing them closer to the EU, and helping support their EU integration. 
Stakeholders expressed contradictory
opinions as to the role and involvement of the EU in the Strategy. While some
believed that the idea of an Adriatic-Ionian Region was conceived as “bottom-up”,
then to be endorsed by the EU at a later stage (which was in effect the case),
others were convinced that it was the EU that started the process in the first
place. There was nonetheless wide agreement among stakeholders that, in view of
often diverging national interests, the macro-regional strategy would only work
if strong and clear coordination was provided at EU level. Such coordination was
seen to be a pre-condition for success. Accordingly, a number of stakeholders advocated
a stronger role for the Commission. They mentioned that
the EU tends to delegate too much to participating countries. Regarding the added value of the future EUSAIR, stakeholders
consulted pointed to its role in promoting networking and exchange of ideas and
best practices in relation to the four themes, in developing a shared
macro-regional identity, in raising further awareness about the Region and in
calling further attention to the Western Balkans. 
At the close of the consultation process,
the four themes proposed in the Discussion Paper were turned into pillars for
the Strategy, with the following headings: Pillar 1-Blue Growth, Pillar 2 -
Connecting the Region, Pillar 3 - Environmental quality, and Pillar 4 - Sustainable
tourism. 
Furthermore, while the consultation
resulted in a wide range of topics proposed for actions under each pillar
(former themes), only a limited number of topics were retained as those to be
prioritised, i.e. needing immediate and urgent attention and gaining most from joint
action[5].
These topics, presented below, are also relevant for EU policies, in particular,
those with a territorial dimension. 
·        
Blue Growth would
focus on sustainable economic growth and jobs, as well as business opportunities
arising from blue economy sectors (e.g.: blue technologies, fisheries,
aquaculture, maritime and marine governance and services).
·        
Connecting the Region would focus on maritime transport, intermodal connections to
the hinterland and energy networks.
·        
Environmental quality would focus on preserving marine and coastal ecosystems, on
abating pollution of the sea, on preserving transnational terrestrial habitats
and biodiversity, and on ensuring that actions under the other three pillars would
take possible negative impacts on the environment into consideration.
·        
Sustainable tourism would focus on diversifying tourism offer (products and
services) and promoting sustainable and responsible tourism management.
The consultation process also confirmed the relevance of two sets of
cross-cutting aspects for all pillars:
Capacity building,
including communication: Capacity building and
institutional development would be much needed, especially for coordinating
policy responses and strategies relevant to all four pillars, but also for
ensuring stakeholder involvement, ownership and skills. Communication and awareness-raising
regarding benefits to be derived from a macro-regional approach would pave the
way for strengthened cooperation. 
Strengthening
R&D, Innovation and SMEs: R&D, with sharing
of research results, was seen as an integral part of all four pillars.
Innovation was considered crucial for blue growth, for developing new transport
options, for improving environmental quality and for bolstering the tourist sector.
While relevant for all four pillars, the business dimension was considered especially
important for Pillar 1 and 4, notably in the context of smart specialisation. Activities
linked to strengthening cross-border links between existing clusters involving
SMEs were identified as crucial for developing new services and products. 
In addition to
these cross-cutting aspects, mitigating and adapting to climate change effects as
well as managing disaster risks were also recognised as horizontal principles for
all four pillars.
3.           Problem
definition 
This section presents the main challenges highlighted during the expert
analysis and consultation process as characterising the Region. It furthermore
highlights how existing international or transnational cooperation structures operating
in the Region are addressing these challenges. 
3.1.        Main
challenges characterising the Region
3.1.1.     Heterogeneity
There are considerable disparities among
the four EU Member States and also among the four non-EU countries in terms of
GDP per head and unemployment rate, institutional and administrative capacity
and access to resources and funding instruments. 
−      Socio-economic disparities: 
Both in terms of GDP per head and unemployment rates, there are
stark contrasts between countries. While some regions enjoy a GDP per head of
20% above the EU average with a 4% unemployment rate, others have a GDP per
head which is 70% below of this average, with an unemployment rate of about
30%. For want of capacity, businesses do not sufficiently exploit the
transnational dimension of marketing, innovation or research, particularly in
the blue economy. Clusters involving business, research and the public sector
are scarce.
−      Imbalances in institutional and administrative
capacity:
In the Adriatic-Ionian Region, governance is a key challenge for all
participating countries. In addition to considerable imbalances with respect to
administrative and institutional capacity and experience in cooperation, the
countries in the Region harbour highly different political structures,
institutions and governance systems. These imbalances and differences affect
the capacity to respond jointly. Although accession and prospective accession
to the EU are improving the situation, new systems take time to be put in place.
First and foremost they require changes in mind-sets and raised awareness
unlikely to happen overnight. Bridging political divides, building confidence
among public and private stakeholders as well as trust among neighbouring
countries, improving skills and developing effective institutional capacity and
management mechanisms, are all tasks calling for medium-term support within a
macro-regional framework.
3.1.2.     Lack
of effective coordination/cooperation between countries and funds
To date, participating countries have tended
to define their policies and taken their investment decisions individually and
in an uncoordinated way. Analysis has shown that there is a need to act in a
more coherent way to allow policies and actions taken by the different participating
countries to be mutually reinforcing, increasing their overall effectiveness
and efficiency. In general terms, challenges requiring a cooperation approach
relate to Pillar 2 (Connectivity) and Pillar 3 (Environmental quality), while
opportunities to be better exploited through joint action relate to Pillar 1 (Blue
Growth) and Pillar 4 (Tourism).. 
Provided some countries are able to improve
their access to funding, and provided funds are deployed in support of commonly
agreed objectives and related investments, financial instruments could
considerably improve return on investments as well as secondary benefits.
3.1.3.     Weak
implementation of EU policies
In order to make the Region more consistent
with the EU policy objectives overall, especially those laid down in Europe
2020 and, in parallel, the South-East Europe 2020, drastic reduction of
implementation gaps and delays among EU participating countries and regions as
well as improved alignment on the part of non-EU participating countries to EU legislation
and policies are required. 
3.1.4.     Need
for strengthening existing inter-governmental cooperation structures 
Owing to recent history and to weak institutional and administrative
capacity in several participating countries, focus has often been put on
establishing national governance arrangements rather than transnational ones. Although
a number of inter-governmental frameworks are already in place to facilitate transnational
cooperation, most of these arrangements have a strong focus on country-by-country
approaches. More often than not addressing one issue at the time, these
arrangements also tend to overlook interdependencies between policies and
actions taken in different sectors. The result is a fragmented approach to many
of the challenges of the Region and under-performance in terms of its
potential.
A number of cooperation structures and arrangements already address,
for instance, fisheries, transport or environmental issues. To date, progress has
however been poor in e.g. halting dramatic decline of fish stocks in the
Adriatic-Ionian sea basin. Despite considerable investments under the South-East Europe Transport
Observatory (SEETO) in the road and rail networks in the Western Balkans, flows of good and people are still hampered by inadequate capacity
and cumbersome procedures causing excessive delays at
border-crossing points. As for environmental quality,
despite programmes undertaken notably by UNEP/MAP and its MED POL, the level of
pollution, notably in the North Adriatic, remains high and coverage in terms of
offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) beyond 12 nautical miles is the lowest
of all EU marine regions. 
Cooperation activities in these fields, in any, are often of a
bilateral nature (with a few exceptions, e.g. within European Territorial
Cooperation Programmes) and between EU Member States.
The geographic scope of most of the
existing cooperation frameworks furthermore tends to be either larger or
narrower than the scope of EUSAIR. For instance, the Regional Cooperation
Council, covers Western Balkans only, while the Joint
Commission for the protection of the Adriatic Sea and coastal areas[6] does not cover the Ionian Sea. Other initiatives have a wider
geographical scope, encompassing all South-East
European countries (for instance SEETO) or the entire Mediterranean, as is the
case for the Barcelona Convention. Of all existing cooperation structures, the
Adriatic-Ionian Initiative (AII) alone has a geographical scope congruent with that
currently defined for the EUSAIR.
Overview of a selection of existing cooperation structures:
The main transnational
bodies in the Adriatic and Ionian Region are:
·        
Adriatic Ionian Initiative (AII). The Adriatic Ionian Initiative counts in total eight members: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. The AII is an inter-governmental body - initiated with the Ancona Declaration
(2000) - as a tool for stabilising a post-conflict area.  The AII emphasises
regional cooperation among its members in relation to tourism, culture, inter-university
cooperation, SMEs cooperation, transport and maritime cooperation, environment
and protection against fire. 
·        
Forum of Adriatic and Ionian Chambers of
Commerce. The Forum of Adriatic and Ionian Chambers
of Commerce is a transnational non-profit organisation, which links the
Chambers of Commerce of Italy, Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Montenegro, Slovenia, Greece and Albania. Its main objective is to strengthen the cooperation and
opportunities for socio-economic development in the Adriatic and Ionian Region.
Topics of common interest include agriculture, environment, women's entrepreneurship,
transport, tourism, fisheries and aquaculture.
·        
Forum of Adriatic and Ionian Cities. The Forum of Adriatic and Ionian Cities includes urban
areas from seven countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Montenegro and Slovenia. Its main objective is to build and develop the
economic, social, environmental and cultural heritage of the coastal cities in
the Adriatic and Ionian area, through fostering cooperation and partnerships
between the local authorities of the member countries. Several projects
contribute to this objective. 
·        
UNIADRION is a
university network across the Adriatic-Ionian Region, which aims at establishing
permanent connections among universities and research centres in the area. This
university network is engaged in protection, cataloguing and promotion of
cultural heritage; sustainable environment, cultural tourism and development,
economy, communication, ports and economic relations.
·        
South East Europe Transport Observatory
(SEETO) was signed in 2004 by the
Governments of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, the United Nations Mission in Kosovo, and
the European Commission. It is a regional transport organisation established by
a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the development of the Core Regional
Transport Network. The aim of the SEETO is to promote regional cooperation in
the Western Balkans in developing the multimodal SEETO Comprehensive Network
and to connect it to the EU's TEN-T. It constitutes the indicative extension of
the TEN-T into the Western Balkans. Furthermore, SEETO aims at promoting and
enhancing local capacity for implementation of investment programmes,
management and data collection and analysis of the Core Regional Transport
Network.
·        
Energy Community.
The Energy Community is an international organisation dealing with energy
policy. The organisation was founded by the Treaty establishing the Energy
Community signed in October 2005 in Athens. The Parties to the Treaty are the
European Union and eight Contracting Parties: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo*[7], the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro,  Serbia and Ukraine. Seventeen European Union Member States have the status of participants.
The Treaty contains also special measures applicable to Austria, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania. The Energy Community’s mission is
to extend the EU internal energy market to South East Europe, and beyond, on
the basis of a legally binding framework. The overall objective of the Energy
Community Treaty is to create a steady regulatory and market framework in order
to: attract investment in power generation and networks to ensure stable and
continuous energy supply that is essential for economic development and social
stability; create an integrated energy market allowing for cross-border energy
trade and integration with the EU market; enhance the security of supply; improve
the environmental situation in relation to energy supply in the region; enhance
competition at regional level and exploit economies of scale.
Most transnational cooperation structures
in the Adriatic-Ionian Region are either developed under the umbrella of
international organisations or have been set up in the context of initiatives
of stakeholders spontaneously joining forces across borders. Several of these
structures implement actions pertaining to one or more of the four pillars. 
Of particular relevance for Pillar 1,
maritime safety is a main concern for SAFESEANET, a European platform covering
all European sea basins. AdriaMED, a FAO Regional project supports responsible
fisheries in the Adriatic through scientific cooperation and the General
Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) monitors fish stocks
throughout the Mediterranean. Transport and energy are key issues under
respectively SEETO and the Energy Community. Underlining the importance of environmental
problems in the Adriatic-Ionian Region, a fair number of cooperation structures
deal with Pillar 3. The Adriatic-Ionian sea basin is thus covered in part by
the Joint Commission for the protection of the Adriatic Sea and coastal
areas and included in the Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP) under the
Barcelona Convention. Also terrestrial parts of the macro-region are covered by
the Initiative for Environment and Security (ENVSEC) for South East Europe, a
partnership between the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United
Nations Environmental programme (UNEP), the Organisation for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO, the
United Nations Economic commission for Europe (UNECE) and the Regional
Environment Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC). Other cooperation
bodies, mainly focusing on the Adriatic Sea, are the Adriatic Sea Partnership
(ASP) and the Adriatica Protected Areas Network (AdriaPAN). As for Pillar 4, it is clearly of central interest for the Forum of
Adriatic and Ionian Chambers of Commerce, the Forum of Adriatic and Ionian Cities and the Adriatic Ionian Euro-Region (AIE).
4.           Problem
definition by topic
As signalled in sub-section 2.2.2. both the
on-line public consultation, the consultation of stakeholders and the major
conference closing the consultation process (Athens, 6-7 February 2014),
endorsed a number of topics under each pillar as those in need of urgent
attention while being expected to gain most from joint action. This section further justifies the choice
of topics, explaining - as far as the scantiness of reliable data for many
participating countries will allow - why each of these topics is of particular
relevance to the Adriatic-Ionian Region and should be prioritised. 
4.1.        Pillar
1 – Blue growth 
Blue technologies
Characterised by a lack of clusters of
companies, research centres and public agencies from several participating
countries, the Adriatic-Ionian Region fails to exploit fully the advantages to
be derived from trans boundary cooperation. This concerns in particular blue
technologies. Outdated technologies, lack of support
schemes, planning and financial funds, still limit blue R&D&I, notably in
non-EU countries, while some key sectors – such as shipbuilding,
the boating industry and logistics – risk losing competitive leverage. Full development of the Region's potential
in marine biotechnology could favour the creation of high-skilled jobs and
growth. The private sector is increasingly calling for joint actions in the
field of innovation, for example in collecting and using marine and seabed
data, and in developing new materials and analysing products. 
Fisheries and aquaculture
Fisheries 
Fisheries constitute an important sector throughout
the Adriatic-Ionian sea basin, with important social, economic and ecological
implications. The social, cultural and economic contribution of fisheries is
crucial at the local and regional levels, especially on islands and in remote
coastal regions.  Depletion of marine resources is, however, a recognised
problem across the sea basin, although to a different degree for the two seas[8]. From the approximately 450 species of fish life of the area, 120
are threatened by excessive commercial fishing. The culture of compliance and
the monitoring, control and surveillance capacity are still weak in many
participating countries. The fishery sector also faces various challenges
linked to global competitiveness and market forces. Fishery activities
are predominantly of small-scale character. About 80% of commercial fishing
vessels are below 15 meters long. 
While integrated control of fisheries is
critical for the entire Adriatic-Ionian sea basin, participating candidate and
potential candidate countries (with the exception of landlocked Serbia) are particularly dependent on such measures. Better cooperation across the sea-basin
can also trigger a virtuous process of increasing the profitability and
competitiveness of fishery activities for the benefit of the coastal communities
depending on fisheries. For the Adriatic, the benefits of changing fishing
access rights, combined with sustainable management, are estimated at EUR 721
million annually.[9] 
Aquaculture 
Aquaculture
provides potential for alleviating pressure on open seas fisheries in the
Region. The development of a strong, high-quality
aquaculture sector that is economically sustainable and environmentally-friendly
can contribute to creating jobs and to supplying healthy food products.
However, a number of barriers prevent the development of the full potential of
aquaculture in the Adriatic-Ionian sea basin: limited access to space and
licensing; industry fragmentation; limited access to seed capital or loans for
innovation; time-consuming administrative procedures and red tape[10].
Italy and Greece are important producer countries for farmed fish, producing over 280,000 tons per
year. There is a significant potential in the Region for increasing capacity
and thereby strengthening the economic development in the sector as well as
decreasing pressure on wild stocks. While in Italy (especially on the
North-Adriatic shore) aquaculture is strictly linked to the conservation of
habitats, ecosystem services and tourism, other countries such as e.g. Greece,
Albania and Montenegro lack appropriate planning in most suitable zones for
aquaculture. 
Maritime services and marine governance
Measures taken so
far pertain mainly to administrative capacity to deliver maritime or marine
services of public interest, with few targeting blue technologies, fisheries or
aquaculture in particular. Trends in the fast growing
cruise industry and in logistics and distribution systems have led to an
increased need for value added services in ports. Services
facilitating access to ports are required, such as new
operational procedures reducing bureaucratic burdens, and good sequential or parallel coordination of the different
services provided by port actors inside and outside the port, in the context of
door-to-door logistics. 
Cooperation is
needed for strengthening public sector capacity for coordinating planning of marine
and maritime activities so as to ensure better marine governance drawing on existing
resources. 
4.2.        Pillar
2 – Connecting the region 
Maritime transport
Maritime transport is an economic sector
that can play a significant role in Adriatic- Ionian countries. During the
1960s, 1970s and 1980s, the ports of the macro-region were unable to develop
their container traffic as the Region was considered peripheral. Recent trends
of trade have increased the competitive position of the North Adriatic ports as
natural gateways to Central and Eastern Europe. There is evidence that these
ports could secure 6 million TEU containers/year of traffic by 2030 (or 11.3%
of the EU market). This would represent traffic growth of almost 350% over 20
years, provided good railway access is granted to the hinterland. 
Ports also play a key role in local
traffic, with ferries and Ro-Ro short-sea shipping. More routes would decrease
the distances between the two coasts of both seas. Tourism is heavily dependent
on ports, for cruise ships, big and small, and for yachting. Ports require new
facilities such as cranes, new passenger terminals as well as Liquid Natural Gas
(LNG) terminals. On the problematic side, ports are a possible gate for
unlawful trades concerning drugs, weapons and counterfeited goods, giving rise
to serious security concerns. Ports will also need to invest substantially in
order to meet technological, industrial, safety, security, environmental and
climate change challenges. 
Investments in innovation and modernisation
of infrastructure, promotion of safe and secure maritime traffic should be
priorities in the entire area. Traffic monitoring and
management remain pressing issues in the Region. The
current Adriatic Traffic Reporting (ADRIREP) system, a
mandatory Ship Reporting System in the Adriatic Sea, is outdated and is not
fully serving the objective of monitoring maritime traffic in the face of
increasing congestion. Significant improvements are still needed for
harmonising procedures and data exchanges, and for establishing mechanisms to
enable maritime traffic information exchange between national Vessel Traffic Management Information Systems,
also enrolling the non-EU maritime participating countries in SafeSeaNet[11].
While presenting a clear asset, the many
islands in the Region will not be able to develop their comparative economic
advantage without connections to the mainland within the macro-region (and
beyond) being improved. 
Intermodal connections to the hinterland
Following
years of isolation and conflict, the Adriatic-Ionian Region is characterised by
considerable infrastructure disparities between the countries. To support increase in maritime transportation of goods, intermodal
connections to the hinterland, via rail, air or inland
waterways need to be upgraded so as to take account the Region's particular mix
of sea, coasts, plains and mountains. The need is highest in the non-EU
countries. Ports of the Adriatic and Ionian Seas, as well as railway lines and airports, are immediate entry points to the Region. 
Despite current and planned projects indicating
that rehabilitation of main rail lines has commenced after a long period of
under-investing in infrastructure and in rolling stock, both freight and
passenger traffic volumes transported by rail continue to decline. Railway corridor X from Salzburg to Thessaloniki needs urgent
rehabilitation. Excessive waiting time when crossing
the numerous borders, presents one of the most serious impediments to
competitive railway services. 
In view of the undeveloped road and railway
traffic infrastructure, the fastest and cheapest way to increase intraregional
links between the countries of the region may by air. A
continuing challenge in air transport is underdevelopment of the air route
network, vital for attracting business and tourists, especially east-west routes
and routes linking destinations other than capitals and major cities.
Energy
networks
Whereas investment in infrastructure is crucial
for achieving market competition for both electricity and gas, the energy
markets in the Region remain fragmented. Development of freely accessible
energy trading/auctioning platforms is necessary for enhancing market
competition.
In the electricity market, removal of
regulated electricity prices, substantial easing of network congestion and
barrier-free cross border exchanges of energy, remain ultimate goals. The
Energy Community interconnection plans include connecting new renewable energy
to the grid, integrating energy markets, enhancing the security of supply, and
improving the reliability, quality and efficiency of energy services.
Interconnecting electricity grids and ensuring adequate grids capacity are
pre-conditions for large scale investments in renewable energy. 
For gas, substantial investments in transmission
and storage infrastructure are required in order to improve market supply.
Developing natural gas infrastructure will also help currently isolated regions
to have access to the resource. It will ensure continuous and secure supplies through
renovated and modernised network and bring LNG from a wider range of export
markets via new routes (Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP, and the Ionian Adriatic
Pipeline - IAP).
Each country would forego important economies
of scale, should it pursue full energy independence and security of supply on
its own. The most efficient way of achieving these goals would be to plan
infrastructure developments with its neighbours and increasingly rely on the
regional energy trade. According to a Power Generation Investment Study
conducted for the World Bank, a coordinated approach in South East Europe would
reduce investment requirements in electricity generation and reduce energy
expenses by around 10% by 2020. 
A key investment barrier stems from regulated
and/or non-cost-reflective prices and tariffs. In the majority of cases,
regulated end-user prices do not reflect the real costs of electricity supply.
The regulatory framework is not in line with the EU acquis, especially
regarding wholesale market opening, transparency of capacity allocation and
third-party access to networks. Slow progress in unbundling supply and
distribution still constitute a major barrier to market opening since it
creates an unequal playing field between the incumbent supplier and a new
entrant. Furthermore, differences in allocation of cross-border capacity (in
particular non-market based allocation) as well as in pricing methodologies constitute
obstacles to trading. 
4.3.        Pillar
3 – Environmental quality 
The
marine environment
Given that the Adriatic and Ionian Seas represent the backbone of the Region
and constitute its major asset, maintaining these seas in a healthy condition
should be an overall concern for all maritime participating countries. Under this topic two issues were identified as particularly
relevant for the Adriatic-Ionian marine environment, namely threats to coastal
and marine biodiversity and pollution of the sea.
a)            
Threats to coastal and marine
biodiversity
The Adriatic and Ionian Seas harbour rare or unique coastal and marine ecosystems. They are home to almost
half of all the recorded marine species found in the Mediterranean Sea. This
rich biodiversity is brought about by high variation in hydro-geographic and
other conditions, resulting in a large number of diverse ecosystems and
habitats. The highly indented eastern coast of the Adriatic also acts as a
breeding ground and nursery to a large number of species. This high biodiversity of these seas is the basis for tourism, recreational
and fishing activities, and contributes greatly to the macro-region's cultural
heritage.
Increased human use
of the coastal and marine space, however, in particular for fishing, maritime
transport, tourism and construction, has intensified pressure on coastal and
marine ecosystems, often resulting in destruction of
breeding grounds and habitats. Aquaculture is a rapidly
growing industry which is not regulated in all countries so as to ensure environmentally-friendly
practices. Illegal and uncontrolled construction, sealing soils, is a
widespread phenomenon along most shorelines, with demand from tourism for
additional construction further compounding the problem. 
Incidental catches poses a threat to coastal
and marine biodiversity, including fish, sea turtle, cetacean, seabird and
other species. Invasive alien
species from aquaculture and ballast water discharge also threaten endemic
species, and illegal collection of sponges and corals are further cause for
concern. 
b)            
Pollution of the sea
Owing to its
semi-enclosed and relatively shallow nature, the Adriatic is highly vulnerable
to anthropogenic pressures. Its waters are exchanged with those of the open
seas of the Mediterranean only once every 3 or 4 years and the North Adriatic
is the shallowest part of the entire Mediterranean Sea, with an average depth
of around 50 metres. The Ionian Sea is less vulnerable to such impacts as it is
part of the open Mediterranean waters. However, pollution from the Adriatic is
exchanged with the Mediterranean through the Ionian Sea, and the latter is
therefore also affected by human activities in the Adriatic. 
Pollution of the two seas originates from a
number of different sources: intensive maritime transport resulting in oil
spills, including large scale pollution events and noise pollution, pollution
from rivers as a result of excessive use of nitrates on agricultural land and insufficient
waste water treatment in several participant countries. Poor solid waste management result from a combination of scant investments
in solid waste treatment infrastructure, lack of awareness on the part of the
general public, weak enforcement and increasing urbanisation of coastlines.
This in turn results in a large number of illegal landfills including hazardous
waste. Pollution is also caused by ecologically-unsound
aquaculture practices, entailing discharge of nutrient and chemicals into the
sea. Marine litter, stemming from both land-based
sources and lost and discarded fishing gear, poses a
serious problem to the entire sea basin. In addition to
entailing significant costs to shipping operators, marine litter affects the safety
and health of humans and marine wildlife. Coastal and recreational activities
account for more than half of the litter found on beaches.
Transnational
terrestrial habitats and biodiversity 
The macro-region has a rich biodiversity in comparison to the
average European region, with many endemic species. Several eco-regions[12] stretch across borders. These eco-regions include the Illyrian
deciduous forests, the Dinaric Mountains and the Pannonian mixed forests. The Region
also contains a number of unique ecosystems, including karstic regions and
tectonic lakes. The preservation of these is essential to Europe's natural
heritage and requires joint action from the countries concerned. They also host
habitats and landscape elements of central importance for large carnivores such
as the wolf, Eurasian lynx and brown bear. These species require large habitats
to sustain viable populations. 
The Adriatic Flyway is one of the main
routes for millions of migratory birds crossing the Mediterranean, with birds
making a resting stop along the eastern Adriatic. A number of bird species also
spend winters in the area. Alongside lack of areas in which hunting is banned, hunting
rules that are not in line with EU legislation (as well as low enforcement of existing
rules) result in vulnerable, threatened or endangered migratory bird species
being killed. The issue of illegal hunting of migratory birds has impacts for
the EU as a whole.
Climate change is
expected to affect much of the Region more severely than elsewhere in the EU,
especially its natural habitats and biodiversity. Climate change effects on biodiversity
can however be reduced by bolstering the general resilience of ecosystems. 
4.4.        Pillar
4 – Sustainable tourism 
Diversified tourism
offer (products and services)
Combined with outstanding
natural capital, a rich cultural, historic and archaeological heritage constitutes
one of the Adriatic-Ionian Region's strongest assets. Yet, although tourism is
already one of the main, fast-growing economic activities and GDP contributor,
its potential is not fully exploited. Few tourism actors in the Region adhere
to sustainable tourism based on innovative, high-quality tourism products and
services with light ecological footprint that would make the Region an even
more attractive destination. Diversified and high-quality products and services
can thus be vehicles for attracting more and/or different types of tourists,
prolonging tourist seasons and attracting visitors to inland destinations, thereby
creating new business opportunities and more and better jobs in the Region. 
By reducing the industry's
dependence on the seasonal model, and by taking into consideration impacts of a
changing climate, this approach will reinforce the Region's comparative
advantage. Moreover, diversified forms of tourism[13] have not been sufficiently integrated into wider regional
development strategies. Such strategies could link these forms of tourism to
creative and/or cultural industries, as well as cultural entrepreneurship with
a view to further reinforcing the strong comparative advantage the Region has
already built.
Sustainable and responsible tourism
management (innovation and quality)
The current state
of Adriatic-Ionian cooperation in sustainable tourism management is rather limited.
There are few attempts of resolving collectively common problems in terms of organisation, human resources
and funding. The net gains of a
joint approach would encompass better management of increased tourist flows, including joint
analysis of tourism trends and their potential impact, joint access to new tourism markets, more business
opportunities and dissemination of new technologies and know-how. 
In order to
develop products and services and to increase their quality and value, the tourism
industry thus needs to build innovation transfer networks. Exchange of best practices (mainly at transnational
and/or interregional level) as well as common branding of Adriatic-Ionian
tourist products and services, targeting major
overseas tourist markets, can reinforce
a commercially strong, business-oriented and competitive tourism industry in
the Region.
Such commercial prospects
need to be anchored to the sustainable tourism concept. In many instances, intensive tourism activities are not managed
soundly. These activities have negative effects (production of waste, unregulated
construction, pressure on water, land and biodiversity, etc.) on the coastal,
marine and hinterland environment, on whose good environmental status they
depend. The shared responsibility of all
stakeholders, i.e. of the public and private actors as well as of tourists/visitors
is therefore a fundamental principle to be built into the sustainable tourism
approach.
5.           Added
value of an EU Strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian Region
5.1.        Promoting
a cross-sector approach
As seen in Sub-Section 3.1.2, coordinating
actions addressing the same range of problems or targeting the same
geographical area remains an issue. An important aspect of the added value to be derived from the
Strategy is precisely that , associated with a sea basin/ macro-regional perspective,
its cross-sector approach will highlight possible complementarities and
synergies between policies and programmes currently carried out in the Region
by various existing cooperating structures, yet largely overlooked so far. It
can thereby be instrumental to translating interdependencies between
sector-based policies into concrete actions and projects, under each pillar,
that are attentive to possible impacts on actions conducted under other pillars.
In the same stride it will help minimise risks of overlaps and duplication of
efforts. 
By tying together the different policy
areas covered by the four pillars, the Strategy can furthermore support
territorially-coherent implementation of policies and programmes with a spatial
dimension and can advance socio-economic convergence between participating
countries and regions by helping create conditions for generating new jobs (notably
related to blue growth and tourism). 
5.2.        Moving
from words to action: The Action Plan
An aspect underlined by
the Commission Report concerning the added-value of macro regional
strategies" (COM(2013)468 of 27 June 2013), is the need, through projects,
actions, decisions, networks, for moving from words to actions. As documented
by the EUSBSR and EUSDR, the Action Plan is one of the key elements of any
macro-regional strategy. Accordingly, the Action Plan accompanying the EUSAIR
Communication represents the operational component of the Strategy and forms
the indispensable linkage between the objectives stated and concrete actions
undertaken to achieve these objectives. Covering the four pillars and the
related topics set out in the Communication, it lists a number of indicative actions
and examples of projects assumed to contribute to meeting needs identified in
relation to these topics. The Action Plan also underlines the importance of an
integrated approach taking into account effects of each action on other policy
fields. More concretely, when implementing these actions, broad consultation of
the bodies in charge of other policy fields is required at all levels of
planning and decision-making. 
Selection of actions and
projects will follow a similar practice to that of the two existing
macro-regional strategies. For each pillar, representatives from relevant line
ministries of all participating countries would identify actions and related projects
they deem likely to have greatest potential impact in terms of addressing the
problems recognised jointly as calling for priority attention. EU services will
be associated in these discussions in order to secure coherence with EU
policies and priorities. 
Once an action or project
is selected to form part of the Action Plan, and provided its technical quality
is satisfactory, it will be up to the participating countries and stakeholders
concerned to ensure that this action or project is properly implemented. To
enable good implementation of each action or project, the Action Plan should remain
reasonably stable for a certain laps of time. However, since priorities are
likely to change over time, actions and projects can be reviewed and possibly
revised in light of new pressing needs that may have emerged (these decisions
will be taken by the countries and the Commission meeting regularly during the
implementation phase). This will in effect turn the Action Plan into a
"rolling" Plan. 
5.3.        Mobilising
the whole spectrum of relevant existing funds
The actions and projects listed in the
Action Plan are in principle eligible under many relevant funding instruments,
whether anchored to EU or national budgets, whether provided by international
organisations or stemming from the private sector. While
no new EU funds are set aside for the EUSAIR, in order to improve value for
money, the Strategy will strive to align EU programmes for which participating
countries are eligible. 
The Strategy does not rely on one specific
EU budgetary line or funding instrument. Various forms
of EU funding would provide a substantial resource for implementing the Action Plan.
 For instance, instruments and policies such as the European Structural and Investment
Funds (ESIF), the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA), the EU
programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises (COSME), 'Liaison entre Actions
de development de l'Economie Rurale', meaning 'Links between the Rural Economy
and Development Actions' (LEADER) , Trans-European networks-Transport (TEN-T),
Trans-European Networks-Energy (TEN-E) and HORIZON 2020 are all relevant to the
four pillars.  
Launching of the Strategy coincides with
the start of the 2014-20 programming period. Since the ESIF and IPA Regulations
expressly foresee coherence between programming documents and macro-regional
strategies, embedding the macro-regional approach in 2014-2020 Partnership
Agreements and Operational Programmes for EU countries (Greece, Italy, Slovenia
and Croatia) as well as in Strategy papers and programmes for non-EU countries
(Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania), will be ensured. 
The Strategy does not however seek only to
mobilise EU funds and instruments but also national, regional, local, public
and private sector resources. Considerable efforts will
also be made to encourage participating countries to pool their resources as
well as to attracting private investor money, and notably venture capital, to
boost innovation.
International Financial Institutions can
furthermore supplement these funds. A case in point is the Western Balkans
Investment Framework (WBIF). This is a joint initiative of
the EU, International Financial Institutions, bilateral donors and the
governments of the Western Balkans, formed to supports
economic and social development and the EU integration of the Western Balkan
countries by providing technical and financial assistance for strategic
projects in the areas of infrastructure, energy efficiency and private sector
development. In addition to EU funds, it thus pools resources from International
Financial Institutions such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD), the European Investment Bank (EIB), the Council of Europe
Development Bank (CEB), the World Bank (WB) as well as bilateral
donors and private investors.
5.4.        Supporting
accession and exploiting synergies with other macro-regional strategies
A feature peculiar to the EUSAIR is that it
involves both EU-countries and non-EU countries. This entails added value in
terms of external policy and enlargement since it bolsters preparation for
accession of participating candidate and potential countries. Moreover, far
from creating new borders and bringing territorial continuity into jeopardy,
the Strategy will allow exploiting synergies notably with the EUSDR which
includes five EUSAIR countries and addresses transport, energy and the
environment as key fields of action. While the INTERACT programme can play a
central role in ensuring coherence and synergy  between the two strategies,
efforts are already made to ensure that the same people are acting as National
Coordinators for both strategies. Furthermore, ETC transnational territorial
cooperation programmes can act as facilitators where stakeholders from
different macro-regional strategies can meet, as was the case for the Central
Europe Transnational Programme in the period 2011-2013. 
5.5.        Strengthening
compliance with EU legislation and policies and governance for implementing the
Strategy
Section 3.2 in the added value report (COM(2013)713)
identifies macro-regional strategies as building blocks for EU-wide policy,
marshalling national policies into more coherent implementation of EU
programmes and better compliance with EU legislation. Through its four pillars,
the EUSAIR can thus be expected to ensure better implementation of e.g. the
Maritime Strategy Framework Directive, the Trans-European Transport Network,
the Trans-European Energy Network and Environmental Directives such as the
Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive and the Water Framework Directive. This
section also points to (administrative and institutional) capacity-building as
an important cross-cutting aspect and as a pre-condition for improving policy
development and implementation. 
In light of experience gained from the two
macro-regional strategies already in place for respectively the Baltic Sea and the Danube Regions, the Communication for the EUSAIR will spell out a number
of key conditions for overcoming weak implementation of EU policies and for
ensuring effective governance of the Strategy, namely: 
-       
Countries should recognise the Strategy as
cutting across sector policies, and of concern to every level of government;
-       
Full and effective involvement of the non-EU
countries must be ensured at all levels;
-       
High level political support is crucial.
Ministers need to determine the overall direction of the Strategy, to take
ownership and responsibility, including ensuring alignment with policies and
funds, and to provide the necessary resources and status to the decision-taking
and technical levels;
-       
As guarantor of the EU dimension, the Commission
should ensure a strategic and coordinated approach at EU level; Furthermore, the Commission is a key facilitator in ensuring that the process makes
headway, providing advice and, in cases of disagreements, encouraging
discussion as an impartial, legitimate and credible partner. Through its
participation in Monitoring Committees of EU Funds (in advisory capacity), the
Commission has a key role in promoting the alignments of programmes to the objectives
laid down in the Strategy;
-       
The participating countries shall ensure
monitoring and evaluation of progress and provide guidance to implementation;
-       
Good use of the work of existing regional
organisations should be made; 
-       
Reliable support must be provided to Coordinators,
especially using the institutional and capacity-building support from the
2014-2020 Adriatic-Ionian transnational cooperation programme.
To conclude, the EU Strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian
Region can deliver concrete results building on political
support from the European Council, EU institutions, national Governments, regional
bodies as well as technical expertise from line Commission's DGs and Ministries.
It can develop and reinforce a process leading to actions developed in an open,
transparent and legitimate manner. Finally, it can deliver significant impact
through policy alignment and through mobilisation of existing financial
instruments. It is designed to bolster a cooperative attitude among the
countries and stakeholders of the Adriatic-Ionian Region, in pursuit of shared
aims and responsibilities. 
5.6.        Improving coordination between existing cooperation mechanisms
While existing cooperation structures in
the Adriatic-Ionian Region each pursue objectives in a range of activities pertaining
to e.g. socio-economic and infrastructure development, protection of the
environment, transport, etc., they would nonetheless benefit from a more
integrated approach. By providing a framework within
which converging objectives can be identified, the Strategy can play an
important role in promoting greater coherence among these structures. The macro-regional approach can also be expected to strengthen
cooperation between authorities within each country, thereby bolstering
multi-level governance. 
6.           Options regarding the
Commission's role
The likely impact of different options regarding the involvement of
the Commission in the implementation of the Strategy will be discussed below against
the following parameters: 
(1)        Effectiveness: Understood as improved progress on stated
objectives. 
(2)        Efficiency: Indicating a cost-benefit
perspective, i.e. results can be achieved in a cost efficient way.
(3)        Political acceptance: Understood as a long-term,
politically-supported cooperation process grounded in ownership by key
stakeholders in the Region, strong leadership and wide support for jointly
defined objectives and actions.
6.1.        The options
This sub-section will discuss which option would be most effective
and efficient, and would promote the highest level of political acceptance.
A first option is developed on the basis of a 'status quo' baseline
scenario', while three additional options are presented, based on different
degrees of Commission's involvement.
Option
n°1: The Commission is not involved (baseline scenario) 
The Commission does not
present a strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region. Under this option, two
possible scenarios have been developed as it cannot be excluded that the
countries themselves will prepare such a strategy 
Scenario
1.1: There is no strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region
A
strategy for the Adriatic- Ionian Region is not presented. Separate policies continue
to be designed and implemented at EU and national level. 
Scenario
1.2: There is a strategy, but not prepared nor presented by the Commission
A
strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian Region is developed by the countries of the Region
themselves, through inter-governmental agreement or stronger cooperation.
Option
n°2: The Commission’s role is limited to preparing and presenting a strategy
The Commission prepares and presents a
strategy, but the implementation happens solely at inter-governmental level,
without any involvement on the part of the Commission.
Option n°3: In an initial phase, the
Commission takes on a role as strategic coordinator and its role is
reconsidered when support structures in the Region are further developed. 
A
coordinated strategy is developed using the existing EU structures, with the
European Commission playing a facilitating role. The Strategy is prepared by
the Commission as a Communication to the European Council, European Parliament,
Committee of the Regions and to the European Economic and Social Committee. An
Action Plan is attached. When appropriate, the European Commission may leave
the facilitator role to the participating countries. 
Option n°4: The
Commission takes an active role in strategic coordination of the strategy through a permanent secretariat facilitating the process. 
6.2.        Analysis
of impacts of the different options
Option
n°1: The Commission is not involved (baseline scenario)
Scenario 1.1: There is no strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian
Region
Under this scenario, the
challenges and potential in the Region, which require coordinated response from
the involved countries, can only be approached through the insufficient
coordination mechanisms described in sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 In other words, the
prospects for a well-structured and strengthened cooperation in the Adriatic-Ionian
Region are reduced. 
The EU already provides
some cooperation frameworks (through legislation and financial instruments)
which partly address major challenges and opportunities, but these are not
region-specific. In addition, there are already existing inter-governmental
frameworks which facilitate cooperation on certain issues. However, a
comprehensive strategy approach is missing, there is insufficient institutional
capacity, and there are persisting implementation gaps. The result is a
fragmented approach to many of the challenges of the Region, and
under-performance in terms of its potential. Common challenges are less likely
to be addressed in a coherent way and common opportunities less likely to be
seized as sector policies and national interests will continue to prevail. The effectiveness
of this baseline scenario, with regards to reaching the objectives, is
therefore limited. 
This option would create no
additional direct costs either for the participating countries or for the
European Commission. The
administrative costs would be borne by existing organisations. EU Member States
and non-EU countries would use their existing procedures to undertake actions. However,
indirect, long term costs ("cost of no-Strategy") may be high as the
potential with regard to mobility, accessibility and socio-economic
development, reduction of environmental damage and natural and man-made disaster
risk management remain unfulfilled. With the likelihood of the inaction cost exceeding
the extra cost of cooperation, the efficiency of this option may be
considered neutral to negative. 
Finally, given the
request from the European Council, its political acceptance would be
low.
Scenario 1.2: There is
a strategy, but not presented by the Commission
Under this scenario, a strategy
would be developed and implemented by the countries themselves, using existing
or new inter-governmental processes. There would be little or no involvement of
the Commission.
This option presents a
considerable risk: absence of a neutral coordinator may lead to unbalanced views
on the part of stakeholders, with the result that the Strategy would not take
into account the full range of challenges and opportunities of the Region. This
option may, however, have some capacity for delivering jointly agreed
priorities.  There is evidence that this approach can indeed be effective for
small, relatively homogenous regions enjoying a long history of cooperation and
building on well-established structures. However, the consultation of stakeholders
raised major doubts as to how successful this option could be in the Adriatic-Ionian
Region. More likely than not, its size and heterogeneity, its history, and weak
governance structures upon which to build, would make the effectiveness
of this option sub-optimal. 
Under this option, no
additional administrative costs would fall on the European Commission. Costs
for preparing the Strategy would be borne entirely by participating countries. Without the European Commission playing an active part, the
alignment of EU policies and funds from EU programmes to proposed actions would
prove more difficult. The option is therefore considered negative to neutral in
terms of efficiency. 
Finally, given the
request from the European Council expressly asking the Commission to present a
macro-regional strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian region, political acceptance
would be low.
Option
n°2: The Commission’s role is limited to
preparing and presenting a strategy
This option needs
considerable long-term commitment and stable resources from the Adriatic-Ionian
countries. Past experience, in general, has shown that this approach can be vulnerable
to changing political interests in the countries and can be hampered by poor
capacity making the cooperation process difficult to uphold. Effectiveness
of this option to deliver results hinges entirely on continued political
support in the Adriatic-Ionian countries. 
As in scenario 1.2, the
European Commission does not play an active part in the implementation of the
Strategy, so here again, the alignment of EU policies and funds from EU
programmes to proposed actions may prove challenging. Combining the low cost of
the European Commission's involvement with the possibility that EU funds would be
mobilised to a limited degree would entail neutral efficiency. 
Finally, as in scenario
1.2, insufficiencies in terms of well-functioning cooperation and coordination
structures are indeed an important reason for the request from the Member
States, through the European Council, for an active involvement of the European
Commission in the process. The political acceptance for this option may
therefore be considered low. 
Option n°3: In an initial phase, the Commission takes on a role as
strategic coordinator and its role is reconsidered when support structures in the
Region are further developed.
Under this option the European Commission acts
as a facilitator to the process of developing and implementing. a coherent
Strategy for the Region. This will entail offering strategic support by
identifying shortcomings that need to be addressed at the political level,
suggesting ways of overcoming possible implementation stalemates as well as facilitating
evaluation of progress. The Commission will ensure a
strategic and coordinated approach at EU level, and integration
of the macro-regional approach into EU policies. It will provide an
EU-perspective, supported by a High-Level Group on
macro-regional strategies with representatives of the EU-28 as well as non-EU
countries participating in the Strategies.
These roles would be
performed in close cooperation with the participating countries, and with all
relevant services of the Commission, notably those having gained experience
from the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and the EU Strategy for the
Danube Region, and from sea-basin strategies. When performing these roles, the relevant
Commission services, will help participating countries collect reliable and
regularly updated data and will help them plausible targets and result
indicators for the actions selected for implementation. The effectiveness
of this option would therefore be high. 
In terms of resources, in
an initial phase, the Commission role under this option is expected to require
3-5 full time equivalents. This requirement will be met by redeploying existing
posts to these new tasks. The involvement of the Commission will be
reconsidered as soon as effective cooperation structures are in place. While
taking into account the specifics of the Region, these cooperation structures
will build on experience from existing macro-regional strategies and on
recommendations contained in the Commission Report on Governance of
macro-regional strategies. As all participating countries will be expected to
take on effective leadership and ownership of the Strategy, Ministers will determine the future direction of the Strategy, align policies and
funds, and provide the necessary resources and status for the decision-making
and technical levels. In the light of the balanced requirements in terms of
resources between the Commission and the countries, the efficiency of
this option can be considered as satisfactory. 
Regarding
political acceptance, this option foresees Commission support for cooperation,
while highlighting the need for participating countries to take responsibility
for implementation of the Strategy. As a further political benefit, the process
of EU integration of non-EU countries would be facilitated by Commission support
encouraging their full involvement in implementation. Given the effectiveness
and efficiency which this option displayed in the other macro-regions, and provided
well-functioning cooperation structures are in place, political acceptance
for this option can be foreseen to be high.
Option
n°4: The Commission takes an active role in strategic coordination of the
strategy through a permanent secretariat facilitating the process
This option actively
involves the European Commission as a long-term facilitator to the process,
supporting the Adriatic-Ionian countries in developing and implementing a
coherent Strategy for the Region. The development of such an EU Strategy is
done in close cooperation with the involved countries and with all relevant
services of the European Commission, but remains open-ended. 
With the active
involvement of the European Commission, such an approach would reinforce
implementation of EU policies in the Adriatic- Ionian Region. This would close
existing implementation gaps and make EU policies more effective. The European
Commission is a neutral actor in the Region, competent to deal with a number of
policy areas through the DGs, and has learned lessons from implementation of the
two macro-regional strategies that preceded the EUSAIR. The coordinating role
of the Commission would furthermore improve alignment of national, regional and
EU funds to support the implementation of the Strategy, thus raising the effectiveness
of actions toward jointly agreed objectives. The downside of this option is,
however, that since the Commission's involvement is open-ended, the
participating countries would not develop the capacity to manage the process
themselves, leaving the Strategy exposed to changing Commission priorities and
resource availability. 
Direct costs of this option
pertain to resources needed in terms of staff so as to facilitate the development
and implementation phase. Establishing a permanent secretariat for the EUSAIR
within the Commission would entail costs that would be higher than in Option 3;
these costs would also be open-ended. The efficiency of this option is
therefore considerably lower than Option 3, even with comparable effectiveness.

Regarding political
acceptance, in terms of ensuring strategic leadership from participating
countries and their long-term ownership in the Region, this option could draw
on the experience of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and the EU
Strategy for the Danube Region now being implemented. It would, however,
contravene requests on the part of the Council to avoid additional formal EU structures.
In the absence of key actors in the Region steering the process and priorities,
there would also be a risk of ownership and innate capacity not being sufficiently
developed. Political acceptance could therefore end up being negative. 
7.           Comparing
the options
In view of the analysis
of expected impacts of the different options, Option n°3, according to which the
Commission takes on the two roles of facilitator and of strategic coordinator
in an initial phase, while its role will be reconsidered when support
structures are further developed, appears to be the most commendable.
Privileging
this option is grounded in the assumption that its effectiveness and efficiency
will be high, and that, thanks to strengthened leadership and ownership on the
part of participating countries, political acceptance will be good. 
In terms of staff
resources, Option 3 requires more commitment than the baseline scenario,
but is less resource intensive and less open-ended than Option 4 which requires
creation of a permanent secretariat (or its equivalent) within the European
Commission. Since resources in terms of staff in core
services of the European Commission concerned by the Strategy will be
redeployed and their job description amended so as to reflect objectives laid
down in the Strategy and to accommodate needs arising from initial support in
implementing the Strategy, overall administrative costs
will remain at existing levels. Commission staff should
furthermore be supplemented by a number of cost-free
national experts seconded by participating countries. 
Table 1a. Summary of the analysis of
the impacts of the different options as far as selected topics under Pillar 1
and 4 are concerned
 Option || Effectiveness || Efficiency || Political Acceptance || Comments 
 1.1 - The Commission is not involved; there is no Strategy     || 0         || 0         || 0         || The option represents the base line scenario and would only influence the Region in terms of the cost of non-action. Capacity to cooperate of candidate and potential candidate counties would remain low and the effectiveness and efficiency would therefore be neutral while the political acceptance would be negative given the request by the European Council. 
 0 || 0 || 0 || Fisheries: capacity and awareness to implement the multiannual management plans for small pelagics will remain limited and stock depletion will continuous at the current pace. 
 0 || 0 || 0 || Maritime surveillance: full functionality of ADRIREP system will not be achieved, thus capacity to monitor the vessel traffic and to coordinate competent bodies and speed up decision-making process during crisis will remain weak (in particular in the South-West Adriatic). 
 0 || 0 || 0 || Marine litter: growing quantity of litter will cumulate on beaches and seabed and undermine the quality of the ecosystem and tourism offer. 
 0 || 0 || 0 || Tourism: the full potential of cruise sector is not tapped into by local economies, failing to capture its full economic benefits and chances, and to mitigate the possible negative effects of an intensive influx of tourists. 
 1.2 - There is a Strategy, but not presented by the Commission || +         || 0         || 0         || This option could lead to some positive results but given the weaknesses of existing cooperation structures, the effectiveness may be limited. In terms of efficiency and effectiveness, the option is considered neutral – on the one hand, it would entail no additional resources on the side of the European Commission, on the other hand, in the absence of facilitation by European Commission, cooperation efforts may prove without significant impact, while more resource intensive on the side of participating countries. Also given the request from the European Council for the European Commission to present a strategy for the Region, political acceptance would likely be low. 
 0 || 0 || 0 || Fisheries: Mere existence of a Strategy would not be sufficient to tackle the problem of stakeholders' weak capacity in terms of governance.. 
 + || 0 || 0 || Maritime surveillance: Existence of a Strategy may be assumed to have a positive effect on the upgrading of ADRIREP although it may not achieve full effectiveness in terms of involvement of all coastal countries. There is also an issue of capacity notably by candidate and potential candidate countries. 
 0 || 0 || 0 || Marine litter: lack of cooperation is likely to persist 
 + || 0 || 0 || Tourism: The existence of a Strategy might provide a basis for establishing a dialogue amongst different public and private sector actors. However, it will not address the existing gaps in terms of cooperation and coordination capacity amongst these stakeholders in the participating countries. This capacity is critical for providing the facilities and service needed at call ports and for integrating local coastal and inland tourist attractions into cruise routes.. 
 2 - The Commission’s role is limited to the preparation and presentation of the Strategy || +     || 0     || 0     || The same arguments as for Option 1.2 apply. In the absence of an independent and reliable player available for facilitating lasting cooperation structures and alignment and implementation of policies and funding, the Strategy would not be effective in delivering optimal results. Deployment of resources by the Commission would be limited to the preparatory phase.  In terms of political acceptance, this option meets the wording of the request from the European Council, but would entail a lesser role for the European Commission in following up on the Strategy. Political acceptance is therefore considered neutral. 
 + || 0 || 0 || Fisheries: This option may have an increased effectiveness compared to option 1.2 in terms of consistency with EU policies and Europe 2020. 
 0 || 0 || 0 || Maritime surveillance: no significant difference compared with Option 1.2. 
 + || 0 || 0 || Marine litter: This option may have an increased effectiveness compared to option 1.2 in terms of consistency with EU policies and Europe 2020. 
 0 || 0 || 0 || Tourism: No significant difference compared with Option 1.2. 
 3 – In an initial phase, the Commission takes on a role as strategic coordinator and its role is reconsidered when support structures in the Region are further developed.   || ++     || ++     || ++     || This option would facilitate coordinated development of the Strategy and establishment of structures to follow up the Action Plan. The targeted and time-limited role of the European Commission would reduce the risk of participating countries' relying open-endedly on the European Commission implementing measures that are national/regional in nature. Political acceptance of this option can be expected to be high. 
 ++ || ++ || ++ || Fisheries: This option is likely to improve the prospects for better implementation of multiannual fishery management plans. 
 ++ || ++ || ++ || Maritime surveillance: as for Option 1.2, but with better prospects for the involvement of all coastal countries and improved capacity for candidate and potential candidate countries.. 
 ++ || ++ || ++ || Marine litter: the existence of a macro-regional strategy and strengthened cooperation between countries facilitated by the Commission, will significantly improve the situation. 
 ++ || ++ || ++ || Tourism: the strategy will address the existing gaps in terms of cooperation and coordination capacity amongst these stakeholders in the participating countries.. 
 4 - The Commission takes an active role in strategic coordination of the strategy through a permanent secretariat facilitating the process || +     || +     || +     || Like Option 3, this option would produce an effective Strategy thanks the European Commission's coordinating role. However, efficiency will be reduced compared to Option 3. Political acceptance can be expected to be high, though the risk would be that participating countries do not take seriously leadership and ownership of the Action Plan. 
 ++ || + || + || Fisheries: It would have the same impact of Option 3, but with a lower efficiency, owing to a longer-term need for Commission resources. 
 + || + || 0 || Maritime surveillance: A dominant role on the part of the Commission may affect negatively a strategy whose successful implementation lies with national bodies. Effectiveness, efficiency and political acceptance are therefore considered lower than for Option 3. 
 ++ || + || ++ || Marine litter: It would have the same impact as Option 3, but with a lower efficiency owing to long-term pressure on Commission resources. 
 + || + || + || Tourism: A dominant role on the part of the Commission may affect negatively a sector that requires a strong involvement by and a sound dialogue between business and local authorities. Effectiveness, efficiency and political acceptance are therefore scored lower than for Option 3. 
0 is the baseline scenario
+ and ++ means that the impact is positive compared to the baseline
scenario
- and -- means that the impact is negative compared to the baseline
scenario
8.           Environmental,
Social and Economic Impact Assessment
The following table contains a qualitative evaluation of the effects
of collective action under the main challenges, assuming governance structures
able to ensure implementation is put in place. 
Fisheries and Sustainable Aquaculture - Aquaculture sector represents in the EU roughly 80,000 direct
jobs, a vital source of income in numerous EU coastal areas. . Most of these jobs
are, however, in the shellfish segment and on a part time basis. Italy and Greece are amongst the first producer countries in the whole Mediterranean for farmed
fish, producing over 284,000 tons per year. Aquaculture can also alleviate
fishing pressure and thus help to preserve fish stocks. An integrated and
harmonized approach would thus have positive economic and environmental impacts
on the region.
Blue-technology - Marine biotechnology has potential for contributing to creation of
jobs and to the supply of healthy food products, respecting the EU and
international rules and would thus contribute to improving the environmental and
economic status of the Region. 
Maritime and marine services - Maritime spatial planning and coastal zone management are main conditions
for achieving Blue Growth and would have a positive economic impact on the
entire region.
Maritime Transport - Generally speaking major parts of the Adriatic- Ionian Region form
today an area of low economic development, largely ignored by the major traffic
and energy flows. Better transport and energy connections are a compelling need
for the macro-region as a whole and a pre-condition for its economic and social
development. Efficient and clean transport connections, capable of absorbing effectively
increased traffic flows, while paying due attention to climate change effects
and disaster risks, will attract foreign direct investments and tourism, hence creating
jobs and prosperity. 
Intermodal hinterland transport - Better use of intermodal transport will reduce costs of delivering
goods in Central and Eastern Europe coming from Asia, while improving the eco-balance
and restoring the competitive position of North Adriatic ports. 
Energy Networks - Better interconnected energy networks as well as well-functioning
energy markets will benefit the whole macro-region and beyond, hence facilitating
sound economic growth.
Marine biodiversity- Overfishing, habitat destruction and destruction of breeding
grounds, invasive alien species and ecologically-unsound aquaculture practices have
resulted in negative impacts for fish, marine mammals, seabirds and virtually
all marine plant and animal life in the Adriatic-Ionian sea basin.
Transnational terrestrial
habitats/biodiversity - Transnational cooperation is
particularly important for preserving biologically-diverse terrestrial eco-regions
spanning national borders, for protecting large carnivores with habitats
stretching across much of the macro-region and migratory birds along the
Adriatic Flyway. A harmonised approach at macro-regional level would thus have a
positive environmental impact on the whole region.
Pollution of the Sea- Pollution of the seas is caused by maritime transport,
eutrophication resulting from fertiliser run-off from agricultural lands,
particularly in the North Adriatic, and pollution from rivers resulting from inadequate
waste water treatment, pollution from aquaculture, oil-chemical industry and
natural gas exploration. This has negative impacts both for marine wildlife and
for human use of the sea (especially tourism).
Tourist routes- Further development and branding of transnational tourism routes is
an excellent way of promoting diversity and wealth in the Adriatic- Ionian
Region. They also offer lasting economic benefits as they build on local
knowledge, skills and heritage assets while connecting and promoting
lesser-known remote destinations in the Region.
Diversified offers and services- Joint cooperation to diversify the regional economy (compared to
other competitors), reducing the dependence of the tourism sector on the
seasonal model with complementary value added products and services would have
a positive economic and social impact on the Region. 
Sustainable and responsible tourism management
- By integrating sustainability approaches into
their activities, tourism stakeholders will protect the competitive advantages
that make the Adriatic Ionian an attractive tourist destination. Addressing
sustainability concerns in a socially inclusive and responsible manner (quality
and sustainability of jobs created) will also help the tourism industry of the Region
establish links with innovation transfer networks with a view to offering
innovative products and services and to increasing their quality and value.
Table 2. Policy scenario impacts
 Strategic Action || environmental || economic || social 
 Aquaculture & fisheries || + || + || +/- 
 Blue-technology || + || + || +/- 
 Maritime & marine services || + || + || +/- 
 Maritime Transport || +/- || + || +/- 
 Intermodal hinterland transport || +/- || + || +/- 
 Energy Networks || +/- || + || +/- 
 Marine biodiversity || + || +/- || +/- 
 Transnational terrestrial habitats/ biodiversity || + || +/- || +/- 
 Pollution of the Sea || + || + || + 
 Tourist routes || 0 || + || + 
 Diversified offers and services || 0 || + || + 
 Sustainable tourism infrastructure || + || + || + 
Environmental Impact Assessment
Among its objectives, the EUSAIR aims at improving the
environmental status of the Region. When applicable, strategic and direct environmental
assessment procedures will be applied in accordance with EU legislation[14] to ensure that plans, programmes and projects likely to have
significant environmental effect, also across national borders, are subject to proper
environmental assessment prior to their authorisation. 
Social Impact Assessment
The EUSAIR will aim at improving socio-economic conditions in the
macro-region and thereby also social inclusion, e.g. in the job market. The direct
social impact of the Strategy will be assessed in due course in relation to actions/projects
implemented in the Region and linked to the objectives of the Strategy.
Economic Impact
Assessment
The EUSAIR will aim at strengthening the economy of the macro
region. The combined GDP of the region, estimated from Eurostat figures is
close to EUR 1,900 Bn (2012). The population covered by the Strategy is
approximately 70 million inhabitants. In addition to the ESIF and IPA funds, major
international financial institutions are active in the Region (e.g. EIB has
earmarked approximately EUR 5 Bn for the four non-EU EUSAIR countries for the
2014-2020 programming period). The direct economic impact will be assessed in due
course in relation to actions/projects implemented in the Region and linked to
the objectives of the Strategy.
For further illustration on economic importance of certain sectors
in the Region, see Annex 6.
9.           Monitoring
and evaluation
Implementation of the EU Strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian
Region could be monitored at three levels:
·     
Milestones for
putting in place the necessary governance structures (e.g. thematic working
groups, establishing responsible actors for the collection of data,
establishment of communication arrangements within the Region and contact
points for stakeholders). 
·     
Defining the targets
for each action selected for implementation.  To this end, it is mandatory
first to define baselines. When evaluating the actual impact of the Strategy, a
medium-term rather than a short-term perspective needs to be adopted. 
·     
Result indicators. In light of baseline situation and targets defined, results
indicators will need to be worked out against which progress in achieving the
Strategy's overall objectives can be evaluated. 
Monitoring and
evaluation of progress will also improve both visibility and accountability in
relation to actions carried out under the Action Plan. 
In line with its role in
supporting the peer review process, the Commission could identify areas where
progress is slow, and, where appropriate, make proposals on specific measures
to address. This would also be in line with the Commission report on added value
of macro-regional strategies[15],
including the possibility of sunset clauses, where actions are deemed of little
value. Review and possible revision of the Action Plan will also take into
account how effective and efficient the governance structures put in place have
proved in implementing the Plan.
10.         Conclusion
This document acknowledges
the request of the European Council to establish an EU Strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian
Region, as a framework for cooperation to support sustainable development and
integrated action in a macro-regional and transnational context. The Strategy
will be accompanied by a rolling Action Plan that identifies concrete topics
and projects in relation to which cooperation should be intensified. 
As outlined, the design of the EU Strategy
for the Adriatic-Ionian Region will be based on the following elements:
a)     
An extensive consultation process: From the
EUSBSR and EUSDR it is clear that the political acceptance of the actions
proposed was high, thanks to a wide and open consultation process. Therefore,
the Commission used the same tools and the same approach when preparing the
macro-regional strategy for the Adriatic- Ionian Region, i.e. meetings with
specifically-appointed National Contact Points, organising extensive
stakeholder consultation, including on-line public consultation and inter-service
coordination within Commission services;
b)     
A Communication and Action Plan: The structure
and organisation of both documents will reflect lessons learnt in the
preparation and implementation of previous macro-regional strategies as well as
main messages from the consultation process; 
c)     
A governance and implementation framework for cooperation:
The Strategy will also take into account main principles and recommendations
contained in the Report from the European Commission on the governance of
macro-regional strategies. The existing High-Level Group on macro regional
strategies will embrace also the new Adriatic-Ionian Strategy, taking into
account the specificities of this area, in particular the large participation of
non-EU pre-accession countries. Coordination of each pillar will be done by
Pillar Coordinators, (an EU and a non-EU participating country) and the
Commission will facilitate the process, coordinate the work and evaluate
progress.
d)    
Alignment of existing EU, national, regional and
local public as well as private funds.
For each of these elements, experience
gained from preparing and implementing the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea
Region and the EU Strategy for the Danube Region, as well as from sea-basin
strategies, has been used as a source of inspiration, specific to the Adriatic-Ionian
Region. 
ANNEX 1
Justification
of the inclusion of areas of cooperation (pillars) in the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region
The following
table analyses whether each pillar should be treated in a macro-regional
framework. To do so, it uses three criteria: is there a need to cooperate
between different countries on specific issues (a strategy being a process to
agree and implement concrete actions)?; is the topic specific to the Adriatic and Ionian Region?; and is action in this topic in line with priorities / policies
at EU level?
Cooperation in
the following fields should also facilitate an integrated approach, valuable in
addressing challenges and opportunities in a comprehensive manner. In
particular, sustainable development and territorial cohesion approaches (e.g.
spatial planning) can be usefully reinforced.
 Pillar || Need for strategy (cooperation) || Specific to Adriatic Ionian || In line with EU policies &instruments 
 Issues for which cooperation is a must due to strong cross-border externalities 
 Maritime and marine growth || EU compliance and development of joint standards (incl. administrative cooperation to simply and harmonise formalities for shipping as provided in the EU aquis) Deep sea resources management Monitoring & Surveillance Joint planning activities (incl. MSP and ICZ) || Overexploited fish stocks Inefficient fishery sector Underexploited potential of aquaculture Underexploited potential for blue innovation and blue growth || CFP EMFF ESF ESIF Horizon 2020 Smart Specialisation Policies 
 Connectivity || Optimising interfaces, procedures and infrastructure to facilitate trade with southern, central and eastern Europe Maritime security Improvement of ADRIREP system Extension of NAPA cooperation Transnational road and rail networks Reinforcement of air connections Integration of energy networks Joint energy market || Infrastructure networks not always efficient (too many bottlenecks) Need for sustainable transport solutions Vessel traffic congestion Underexploited location advantages in global maritime transport || CEF EBRD EIB ESIF Sustainable EU Transport Corridors TEN-E TEN-T WBIF 
 Environmental quality || Threats to coastal and marine biodiversity/marine protected areas Pollution of the sea Marine litter Inappropriate development of coastal zones Protection of transnational habitats Protection of migratory species Climate change || Marine water quality / pollution of the sea Threatened coastal and marine ecosystems, habitats and species Management of Natura 2000 areas Threatened coastal and marine ecosystems, habitats and species Management of Natura 2000 areas Transnational habitats for carnivores and terrestrial biodiversity Ecosystem resilience || 7th Environment Action Programme Marine Strategy Framework Directive EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy (COM (2011) 244 final). Habitats and Birds Directives Green Infrastructure Strategy (COM (2013) 249 final) EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change (COM (2013) 216 final) Water Framework Directive CFP EMFF ESF ESIF Horizon 2020 ICZM LIFE 
 Sustainable tourism || Capitalise on natural and cultural heritage jointly to promote the common Region Coordinated approach to cruise tourism || Strong cultural heritage Constant challenges to innovate and improve competitiveness Insufficient trans-border cooperation Underexploited tourism potentials || European Agenda for Culture ESIF Smart Specialisation Policies Sustainable tourism policy 
 Issues for which cooperation should strengthened, due to common challenges, cross-border externalities and political trade offs 
 Maritime and marine growth || Technology transfer and maritime clusters Development of new products / services || Underexploited potential of aquaculture Underexploited potential for blue innovation and blue growth || CFP EMFF ESF ESIF Horizon 2020 Smart Specialisation Policies 
 Connectivity || Exchange of experiences (e.g. on multimodality) Improvement of hinterland connections Improve islands connectivity Improvement of ICT infrastructure || Infrastructure networks not always efficient (too many bottlenecks) Need for sustainable transport solutions Underexploited location advantages in global maritime transport || ESIF Sustainable EU Transport Corridors TEN-E TEN-T 
 Environmental quality || Efficient use of water, addressing water scarcity Municipal solid waste management Soil erosion Low carbon development || Fresh water access Soil erosion Energy consumption   || Water Framework Directive EU 2020 Strategy Road Map for a Resource Efficient Europe Waste Framework Directive Soil Protection Strategy (COM(2006) 231 final) CFP EMFF ESF ESIF Horizon 2020 ICZM LIFE 
 Sustainable tourism || Development of joint standards / brands Exchange of experiences (e.g. new tourism concepts) || Strong cultural heritage Constant challenges to innovate and improve competitiveness Insufficient trans-border cooperation Underexploited tourism potentials || European Agenda for Culture ESIF Smart Specialisation Policies Sustainable tourism policy 
ANNEX 2
Scoping Paper and questionnaire for the on-line public consultation
(25 Oct. 2013 – 17 Jan 2014)
 Subject: Scoping Paper for the public consultation 
The European Council of 13/14 December
2012 has formally asked the European Commission to present an EU Strategy for
the Adriatic and Ionian Region before the end of 2014"(…) subject to the
evaluation of the concept of macro-regional strategies (…)" of June 2013. 
Objectives of the EU Strategy
for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR) 
The EUSAIR aims to promote sustainable
economic and social prosperity of the Adriatic and Ionian region through growth
and jobs creation, by improving its attractiveness, competitiveness and
connectivity while at the same time preserving the environment and ensuring
healthy and balanced marine and coastal ecosystems. The EUSAIR incorporates the
Maritime Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Seas, adopted by the Commission
on 30 November 2012. The Strategy concerns eight countries: 4 EU Member States
(Croatia, Greece, Italy and Slovenia) and 4 non-EU countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia). It focuses on areas of regional mutual
interest and it is structured around four pillars: 
 Driving innovative maritime and
marine growth, 
 Connecting the Region, 
 Preserving, protecting, improving
the quality of the environment, 
 Increasing regional
attractiveness. 
The EUSAIR is in line with the Europe 2020
framework, as well as with the Lisbon Treaty which states that the EU shall
promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member
States. Macro-regional strategies are test cases of what territorial cohesion
means in practical terms. The EUSAIR will also contribute to the EU dimension
of candidate/potential candidate countries in the Region. 
Context and aims of the
consultation 
The public consultation on the EU Strategy
for the Adriatic and Ionian region aims to reach relevant stakeholders and to
gather their ideas in order to make sure that the Strategy is realistic in its
starting point, appropriate in its objectives, and responsive to the real needs
of inhabitants of the Region. Therefore, the European Commission is actively
seeking the contributions of all those interested (including Member States,
neighbouring countries, regions, municipalities, international organisations,
financial institutions, the socio-economic partners and civil society). This is
why an extensive stakeholders consultation in the Region is organised in the
period September-December 2013, on the basis of the 'Discussion Paper` provided
by the Commission, as well as this on-line public consultation. 
The purpose of this Scoping Paper is to
guide those providing a contribution on the major topics related to the EUSAIR.
When considering the questions it is important to keep in mind that the actions
and projects to be proposed should (a) concern the Adriatic and Ionian region
as a macro-region - as opposed to the national or EU level -, (b) have a
positive impact on the citizens, enterprises, and the environment and (c) be
feasible in the short to mid-term. The questionnaire consists of five sections
on which input would be welcomed. If you wish to contribute with a paper which
would elaborate the topics of the EUSAIR and/or issues raised by this
questionnaire, you are welcome to send it as an attachment in PDF to
REGIO-EU-ADRIATIC-IONIAN-STRATEGY@ec.europa.eu. 
Your contributions will be most useful to
us in developing an EU Strategy which addresses the critical concerns of the Adriatic and Ionian region. Please submit your response to this public consultation by 17
January 2014. 
Next steps 
The results of this consultation will be
published in the form of a summary report early in 2014. The contributions will
be further discussed in the frame of the conference organised in Athens, on 6-7 February 2014, and will support the preparation of the EUSAIR. A
Communication concerning the Strategy will be adopted by the Commission in
2014. 
Thank you for your contributions! 
Questionnaire
PUBLIC CONSULTATION 
ON THE EU STRATEGY FOR THE ADRIATIC AND IONIAN REGION
The overall
objective of the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR) is to
promote sustainable economic and social prosperity of the Region through growth
and jobs creation, by improving its attractiveness, competitiveness and connectivity
while at the same time preserving the environment and ensuring healthy and
balanced marine and coastal ecosystems. The public consultation on the EUSAIR
aims to reach relevant stakeholders and to gather their ideas in order to make
sure that the Strategy is realistic in its starting point, appropriate in its
objectives and responsive to the real needs of inhabitants of the Region. For
additional information please download the Scoping Paper for the public here.
Please note it is
important to keep in mind, when considering the following questions, that the
actions and projects to be proposed should (a) concern the Adriatic and Ionian
region as a macro-region - as opposed to the national or EU level -, (b) have a
positive impact on the citizens, enterprises, and the environment and (c) be
feasible in the short to mid-term. 
Section I -
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.
Please specify in which capacity you are completing this questionnaire *:
- As an individual/private person 
- On behalf of a Public Authority 
- On behalf of an International Organisation 
- On behalf of a Civil Society Organisation 
- On behalf of a Private Industry 
- On behalf of an Academic/research institution 
- Other 
2.
Please provide your name, and when relevant the name of your organisation*
3.
If your organisation is registered in the Transparency Register, please
indicate your Register ID number. If your organisation is not registered, you
can register now. Responses from organisations not registered will be published
separately.
4.
Please provide your country of residence / establishment*
- List of EU countries
- Please specify the name of the country*
5.
How well do you know the Adriatic and Ionian macro-region?*
- Very well informed
- Fairly well informed
- Not very well informed
- Not informed at all
6.
How well informed are you about the EU macro-regional strategies?*
- Very well informed
- Fairly well informed
- Not very well informed
- Not informed at all
7.
Please provide your e-mail address
Section II -
EUSAIR NEEDS
8.
What are the main topics (economic, environment and social) challenges and
opportunities in the Adriatic and Ionian region which would benefit from a
macro-regional approach?
9.
What are the main administrative and governance challenges in the Region (in
particular with focus on macro-regional cooperation)?
10.
How can the cooperation and coordination across national borders / at
transnational level be improved in the Region?
11.
What are the needs in terms of funding and how to improve the use of existing
financial instruments to achieve the objectives of the Strategy?
                                                 Section
III - EUSAIR Solutions
12.
What are in your views the main topics on which the EUSAIR should concentrate? 
(please,
tick)
I
Driving innovative maritime and marine growth
- Maritime clusters
and research
- Blue
bio-technologies
- Aquaculture
- Fisheries
- Seabed
exploration
- Human capital
II
Connecting the Region
- Waterways, air,
road and rail systems
- Intermodal nodes 
- Security and
safety of sea and inland transport modes
- Energy systems
and security of supplies
- Increased use of
renewable and clean energies, energy efficiency and savings
III
Preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment
- Marine
environment
- Quality of water,
air and soils
- Biodiversity and
landscapes
- Mitigation and
adaptation to climate change
- Natural risks
- Spatial planning
IV
Increasing regional attractiveness
- Adriatic and
Ionian Region identity natural and cultural heritage
- Tourism
- Human capital        
- Inclusion of
disadvantaged groups
13.
Please indicate any other topics that should be addressed by the EUSAIR.
14.
Which of the above topics might benefit from being considered together in an
integrated approach?
15.
What are the main concrete actions and projects, which in the short to medium
term, could contribute to fulfilling the objectives of the EUSAIR. Please
select relevant pillar and indicate max 4 actions/projects.
Please
select relevant pillar for action/project 1:
Pillar
I Pillar II Pillar III Pillar IV
Please
select relevant pillar for action/project 2:
Pillar
I Pillar II Pillar III Pillar IV
Please
select relevant pillar for action/project 3:
Pillar
I Pillar II Pillar III Pillar IV
Please
select relevant pillar for action/project 4:
Pillar
I Pillar II Pillar III Pillar IV
16.
Which are the main actors in the Region that need to be involved in the
implementation of the EUSAIR to ensure that it will run successfully (incl.
issues such as relevant decision makers, project actors, financing sources)? 
17.
How can the administrative and governance capacity in the Region be improved
and what kinds of governance arrangements are needed to implement the Strategy?

(partnerships,
coordination mechanisms, monitoring & evaluation, communication &
visibility, decision making on projects …)
                                                  Section
IV – ADDED VALUE
18.
How would the strategy contribute to improve the situation? Please, specify
what results you do expect from the implementation of the Strategy. 
19.
What would be the added value of the EUSAIR? Please specify the added value of
the Strategy, as compared to individual actions to be taken in the countries or
regions, when it comes to policy design and implementation.
20.
Please specify what extra benefits are there at the European Union level?
                                            Section
V – FURTHER THOUGHTS
21. Any further comments of relevance for the
development and implementation of the EUSAIR?
ANNEX
3
EU STRATEGY FOR THE ADRIATIC AND IONIAN REGION
Summary Report on the on-line
public consultation
The Commission organized a
general on-line public consultation on the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region in the period 25 October 2013 – 17 January 2014. The aim of the
consultation was to gather ideas about the future actions and projects in the Adriatic and Ionian Region which could benefit from a macro-regional cooperation approach. 
Main results: 
·        
Approximately
100 authorities, institutions or individuals responded to the consultation and
presented their views. 
·        
The profile
of respondents is varied: academic/research institutions, private persons,
public authorities, private enterprises, civil society, international
organisation and other. 
·        
The
responses come mainly from Italy
and Greece. There were also replies from outside the Adriatic and Ionian
Region, e.g. Belgium, United Kingdom, Hungary, France, Canada. 
·        
The main
identified administrative and governance challenges in the region are: 
ü Differences in the economic and social development of the
participating countries; 
ü Poor coordination between regional and national levels; 
ü A top-down approach by national administration vs. social
society; 
ü Differentiate access to the EU funds; 
ü Cultural, historical and linguistic barriers; 
ü Lack of administrative capacity and of adequate human
resources
·        
Possible
financing sources indicated by the respondents are the following: EU funds;
European Investment Bank (EIB) and European Investment Fund (EIF) financial
instruments (to be tailored for the Strategy); private funding; Public Private
Partnership Investments. 
·        
The main
constrains with regard to financing: Stakeholders are not well informed about
the available funds in the region; High administrative and regulatory burdens. 
·        
With regard
to governance, there is an overall agreement that stronger coordination among
countries is needed. Different proposals were indicated (e.g. Permanent
secretariat, e-governance structure, etc.)
·        
There is an overall
agreement that the four priorities identified by the participating countries
and the European Commission ('Blue Growth', 'Connecting the region',
'Environmental Quality', 'Sustainable Tourism') are indeed the main ones. 
·        
Regarding the 'Blue
Growth', in respondents` opinion, a creation of maritime clusters and research
should gain the most attention, while human capital is also considered highly
important. Further topics on which the Strategy should focus are blue
bio-technologies, aquaculture and fisheries. 
·        
Regarding the
'Connecting the region', the main focus points that the respondents identified
are the waterways, air, road and rail systems and, the increased use of
renewable and clean energies, and energy efficiency. 
·        
Regarding
'Environmental Quality', the survey participants indicated the marine
environment, biodiversity, the quality of water, air and soils as the main topics.

·        
Regarding 'Sustainable
Tourism', the respondents spotted as most important the Adriatic and Ionian
Region identity and natural and cultural heritage. 
ANNEX 4
Summary
of responses to the online public consultation
Tables and graphs
Section 2.2.2: Consultation results
 Main topics for innovative maritime and marine growth stressed in the stakeholder survey || Main topics for connectivity stressed in the stakeholder survey || 
       Main topics for environmental quality stressed in the stakeholder survey ||       Main topics for attractiveness stressed in the stakeholder survey 
ANNEX 5
List of the authorities / organisations / citizens who replied to
the online public consultation
 No || Name of the person/organisation 
 1 || A.C.E. Consulting dba A.C.E. Construction Consulting 
 2 || Individual Person 
 3 || Regione Emilia-Romagna 
 4 || Individual Person 
 5 || University of Bologna 
 6 || Institute for Oceanography and Fisheries 
 7 || SimFWD P.C 
 8 || Consorzio Alta Ricerca Navale - Rinave 
 9 || Individual Person 
 10 || Vice President Italia Nostra Onlus Sezione Di Udine 
 11 || University of Udine Economic Unit Department of Food Science 
 12 || National Institute of Astrophysics - Astronomical Observatory of Trieste 
 13 || Università di Udine 
 14 || Centro di Riferimento Oncologico (CRO AVIANO) - National Cancer Institute 
 15 || Friuli Innovazione, Research and Technology Transfer Center 
 16 ||  Italia Molise 
 17 || Secretary General at Unioncamere Veneto 
 18 || Individual Person 
 19 || Venice Port Authority 
 20 || Municipality of Messolonghi, Aitolia y Acarnania, Greece 
 21 || AREA Science Park 
 22 || DIAL Univerità di Udine 
 23 || Consigliere regionale Puglia - Vice Sindaco Cerignola (Fg) 
 24 || Individual Person 
 25 || University of Ioannina Medicval School. Ioannina, Greece 
 26 || Centro di Riferimento Oncologico (CRO AVIANO) - National Cancer Institute 
 27 || Individual Person 
 28 || Individual Person 
 29 || Molise Region 
 30 || Responsabile UOC Anatomia Patologica AUSL Pescara 
 31 || Individual Person 
 32 || Universitary Hospital "Mother Theresa", Faculty of Medicine , Department of Anatomic Pathology 
 33 || Confcommercio Imprese per l'Italia of Friuli Venezia Giulia 
 34 || European House, Budapest 
 35 || Individual Person 
 36 || Province of Udine 
 37 || Region of Crete, 
 38 || FINCANTIERI SPA 
 39 || Individual Person 
 40 || Regione Emilia Romagna 
 41 || EUROGIA2020 
 42 || WWF European Policy Office (on behalf of WWF Greece, WWF Italy and WWF Mediterranean Programme Office) 
 43 || Region Of Ionian Islands 
 44 || Ruđer Bošković Institute 
 45 || Individual Person 
 46 || Individual Person 
 47 || heliFOR.eu 
 48 || Individual Person 
 49 || Individual Person 
 50 || Individual Person 
 51 || Eurotrieste 
 52 || European Straits Initiative 
 53 || Medpan - Mediterranean Protected Areas Network 
 54 || Italia Nostra - Sezione Provinciale Di Viterbo 
 55 || Technological Educational Institute Of Ionian Islands 
 56 || Oecon Group 
 57 || Municipality Of Kefallonia 
 58 || Hellenic-Italian Chamber Of Commerce Of Athens 
 59 || Chamber Of Achaia 
 60 || Associazione Verdi Ambiente E Società Onlus 
 61 ||  Studio Cittaro Srl - Italia Pradamano (Ud) 
 62 || Individual Person 
 63 ||  Hellenic Republic, Ministry Of Interior 
 64 || Thetis S.P.A. 
 65 || Institute For Marine Sciences, National Research Council 
 66 || OGS (Istituto Nazionale Di Oceanografia E Di Geofisica Sperimentale) 
 67 || President Biennale Habitat - President Habitat World 
 68 || University Of Trieste (Italy) 
 69 || Brodarski Institut Zagreb 
 70 ||  Orthologismos S.A. (Thessaloniki-Greece) 
 71 || European Boating Association (Eba) 
 72 || CORILA - Consortium For Managing Research Activities In The Venice Lagoon 
 73 || Ionian University, Department Of Informatics, Corfu, Greece 
 74 || Federcoopesca-Confcooperative 
 75 || Coordination Of Research Institutions Of Friuli Venezia Giulia Autonomous Region, AREA Science Par k Trieste 
 76 || Lega Pesca 
 77 || Institute For Central-Eastern And Balkan Europe (IECOB) 
 78 || Agci Agrital - Associazione Generale Cooperative Italiane Settore Agro Ittico Alimentare 
 79 || Department Of Chemical And Pharmaceutical Sciences, University Of Trieste 
 80 || Management Body Of Messolonghi Lagoon 
 81 || Marche Regional Authority In Collaboration With Istituto Piepoli (Rome) And Other Institutions And University System 
 82 || Marche Regional Authority 
 83 || Marche Region, Research And Innovation Department 
 84 || Life Maestrale- Comune Di Campomarino 
 85 || Centro Euro-Mediterraneo Sui Cambiamenti Climatici SCARL 
 86 || Basilicata Region 
 87 || USR Per Le Marche ( Ministry Of Education ) Regional Board ANCONA IT 
 88 || Individual Person 
 89 || Chair Of The Department Of Biology, University Of Patras 
 90 || International Scientific Forum "Danube - River Of Cooperation" 
 91 || European Network For Accessible Tourism - ENAT Asbl. 
 92 || Unione Italiana Lavoratori 
 93 || Technological Educational Institute of Ionian Islands 
 94 || Friuli Innovazione, Research and Technology Transfer Center 
 95 || DITENAVE 
 96 || Ministry of Foreign Affairs Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia 
 97 || Pesca dell'Alleanza delle Cooperative Italiane 
ANNEX
6
Illustration
of economic importance of certain sectors in the Region
Four thematic papers have been elaborated for
that purpose reviewing “innovative maritime and marine growth”, “connectivity”,
“environmental quality” and “(tourism) attractiveness” issues in the Adriatic and Ionian Region. These reports identify the needs in the Region and also
highlight the potentials. 
A presentation of selected socio-economic
features can also be assessed via the European Atlas of the Seas (http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/atlas/maritime_atlas)
and various reports provided by DG Mare, DG Regio, Eurostat, ESPON (www.espon.eu) and other European bodies. 
A lot of the
socio-economic challenges and potentials in the Region are linked to maritime
activities. Putting together some economic figures from the various countries,
the main maritime activities in terms of GVA and persons employed are: coastal
tourism (32,7% of the total GVA), fishing for human consumption (13,3%),
short-sea shipping including Ro-Ro (12,7%), offshore oil and gas (10,2%),
deep-sea shipping (6,5%), shipbuilding and ship repair (5,6%), passenger ferry
services (4,4%) and cruise tourism (3,6%). All these activities have therefore
a remarkable socio-economic impact on the Blue economy of the area and some of
them have been also identified as the “most promising activities” for the Adriatic and Ionian sea-basins. (DG MARE, 2013, Report 2, Studies to support the
development of sea basin cooperation in the Mediterranean, Adriatic/Ionian and Black Sea)
 Function/activity || GVA || Employment 
 EUR, billion || % on total GVA || *1.000 || % on total empl. 
 0. Other sectors || 0.1 || Shipbuilding and ship repair || 1,21 || 5,6 || 40,49 || 7,6 
 0.2 || Water projects || 0,31 || 1,4 || 8,12 || 1,5 
 1. Maritime transport || 1.1 || Deep-sea shipping || 1,41 || 6,5 || 10,93 || 2,0 
 1.2 || Short-sea shipping (incl. Ro-Ro) || 2,72 || 12,7 || 28,78 || 5,4 
 1.3 || Passenger ferry services || 0,95 || 4,4 || 13,65 || 2,6 
 1.4 || Inland waterway transport || 0,07 || 0,3 || 2,50 || 0,5 
 2. Food, nutrition, health and eco-system services || 2.1 || Fishing for human consumption || 2,85 || 13,3 || 95,42 || 17,9 
 2.2 || Fishing for animal feeding || 0,00 || 0,0 || 0,00 || 0,0 
 2.3 || Marine aquaculture || 0,25 || 1,2 || 4,03 || 0,8 
 2.4 || Blue biotechnology || 0,00 || 0,0 || 0,00 || 0,0 
 2.5 || Agriculture on saline soils || 0,81 || 3,8 || 118,70 || 22,2 
 3. Energy and raw materials || 3.1 || Offshore oil and gas || 2,18 || 10,2 || 5,97 || 1,1 
 3.2 || Offshore wind || 0,00 || 0,0 || 0,00 || 0,0 
 3.3 || Ocean renewable energy || 0,00 || 0,0 || 0,00 || 0,0 
 3.4 || Carbon capture and storage || 0,00 || 0,0 || 0,00 || 0,0 
 3.5 || Aggregates mining (sand, gravel, etc.) || 0,00 || 0,0 || 0,00 || 0,0 
 3.6 || Marine minerals mining || 0,00 || 0,0 || 0,00 || 0,0 
 3.7 || Securing fresh water supply (desalination) || 0,06 || 0,3 || 0,67 || 0,1 
 4. Leisure, working and living || 4.1 || Coastal tourism || 7,02 || 32,7 || 176,41 || 33,0 
 4.2 || Yachting and marinas || 0,21 || 1,0 || 7,49 || 1,4 
 4.3 || Cruise tourism || 0,78 || 3,6 || 14,86 || 2,8 
 5. Coastal protection || 5.1 || Protection against flooding and erosion || 0,12 || 0,5 || 1,13 || 0,2 
 5.2 || Preventing salt water intrusion || 0,00 || 0,0 || 0,00 || 0,0 
 5.3 || Protection of habitats || 0,27 || 1,3 || 2,71 || 0,5 
 6. Maritime monitoring and surveillance || 6.1 || Traceability and security of goods supply chains || 0,09 || 0,4 || 0,85 || 0,2 
 6.2 || Prevent and protect against illegal movement of people and goods || 0,09 || 0,4 || 0,85 || 0,2 
 6.3 || Environmental monitoring || 0,09 || 0,4 || 0,85 || 0,2 
 Total || 21,49 || 100,0 || 534,43 || 100,0 
(DG MARE, 2013,
Report 2, Studies to support the development of sea basin cooperation in the
Mediterranean, Adriatic/Ionian and Black Sea)
To fully exploit the potentials of the
maritime sectors and facilitate their improved contribution to smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth some key diversities in the Region as well as
a series of challenges need to be approached in cooperation. Furthermore, some
of potentials can be better exploited in cooperation. 
At the same time one needs to take into
consideration that the Adriatic and Ionian Region comprises a heterogeneous
group of countries, both as regards socio-economic developments, size and also
EU membership. A particular divide which shapes the Region is between the four
EU Member States Croatia, Greece, Italy and Slovenia and the four non-Member States Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia. 
ANNEX 7
Map of the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region
ANNEX 8
Thematic
Workshop 1: 
"Blue
Growth"
Summary Report on Workshop
Conclusions
Athens, 7 February 2014
 Chair: Beate Gminder, Head of Unit, Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission Speakers: Vassilios Tselios, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Greece Mathilde Konstantopoulou, Ministry of Development and Competitiveness, Greece Danijela Stolica, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Montenegro Kai Böhme, expert Facilitator: Amparo Montán, INTERACT Point Valencia Rapporteurs: Nassos Sofos, Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission and Luca Marangoni, Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission Participants: Participants included representatives from 7 out of 8 countries, from the public and private sector with strong interest in the maritime and marine affairs.  
Summary 
The workshop discussed the scope,
the topics and the potential actions identified during the stakeholder
consultations within the framework of pillar I of the future Strategy. Participants
acknowledged the scope of the pillar and recognised the importance of fisheries,
aquaculture, blue technology and maritime and marine services for the
macro-region. They identified different opportunities and challenges to approach in a
jointly manner, such as the maritime spatial planning. The title of the pillar was
amended to "Blue growth" to better cover the topics discussed. 
Scope
The workshop allowed validating the scope of the pillar, already
identified during the public and stakeholders' consultation. This pillar was
found to have close links with the other three pillars. Discussions have
highlighting five needs:
-         
Need
to be specific to the Adriatic & Ionian region: local challenges and
problems, whilst thinking globally. This implies increasing innovation capacity
to compete globally, whilst ensuring environmental sustainability (key words
"GLOCAL");
-         
Need
to involve local stakeholders at ground level and reinforce roles, relations
and networking amongst different stakeholders  (key word "BOTTOM-UP
APPROACH");
-         
Need
to raise competencies by promoting circulation of ideas and skills and mobility
of researchers and workers (key word "BRAIN CIRCULATION");
-         
Need
to reinforce multilevel governance of maritime space and institutional
capacity, notably in candidate and potential candidate countries and harmonize
standards and rules (key word "CAPACITY BUILDING");
-         
Need
to share data and information both for stakeholders and the general public (key
word "DATA CLOUD").
Topics

Stakeholders have confirmed three topics to
be addressed under this pillar: 1) Fisheries and aquaculture, 2) Blue
technologies and 3) Maritime and marine services. More in particular:
Fisheries
and aquaculture
The social, cultural and economic
contribution of fisheries is crucial at local and regional level, especially in
case of islands and remote regions. Besides the capacity building, R&D,
sustainability and communication-marketing, the importance of the information
flow among the stakeholders was highlighted. The most important aspects for
fisheries and aquaculture were: institutional development, involvement of local
actors, increased skills, strengthening R&D, innovation, clustering,
developing businesses and branding. Sustainability was evocated as a horizontal
issue. However, to mainstream environmental sustainability may reveal to be
challenging and difficult to be implemented. Aquaculture has a lot of
potential, but it needs appropriate locations to develop (e.g. Maritime Spatial
Planning). Fisheries is a challenged sector as there are issues on overfishing
and compliance with EU and international rules. Both activities are recognised
as important and “fragile”. All actions should be addressed respecting the
character of the activities and the regional specificities.
Blue technologies
Technology development should address
problems (e.g. sea pollution, CO2 emissions from maritime transport) and
weaknesses (lack of data/knowledge and capacity) and/or unleash potentials
(e.g. ITC, robotics, seabed exploration) specific to the Adriatic-Ionian Sea basin. The need to develop disruptive innovation to compete globally, whilst ensuring
sustainability, was highlighted. However, this can happen only if the exchange
of people, knowledge and ideas within the region is actively promoted. “Brain
circulation” and sharing of information and knowledge have been evocated as the
cornerstone to innovation and sustainable blue growth. A second important
dimension was the role of the different actors and the interaction amongst SME,
research centres, public bodies/institutions and citizens. Governance aspects
were raised, notably referring to deep sea water and seabed exploration.
Different needs and capacities amongst countries and stakeholders have been
underlined, notably by referring to governance, institution building needs and
the mobility of workers and researcher. 
Maritime
and marine services
Maritime and marine services are merely
focusing on public sector activities largely linked to other topics of the
EUSAIR strategy and other subjects of Pillar 1 (aquaculture-fisheries, blue
technology). Main issues discussed included Capacity Building, Maritime Spatial
Planning, Internationalisation of Businesses and Clusters, Research &
Innovation and Communication. The discussion also underlined that activities
need to be future oriented, bridge between local and global developments (key
word: "glocal"), and build on existing experience, tools and
infrastructure. There is a need to distinguish between short, medium and
long-term objectives. The involvement of local actors (incl. civil society)
within the multi-level government is important.
Suggested Actions 
 Topics || Actions 
 Fisheries and aquaculture || ·         Developing operational typologies that capture the diversity and characteristics of relevant sector (environmental, administrative, technical, social, cultural) and focus on the crucial parameters characterising the activities and governing their dynamics. Collection and sharing of new specific data (involvement of research institutions from all countries). ·         Improving clustering activities/efforts among regions and among activities (fisheries, aquaculture, tourism, fishing as leisure) and links to other sectors such as tourism. ·         Raising competencies/skills of the stakeholders (needs common at macroregional level). ·         Defining and realising a well organised monitoring plan of the activities and the environment. Fishing should be complemented with other activities to protect the fishing-dependent areas. ·         Improving communication and marketing. Promotion of the products and identification of new markets. Improving the acceptance of aquaculture products in society (image). 
 Blue technologies || ·         Deep Sea resources: seabed mapping, deep sea observation, research platform on robotics/unmanned marine vehicles and biosecurity; ·         Green Sea mobility:  research platform for new materials and sensor technologies to reduce costs by lowering cost repairs and saving energy and to develop new propulsion modes and the use of renewable energies. This includes cluster development on green ship building and new materials. ·         Knowledge sharing: IT platform for exchanging data and knowledge (knowledge innovative communities, data cloud). ·         Facilitating the involvement of partners from candidate and potential candidate countries through capacity building and the promotion of brain circulation and workers/researchers mobility. ·         Ensuring the necessary legal framework for exploiting deep sea water and seabed resources in a sustainable manner, through governance mechanisms such as by establishing maritime zones. ·         Facilitating access to finance and promoting start-up to prototype ideas and facilitate industrial spin off of RTD results. ·         Promoting citizen and business awareness on new technologies 
 Maritime and marine services || ·         Maritime spatial planning, integrated coastal zone management at the forefront (ADRIPLAN). Innovative planning (and technological solutions) in coastal defence related to sea level rise (need for joint action). ·         Harmonise standards and regulations across the countries, in a variety of fields (environmental standards for boats and shipping, green shipbuilding, use of alternative fuels by boats)  ·         Internationalisation of clusters and businesses: Building on existing experience and infrastructure and focusing on smart specialisation and smart communities, sectoral/cross-sectoral networking, networking between industry and academia, clusters inventory (“phone book”). ·         Networking of cities with similar profiles focusing on the development of a joint strategy for coastal cities in the new millennium. ·         Raising the competencies of people working in the field (increase mobility) and provide targeted trainings within key sectors in themes such as institutional development, capacity building. ·         Data Integration - Inventory of existing platforms to bring together and make accessible data sources. (Trieste Gulf model, EMODNET pilot for chemistry, Sea Basin Check Points). ·         Communicating-informing: 1) the stakeholders and 2) the general public. Building a macroregional identity and improving knowledge through exchange of good practice. 
Thematic
Workshop 2: 
"Connecting the Region"
Summary Report on Workshop
Conclusions
Athens, 7
February 2014
 Chair: Willebrordus Sluijters, Head of Unit, Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission Speakers: Andrea Vitolo, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Italy Rossella Rusca, Department for Development and Cohesion, Italy Pavle Jankovic, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Serbia Philippe Claeys, expert Facilitator: Philipp Schwartz, INTERACT Point Turku Rapporteur: Giannantonio Ballette and Iva Babic, Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission Participants: There were ca. 70 participants representing national, regional and local authorities and other private and public bodies from the Region. Most of participants belonged to the 'Transport' sector. 
Summary
The
workshop discussed the scope, the topics and the possible actions of pillar II
"Connecting the Region". In the discussion, more emphasis was put on
the Maritime transports. Rather than an objective choice, this reflected the
biased representativeness of the participants. Given the maritime genesis of
the future Strategy, it is understandable – as already proved in the course of
the stakeholder consultation - that participants were more focused on maritime
than on hinterland, and on transport than on energy.
Scope
Participant acknowledged the scope of pillar II, which should
focus on better transport and energy connections in the macro-region. Given the
heterogeneity of situations in the Region, there is an evident need, within
this pillar, to invest in (administrative, institutional) capacity building.
Communication is also an important aspect to, i.a., involve population in the
decision making and gain their support on initiatives to be implemented.
Research, innovation as well as the involvement of the private partners are
essential cross-cutting aspects for achieving the objectives of this pillar and
hence those of the entire Strategy. 
Topics

Stakeholders agreed that this pillar should
focus on three strategic topics: improving maritime transports, developing
intermodal links to the hinterland and, with regards to energy, improving
interconnections. In both transport and energy networks, the Strategy should
combine investments on the networks and soft measure, in particular to ensure
the correct application of the regulatory framework. 
Concerning maritime transports, the
accent was put on the need to clustering port activities and services, to
develop port terminals, including certification re. safety, sustainability,
etc. It was also mentioned the need of ensuring a level playing field in the
region by promoting compliance with international and European rules.
With regards to intermodal links with
the hinterland, participants agreed on the need to priorities and promote
investments on the comprehensive network, starting with cross-border
bottlenecks. The Adriatic Ionian motorway from Trieste to Patras is considered
a must for the Region. In order to further develop motorways of the sea, there
is a need to improve road and rails infrastructure that link the ports with the
hinterland. 
Better interconnected energy networks
will benefit to the whole macro-region, favouring a sound economic development.
Focus should be on cross-border interconnection of electricity grids (also as a
way to promote the development of energy production from renewable sources) and
completion of transnational gas pipelines creating a gas ring in the region.
Special attention should also be put on the removal of barriers to cross-border
investments.
Suggested Actions

 Topics || Actions 
 Maritime transports || ·         Clustering port activities/services ·         Development of port terminals ·         Certification system of ports (safety, environment, ..) ·         Improvement of the ADRIREP (Adriatic Traffic Reporting) system ·         Developing new motorways of the sea, and related port infrastructures and ITS (Intelligent Transport System) ·         Berth allocation system  for cruise ships ·         Standardisation of legal requirements & capacity building (e.g. adoption of EU acquis for non–EU countries) 
 Intermodal hinterland || ·         Investments on the comprehensive network ·         Adriatic Ionian motorway, from Trieste to Patras ·         Development of air transport ·         Motorways of the sea: intermodal links to the hinterland ·         Progress in railway reform (incl. capacity building) ·         Cross-border facilitation (physical and non-physical investments) ·         Integrated planning of infrastructure development ·         Develop nodes and hubs in the hinterland 
 Energy networks   || ·         Electricity: improvements of cross-border interconnections ·         Gas: realising the TAP (Trans-Adriatic Pipeline) and its IAP (Ionian Adriatic Pipeline) connection ·         Remove barriers for cross-border investments (e.g. through regulatory measures) ·         Improve efficiency of energy networks 
Thematic
Workshop 3: 
"Environmental Quality" 
Summary Report on
Workshop Conclusions
Athens, 7 February 2014
 Chair: George Kremlis, Head of Unit, Directorate-General for the Environment, European Commission Speakers:                    Mitja Bricelj, Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, Slovenia Agnes Kelemen, expert   Facilitator: Ivana Lazic, INTERACT Point Vienna Rapporteur: Jelena Stojovic, Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission Participants: There were more thn 70 participants from different national/regional public authorities, research centres, universities, associations, institutes, etc. 
Summary 
The
workshop discussed the scope, the topics and the potential actions, identified
during the stakeholder consultation, in the framework of pillar III of the
future Strategy. 
In order to tackle the main environmental challenges in the
Region, such as the unsustainable use of marine and coastal area resources,
loss of marine and terrestrial natural habitats and ecosystems, maritime
transport pollution and accident risks, coastal water quality, etc., all agreed
that cooperation and coordination between the participating countries is
essential. 
Participants
agreed that the Strategy needs to address challenges related to marine
biodiversity, pollution of the seas and terrestrial biodiversity and habitats
and urged to highlight the link between the marine and terrestrial environment.
The key consideration, besides the vertical environmental integration in pillar
III, is to ensure environmental integration in the three other pillars of
the Strategy with the view to making them sustainable.  
Discussion
also focused on the issues related to implementation of actions agreed, which
were hampered by low levels of administrative and financial capacity and weak
enforcement.
Scope
The results of the stakeholder consultation on pillar III
conducted by Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Adriatic and Ionian
Region in the period September-December 2013, were thoroughly discussed among
the workshop participants. The scope of the pillar was validated. Accordingly,
the title of the pillar was changed into "Environmental Quality",
which encompasses the notion of "preserving, protecting and improving (the
quality of the environment)".
Topics 
Protecting the marine environment (marine biodiversity and
pollution of the seas) and transnational terrestrial habitats and biodiversity are confirmed as the main topics to be addressed by the future
Strategy under this pillar. During the discussion, the importance of the Integrated
Coastal Zone Management, Maritime Spatial Planning and climate change
adaptation were also highlighted as relevant aspects. Furthermore, strengthening
of the administrative, technical and scientific capacities, establishment
of common platforms for research, observation and monitoring, and
innovative solutions are seen as important needs/opportunities to be
tackled by the future Adriatic and Ionian Strategy. 
Suggested
Actions 
 Topics || Actions 
 Marine biodiversity || ·         establishing networks for the monitoring, care and recovery of species and the development of action plans for safeguarding them ·         enhancing cooperation in marine research on impact of climate change ·         data exchange and the transfer of good governance ·         creation of trans-border, open-water protected areas and strengthening cooperation/ setting up networks of coastal and marine protected areas to preserve ecosystems ·         introducing Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) and Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) through exchange of best practices; ·         strengthening new forms of sustainable tourism and fisheries 
 Pollution of the seas || ·         addressing oil spill problems with coordinated contingency plans at macro-regional scale ·         defining an action plan for marine litter and establishing operational protocols related to litter monitoring ·         setting up harmonised methods for prevention, reduction, and recovery of waste at sea ·         coordinated fight against eutrophication, targeting at source the loads of eutrophication substances ·         developing new cluster-type cooperation initiatives 
 Transnational terrestrial habitats and biodiversity || ·         data exchange and the transfer of good governance ·         the creation of trans-border protected areas ·         networks for the monitoring, care and recovery of species and the development of action plans for safeguarding them 
Thematic
Workshop 4: 
"Sustainable
Tourism"
Summary Report on
Workshop Conclusions
Athens, 7 February 2014
 Chair: Raphaël Goulet, Head of Unit, Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission Speakers:                    Blanca Belošević, Ministry of Tourism, Croatia Sofjola Kotelli, Ministry of Urban Development and Tourism, Albania Antonis Fysekidis, expert Facilitator: Riitta Ahdan, INTERACT Point Turku Rapporteurs: Joanna Mouliou and Beatriz Jerez, Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission Participants: More than 110 participants attended, covering all sectors of activity (private, public, NGOs, universities, research centres, clusters). 
Summary 
The
panel speakers raised a number of important issues that were identified during
the consultation of the stakeholders. They reported on: how the consultation
process has been carried out; how heterogeneous, national and local level
inputs have been transformed into macro-regional ones; the strong links with
the other pillars (esp. pillar II "Connecting the Region"); the hinterland
dimension of the Strategy in addition to the coastal and maritime ones.
Additionally,
they presented the main challenges and opportunities for sustainable tourism in
the Adriatic and Ionian region that have to be considered for the drafting of
the Strategy Action Plan.
The
presentations of the panel speakers provided a good basis for the discussion in
the Workshop on the scope of the pillar, the topics to be addressed and the
type of potential actions that should be considered. 
With
the active participation and engagement of the participants, the Workshop
resulted in in-depth discussions on substance with several thoughtful
recommendations and suggestions for the Strategy.  Among others,
participants called for a Strategy that should facilitate the active
involvement of the private actors in the implementation of the future actions
in the tourism sector. 
Scope
The workshop marked the end of the extended stakeholder
consultation process on pillar IV and its aim was to reflect on the
proposed scope, the topics to be covered and the potential actions to be
implemented in its framework.
There
has been a consensus on the scope of the pillar, the challenges and the
opportunities across the Region. Participants acknowledged the need to focus
the objective of the pillar towards sustainable tourism, recognising sustainability and quality as fundamental aspects to boost
the competitiveness of the tourism sector in the Adriatic-Ionian Region. For the
sake of clarity and consistency, the title of the pillar has been changed
accordingly into "Sustainable Tourism".
Topics

Participants in the workshop suggested the inclusion of 4 topics:

 Diversification of tourism
     products and services
 Quality of tourism services and
     products (through common standards and certification)
 Sustainable tourism management
     (through harmonised statistics and indicators)

·        
Accessibility (travel facilitation and accessible services) 
Likewise, cross-cutting
issues common to the other pillars were identified, such as:

 Capacity building for both,
     private – business and public sectors (incl. learning and training,
     communication and information)
 Research and
     innovation, and SMEs development 

Suggested Actions 
 Topics || Actions 
 Diversified tourism products and services || ·         Tourism routes (mapping existing routes, identifying potential synergies on existing routes, creating new routes building on the assets of the Region). ·         Thematic tourism: culinary, archaeological, farming, fishing, religious, sport competitions etc. 
 Quality (through standardisation and certification) || ·         Creating guidelines, exchange of best practices. ·         Education and training: training for professionals in tourism; knowledge exchange between universities. ·         Establishing common standards and certification rules and procedures for products and services. Common definition of quality (‘stars’ classification for hotels) ·         Coordination for search and rescue (especially regarding tourist yachts) and other emergency situations ·         Strategy for a Region common branding building process based on the offer of tourist products and services. 
 Tourism management (through adequate use of statistics and indicators' systems) || ·         Establishing common indicators and statistics.  Dissemination and valorisation of the existing European indicator system (ETIS). ·         Developing innovative strategies and tools to tackle seasonality and congestion in ports during high season. ·         Mapping of the tourism development institutions per country. ·         Collaboration among clusters. ·         Stimulating smart specialisation for sustainable tourism. 
 Accessibility "Tourism Accessible for all!" || ·         Facilitation of visa issuing for non-EU travellers and other common visa provisions ·         Connection of hinterland areas and coastal areas. ·         Fostering interregional routes and connectivity between the areas, esp. remote places and islands. ·         Use of social media and information technology tools. ·         Services and products for seniors and people with special needs. ·         Solidarity in tourism with inclusion of less visited areas. 
[1]
      The European Council has formally asked the European Commission to
coordinate an EU Strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian Region, stating in its
conclusions of 14 December 2012: "Recalling its June 2011 conclusions, and
subject to the evaluation of the concept of macro-regional strategies as
foreseen in the Council conclusions of 13 April 2011, the European Council
looks forward to the presentation by the Commission of a new EU Strategy for
the Adriatic and Ionian Region before end of 2014."
[2]
      COM(2012)713 final
[3]
      COM(2013)233 final
[4]
      This may include the exploitation of gas and mineral seabed resources and
entail the definition of Exclusive Economic Zones to avoid future disputes.
[5]
      However, since the countries in the Region had different priorities, a
coherent approach should nonetheless cover a reasonable range of topics so that
all parties could identify potential benefits for themselves.
[6]
      Established in 1977 under the Agreement on Cooperation for the Protection
of the Adriatic Sea and coastal areas from pollution concluded in 1974 between
the former Yugoslavia and Italy, this Commission only covers the Adriatic Sea.
[7] *
This designation is without prejudice to positions on the status, and in line
with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of
independence.
[8]
    According to the European
Environmental Agency (EEA), more than 75% of stocks in the Adriatic are
overfished. In the Ionian Sea this percentage is lower (50%) but remains
alarming (Source: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/status-of-fish-stocks-in-the-international-council-for-the-exploration-of-the-sea-ices-and-general-fisheries-commission-for-the-mediterranean-gfcm-fishing-regions-of-europe/map_5-2_proportion-of-stock-final.ep
[9]
      Costs and benefits arising from the establishment of maritime zones in
the Mediterranean Sea. DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, 2013.
[10]     Studies to support the development of sea basin cooperation in
the Mediterranean, Adriatic/Ionian and Black Sea. DG Maritime Affairs and
Fisheries, 2013, Report 2.
[11]     SafeSeaNet is a European vessel traffic
monitoring and information system, established in order to enhance maritime
safety, port and maritime security, marine environment protection and
efficiency of maritime traffic and maritime transport in EU waters.
[12]     According to the definition of eco-regions used by WWF, these
are land or water areas that contain a geographically distinct assemblage of
natural communities which (1) share a large majority of their species and
ecological dynamics, (2) have similar environmental conditions, and (3) interact
ecologically in ways that are critical for their long-term persistence. 
[13]     E.g. cultural tourism, cycling and sports tourism,
eco-tourism, thermal, health and wellbeing tourism, nature tourism,
historical, scholastic, pilgrim tourism, agro-tourism, rural tourism, business,
or tourism capitalising on the maritime and sub-aquatic cultural heritage,
industrial heritage or the economic fabric of a region, etc.
[14]     Directive
(2011) 92/EU and Directive (2001) 42/EC.
[15] COM(2013) 468