COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the implementation of EU macro-regional strategies
Date: 2016-12-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission
Subjects: Adriatic Sea, Alpine Region, Baltic Sea, EU initiative, EU regional policy, Ionian Sea, economic and social cohesion, fund (EU), regional aid, regional cooperation

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.12.2016  SWD(2016) 443 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  on the implementation of EU macro-regional strategies {COM(2016) 805 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 5 

European Union macro-regional strategies ......................................................................... 6 

Report on the implementation of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region ..................... 8 

Report on the implementation of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region ....................... 21 

Report on the implementation of the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region .... 34 

Report on the implementation of the EU Strategy for the Alpine Region ........................ 45 

Annexes: Maps of the different macro-regional strategies ............................................... 52 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
Abbreviations 

Adriatic and Ionian Initiative 

Action Group 

Action Group Leader 

Board of Action Group Leaders 

Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan 

Joint Baltic Sea Research and Development Programme 

Cross-border Cooperation 

Common Provisions Regulation 

Cohesion Fund 

Directorate General  

Danube Strategy Point 

AII 

AG 

AGL 

BAGL 

BEMIP 

BONUS 

CBC 

CPR 

CF 

DG 

DSP 

EAFRD 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

EGTC 

EMFF 

ENI 

ERDF 

ESIF 

ESF 

ETC 

EU  

EUSAIR 

EUSALP 

EUSBSR 

EUSDR 

FP 

GB 

HA 

European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

European Neighbourhood Instrument 

European Regional Development Fund 

European Structural and Investment Funds 

European Social Fund 

European Territorial Cooperation  

European Union 

European Union Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region 

European Union Strategy for the Alpine Region 

European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 

European Union Strategy for the Danube Region 

Facility Point 

Governing Board 

Horizontal Action 

HAC(s) 

Horizontal Action Coordinator(s) 

HELCOM 

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission - Helsinki Commission 

ICPDR 

International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River 

IPA 

JRC 

LNG 

Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance 

Joint Research Center 

Liquefied Natural Gas 

3 

 
 
 
 
MA 

MLG 

MRS 

MSP 

NC(s) 

NGO 

OP(s) 

PA 

Managing Authority 

Multi-Level Governance 

Macro-regional strategy (-ies) 

Maritime Spatial Planning 

National Coordinator(s) 

Non-Governmental Organization 

Operational Programme(s) 

Policy/Priority Area 

PAC(s) 

Policy/Priority Area Coordinators 

PC 

RCC 

SMEs 

SG 

Pillar Coordinators 

Regional Cooperation Council 

Small and Medium Enterprises 

Steering Group 

TEN-T 

Trans-European Transport Network 

TO 

TSG 

Thematic Objective 

Thematic Steering Group 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
Introduction 

This  document  comes  in  support  of  the  report  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the 
European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  on  the 
implementation of EU macro-regional strategies (the European Union Strategy for the Baltic 
Sea Region (EUSBSR), the EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR), the EU Strategy 
for  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  Region  (EUSAIR)  and  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Alpine  Region 
(EUSALP)). 

It aims at providing more detailed information concerning the state of implementation of each 
macro-regional  strategy.  The  document  is  based  inter  alia  on  contributions  from  the  key 
stakeholders of the strategies, European institutions, Member-States representatives, academia 
and experts. 

More information on the Strategies can be found on the strategies websites: 

http://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/  

http://www.danube-region.eu/ 

http://www.adriatic-ionian.eu/  

http://www.alpine-region.eu/  

5 

 
 
European Union macro-regional strategies 

The  size  and  diversity  of  the  European  territory  warrants  a  differentiated,  yet  strategic 
approach  to  its  development.  A  globalised  economy,  rapid  technological  change,  increasing 
interdependence  between  countries,  growing  role  of  sub-national  authorities’,  as  well  as 
borderless,  territorially-relevant  challenges  such  as  climate  change,  ecological  degradation 
and  migratory  inflows  call  for  cooperative  frameworks  thanks  to  which  groups  of  countries 
belonging  to  a  wider  geographical  space  can  cooperate  to  address  common  challenges  and 
opportunities. 

As  a  wish  to  provide  an  effective  and  collective  response  to  issues  better  handled  together 
than  separately,  a  macro-regional  approach  arose  in  the  Baltic  Sea  region  with  discussions 
launched  in  the  European  Parliament  in  2006.  It  gained  momentum  overtime,  to  such  an 
extent that there are now four European Union (EU) macro-regional strategies (MRS): 

  EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR; 2009) 
  EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR; 2010) 
  EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR; 2014) 
  EU Strategy for the Alpine Region (EUSALP; 2016) 

All adopted MRS are accompanied by a rolling action plan to be regularly updated in light of 
new, emerging  needs and changing contexts. The four MRS concern 19 EU Member  States 
and 8 non-EU countries. Some EU countries such as Germany and Slovenia are involved in 3 
MRS, and some EU countries such as Croatia, Italy and Austria in 2. 

Regulatory framework  for European Structural and Investment  Funds (ESIF)  for 2014-2020 
places MRS into the legal framework of the EU and provides a comprehensive definition of it. 
According to Common Provisions Regulation for 2014-2020,1 a ‘macro-regional strategy’ is 
an integrated framework endorsed by the European Council, which may be supported by the 
ESIF  among  others,  to  address  common  challenges  faced  by  a  defined  geographical  area 
relating  to  Member  States  and  third  countries  located  in  the  same  geographical  area  which 
thereby  benefit  from  strengthened  cooperation  contributing  to  achievement  of  economic, 
social and territorial cohesion. 

The  approach  is  based  on  the  ‘3  no/yes’  rule:  no  new  EU  funds,  no  additional  EU  formal 
structures  and  no  new  EU  legislation,  i.e.  strategies  rely  on  a  coordinated  approach 
and synergy  effects:  optimal  use  of  existing  financial  sources,  better  implementation  of 
existing legislation, and better use of existing institutions. 

MRS are an important innovation in territorial cooperation and cohesion. However, they are 
differing  in  several  respects from cross-border and transnational territorial cooperation. One 
key feature of macro-regional cooperation is thus its anchoring to integrated, strategic, longer-
term-oriented  and  open-ended  frameworks.  In  addition,  they  are  requested  by  the  Member 
States  and  reflect  their  strong  political  commitment  towards joint  achievement  of  common 
objectives. 

The strategies aim at addressing challenges and opportunities specific to certain geographical 
area (which are too local to be of direct interest to the whole EU, but on the other hand too 
broad  to  be  efficiently  dealt  with  at  national  level)  and  define  a  set  of  shared,  long-term 
objectives agreed by the participating countries. The objectives vary according to the needs of 

1  Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying 
down common provisions on (the European Structural and Investment Funds) (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320); 
point 31of Article 2. 

6 

 
 
                                                            
the macro-region concerned and the prominence is to be given to strategic issues bringing an 
added value to horizontal EU policies. 

7 

 
 
 
 
Report on the implementation of the European Union Strategy for the 
Baltic Sea Region 

The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) is the first macro-regional 
strategy  in  the  history  of  the  European  Union  (EU).  Its  origins  date  back  to  2006  when  the 
European  Parliament  in  its  resolution  on  a  Baltic  Sea  Region  Strategy  for  the  Northern 
Dimension2 urged the European Commission to come up with a proposal for an EU Baltic Sea 
Strategy. In December 2007, the European Council in its Presidency Conclusions3 invited the 
European Commission to present a long term strategy for the Baltic Sea region no later than 
June  2009.  Following  this  request,  the  European  Commission  presented  its  Communication 
on the EUSBSR on 10  June  20094  alongside a detailed Action Plan.  The European Council 
endorsed this approach in October 2009.5 

The EUSBSR unites eight EU Member States (Estonia, Denmark, Finland, Germany (Berlin; 
Brandenburg; Hamburg; Mecklenburg-Vorpommern; Schleswig-Holstein), Latvia, Lithuania, 
Poland and Sweden) representing 80 million inhabitants or nearly 16% of the EU population. 
The  Strategy  is  welcoming  cooperation  with  non-EU  countries  from  the  region,  namely 
Belarus, Iceland, Norway and Russia in actions and projects of common interest. 
A first progress report on the implementation of the EUSBSR was issued in June 2011.6 

CONTENT – PRIORITIES  

The  EUSBSR  has  three  main  objectives,  each  of  them  containing  some  more  precise  sub-
objectives (in total 12): 

– ‘Save the Sea’, including  clear water in the sea; rich and healthy wildlife; clean and safe 
shipping; and better cooperation; 

– ‘Connect the Region’, with good transport conditions; reliable energy markets; connecting 
people in the region; and better cooperation in fighting cross-border crime; 

–  ‘Increase  Prosperity’,  with  the  Baltic  Sea  region  being  a  frontrunner  for  deepening  and 
fulfilling  the  single  market;  EUSBSR  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Europe  2020 
Strategy;  improved  global  competitiveness  of  the  Baltic  Sea  region;  and  climate  change 
adaptation, risk prevention and management. 

Each objective relates to a wide range of policies and has an impact on the other objectives: 
they are interlinked and interdependent.  
The current Action Plan comprises of 13 policy areas which represent the main areas where 
the  EUSBSR  can  contribute  to  improvements,  either  by  tackling  the  main  challenges  or  by 

2  European  Parliament  resolution  on  a  Baltic  Sea  Region  Strategy  for 

the  Northern  Dimension 
(2006/2171(INI)):  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2006-
0494+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN  

3  European Council Conclusions of 14 December 2007, point 59: ‘Without prejudice to the integrated maritime 
policy, the European Council invites the Commission to present an EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region at 
the latest by June 2009.This strategy should inter alia help to address the urgent environmental challenges 
related to the Baltic Sea. The Northern Dimension framework provides the basis for the external aspects of 
cooperation in the Baltic Sea region’. 

4  Communication from the Commission concerning the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region  - 

10.6.2009 - COM(2009) 248 final. 

5  Conclusions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, 27 October 2009 and Conclusions of the 

European Council, 29-30 October 2009. 

6  Commission  report  on  the  Implementation  of  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  -  22.6.2011  - 

COM(2011) 381 final. 

8 

 
 
 
                                                            
seizing  key  opportunities  of  the  region.  It  also  includes  4  horizontal  actions  which  have  a 
more cross-cutting character and complement the policy areas:  

The work under each policy area and horizontal action is structured around joint actions and is 
illustrated  by  flagships  (projects  and  processes)  of  particular  macro-regional  impact.7  Each 
thematic  area  is  steered  by  one  or  several  thematic  area  coordinators.  Typically,  Member 
State(s)  coordinate(s)  each  policy  area  or  horizontal  action,  and  they  work  on  its 
implementation  in  close  contact  with  the  European  Commission  and  all  stakeholders,  i.e. 
other  Member  States,  regional  and 
inter-governmental  and  non-
governmental  bodies.  Other  bodies  (e.g.  regional  organisations,  NGOs)  may  also  be 
nominated to coordinate a thematic area. 

local  authorities, 

ACTORS/GOVERNANCE  

The  Action  Plan  of  the  EUSBSR  defines  the  governance  structure,  as  well  as  roles  and 
responsibilities  of  key  implementers  of  the  EUSBSR.  These  include:  the  European 
Commission playing a leading role in strategic coordination of the key delivery stages of the 
EUSBSR; national coordinators being responsible for overall coordination of and support for 
the  EUSBSR  implementation  in  the  home  country;  coordinators  of  policy  areas/horizontal 
actions  together  with  their  steering  groups  being  key  forces  to  drive  implementation  of 
relevant thematic areas forward; flagship leaders responsible for implementation of flagships; 
Managing Authorities and other bodies in charge of implementation of programmes/financial 
instruments  being  responsible  for  ensuring  that  the  objectives  of  the  programmes/financial 
instruments are aligned with the objectives of the EUSBSR, etc. 

The Interreg Baltic Sea Region, covering the territory of the EUSBSR, directly contributes to 
the Strategy’s implementation through its thematic priority axes (aligned with the Strategy’s 
objectives) and its support to the Strategy’s governance mechanisms and structures. 

7  An  overview  of  all  ongoing  and  closed  flagships  of  the  EUSBSR  can  be  found  at:  http://www.balticsea-
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/macro-regional-

and 

region.eu/action-plan 
strategies/baltic-sea/library/. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
RESULTS 

Since  the  launch  of  the  European  Union  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  (EUSBSR)  in 
2009,  expectations  continue  to  rise  about  its  performance:  there  are  high  expectations  for 
immediate  results  which  would  provide  clear  evidence  of  the  added  value  of  the  Strategy. 
However, as by its nature the Strategy is a long term-oriented framework, tangible results are 
to be seen in a long term perspective. 

Different results have been reported by key implementers of the Strategy which vary from one 
thematic area to another. Working structures around policy areas and horizontal actions have 
been created to support the work of thematic area coordinators. Coordination structures have 
also been created at the national level allowing developing and deepening a dialogue between 
relevant actors involved and coordinating different Strategy oriented actions/initiatives at the 
Member State level. 

Following calls to strengthen Member States leadership and ownership in the Strategy, a six 
month rotating chairmanship for the EUSBSR national coordinators group was introduced in 
2014.8 Over the time it proved to be an effective tool to strengthen the country’s ownership in 
the Strategy and to balance better the roles of the Commission and participating countries in 
coordinating  the  work.  This  also  had  led  to  the  fact  that  the  Chairmanship  has  now  been 
extended from six to twelve months. 

Networking and partnering 

The Strategy has given impetus to the creation of new solid networks across all political levels 
and  among  actors  from  different  sectors  (e.g.  public,  private,  NGOs)  and  has  led  to 
strengthening  as  well  as  expansion,  increased  effectiveness  and  better  utilisation  of  existing 
ones. It has also contributed to increased cooperation, coherence and coordination of actions 
between different actors in the Baltic Sea region and a better division of labour between the 
networks. 

The Strategy has offered a joint framework for various Baltic Sea actors who have previously 
acted  more  independently  and  helped  creating  linkages  between  isolated  initiatives  targeted 
towards the same objectives. This in turn should lead to increased impact of actions and faster 
achievement of the set objectives. 

Examples: 

Cooperation  on  fisheries  related  topics  is  gaining  new  momentum  and  is  being  further 
enhanced  by  Baltic  Sea  Fisheries  Forum  (BALTFISH),  a  network  composed  of  fisheries 
administrations and other key stakeholders and focused on developing sustainable fisheries in 
the Baltic Sea region. 

Innovative and sustainable use of marine resources and cooperation between relevant actors 
and initiatives in the Baltic Sea region in this field is being further actively promoted by the 
SUBMARINER Network.  

8  The first Chair was Finland (1 January 2014 – 30 June 2014), followed by Estonia (1 July 2014 – 31 

December 2014), Latvia (1 January 2015 – 30 June 2015), Poland (1 July 2015 – 30 June 2016), Sweden (1 
July 2016 – 30 June 2017) and Estonia (1 July 2017 – 30 June 2018). 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
The preparedness and capacity to respond to the impacts of climate change, thus making the 
Baltic  Sea  region  more  climate-resilient,  are  further  enhanced  by  BSR  Climate  Dialogue 
Platform,9  which  aims  at  promoting  inter-governmental  dialogue, 
informing  policy 
development,  catalysing  exchange  of  information  and  best  practices,  fostering  synergies 
among existing initiatives, exploring cooperation opportunities and coordinating development 
of joint initiatives and activities. 

Projects  

The  EUSBSR  has  given  stimulus  to  start  new  projects  and  processes  of  macro-regional 
relevance  and  it  has  given  new  momentum  to  existing  ones.  It  has  also  given  impetus  to 
continue earlier started macro-regional relevance initiatives. For example, EfficienSea 2, BSR 
Climate  Change  Dialogue  Platform,  From  Gaps  to  Caps,  Baltic  Deal  BRIDGE  and 
Scandria®2Act are built on the results, experience and knowledge gathered in the predecessor 
projects EfficienSea, Baltadapt, 14.3, Baltic Deal and Scandria respectively. In all cases the 
initial  partnerships  have  been  extended  proving  the  relevance  and  growing  interest  of 
stakeholders  to  continue  the  joint  efforts  in  specific  fields  (e.g.  reduction  of  nutrient  losses 
from farms, climate change adaptation, development of e-Navigation, preparedness for land-
based  emergencies,  fostering  clean  fuel  deployment  and  multimodal  transport  through  the 
transport corridor regions). 

Examples: 

The  quality  of  the  Baltic  Sea  water  is  improving  and  nutrient  inflows  are  being  reduced 
through implementation of projects like PRESTO (aimed at improving municipal wastewater 
treatment), or Interactive water management (IWAMA) (focusing on resource efficiency in 
wastewater management). 

Business  development  and  integration  is  stimulated  in  the  Baltic  Sea  region  through  closer 
cooperation  between  companies  and  students  promoted  by  projects  like  Baltic  Training 
Programme. 

Resilience towards and preparedness for emergencies in the region is built up and improved 
trough implementation of projects like BaltPrevResilience.  

Multi-level governance  

The analysis of partners involved in implementing ongoing flagships shows that a wide range 
of  actors,  including  but  not  limited  to  universities,  local,  regional  and  national  authorities, 
NGOs, business, regional organisations etc. are cooperating within the Strategy at all levels of 
governance: local, regional, national, and international. The Strategy has helped to strengthen 
ties and to deepen a dialogue between different actors at all levels of governance through the 
development  of  joint  projects/processes  and  the  establishment  of  new  networks  and  joint 
initiatives. The data shows that local/regional partners are involved in almost 40% of ongoing 
flagships, while private sector – approximately 15%.10 Therefore further efforts are needed to 

9  The  Platform  involves  all  levels  of  governance  (national,  regional  and  local)  and  a  wide  variety  of  climate 

experts and stakeholders. The Platform meets twice a year in the format of round tables. 

10  The data is extracted from an overview table of partners involved in ongoing flagships of the EUSBSR, July 

2016. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
better  involve  actors  from  private  sector  as  well  as  keep  maintaining  and  attracting  more 
actors from regional and local levels.  

Examples: 

‘BSR  Cultural  Dialogue’  established  by  policy  area  ‘Culture’  in  2014  brings  together 
representatives from all levels of governance (local, regional, national and Baltic Sea region) 
with a view to further promote a dialogue on cultural cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. 

‘TENTacle’,  established  by  policy  area  ‘Transport’  in  2016,  aims  to  open  up  the 
implementation  of  the  TEN-T  core  network  corridors  in  the  Baltic  Sea  region  to  a  broader 
group  of  stakeholders  and  a  wider  geographical  area  in  order  to  better  exploit  the  added 
value of the TEN-T core network corridors for the sustainable regional growth and cohesion 
in the Baltic Sea region. 

Horizontal  action  ‘Capacity’  aiming  at  better  involvement  of  different  partners  at  all  levels 
should  further  contribute  to  reinforcing  multi-level  governance  in  the  region.  Several 
initiatives have been taken in this direction. The Baltic Leadership Programme implemented 
by  the  Swedish  Institute  (SI)  in  cooperation  with  several  thematic  area  coordinators  (e.g. 
‘Ship’,  ‘Safe’,  ‘Secure’)  has  proved  to  be  a  successful  training  programme  offering  a 
combination  of  theory  and  practice,  with  a  focus  on  project  development  and  leadership.  It 
helped  to  enhance  the  capacity  of  relevant  Strategy  actors’,  improved  their  knowledge  on 
specific topic and increased networking with different actors involved in the relevant field. 
The  pilot  Baltic  Executive  Programme11  designed  to  help  organisations  to  unlock  the  full 
potential  of  transnational  cooperation  and  primary  targeting  policy  makers  and  senior  civil 
servants  from  the  local  and  regional  level,  as  well  as  capacity  building  initiative  to  be 
developed  by  coordinators  of  horizontal  action  ‘Capacity’  with  a  focus  on  capacity 
enhancement of key implementers of the EUSBSR (e.g. members of steering groups, flagship 
leaders,  representatives  of  managing  authorities  of  respective  financial  programmes)  should 
further help building the capacity of Strategy stakeholders.  

Cross-strategy and cross-cutting cooperation 

Cooperation  between  relevant  thematic  areas  within  the  Strategy  and  with  other  macro-
regional  strategies  has  been  developed  with  a  view  to  maximise  mutual  co-benefits  and 
impact.  The  development  of  the  DanuBalt  project  which  aims  at  tackling  the  health 
innovation and research divide in the Danube and Baltic Sea regions is one of the examples of 
such  cooperation.  Cross-strategy  cooperation  has  also  been  further  enhanced  through 
exchange  of  experience  and  sharing  best  practices  between  the  EUSBSR  and  the  EUSDR 
stakeholders (e.g. in the field of education/people and skills and capacity building), as well as 
between  the  EUSBSR,  Carpathian  Convention  and  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Adriatic  and 
Ionian  Region  in  the  field  of  climate  change  adaptation  and  implementation  of  the  Paris 
Agreement. Cross-cutting cooperation between relevant Strategy areas (e.g. ‘Education’ and 
‘Innovation’,  ‘Hazards’  and  ‘Nutri’,  ‘Climate’  and  ‘Secure’)  has  been  fostered  through 
exchange of experience, projects ideas and the development of cluster cooperation.  

11  The programme is developed by the Swedish Institute in cooperation with the Norden Association and with 
support  from  among  others  the  Baltic  Sea  Commission  and  the  Union  of  Baltic  Cities.  The  Programme 
consisted of three modules organised in February – June 2016. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Coordination and cooperation between ongoing projects in the same field have been increased 
with a view to avoid duplication of work and ensure the maximum value is gained from the 
activities.  This  is  the  case,  for  example,  between  the  projects  implemented  in  the  field  of 
maritime safety and security, and maritime and land-based spatial planning. 

The  requirement  to  develop  smart  specialisation  strategies  (S3)  for  the  European  Structural 
and Investment Funds (ESIF) investments in research and innovation has opened a new cross-
cutting  topic  for  Baltic  Sea  region  cooperation  that  gave  impetus  to  the  new  partnerships 
around  similar  or  complementary  smart  specialisation  priorities  into  joint  collaborative 
projects.  Policy  area  ‘Innovation’  together  with  the  S3  Platform,  national  and  regional 
partners  such  as  region  Skåne  and  Lithuania  have  organised  a  number  of  events  to  foster 
interregional cooperation on smart specialisation.  

Policy development and implications 

The Strategy has generated bigger interest in and more attention to territorial cooperation and 
cohesion and higher interest for transboundary and transnational cooperation in the Baltic Sea 
region. This in turned has led to increased awareness of possibilities and opportunities as well 
as  benefits  of  such  cooperation,  increased  competition  among  and  higher  quality  of 
transnational projects.  

The  Strategy  has  contributed  to  policy  change  and/or  policy  shaping  at  different  levels. 
Incorporation of the policy area ‘Energy’ into the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan 
(BEMIP) initiative has led to a broader scope of regional cooperation on energy matters under 
the BEMIP initiative: new areas – energy efficiency and renewable energy – have been added 
along to exist ones. 

The EfficienSea, EfficienSea II, Monalisa and STM Validation projects have inspired further 
work  and  contributed  to  shaping  global  regulatory  process  on  e-Navigation  in  the 
International  Maritime  Organization  (IMO),  IALA  and  the  International  Hydrographic 
Organisation (IHO), with the Baltic Sea region to be a first mover in developing and testing 
infrastructure and services for e-Navigation. 

The  implementation  of  the  Strategy  has  fostered  and  contributed  to  the  implementation  of 
existing approaches and legislation (e.g. the EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change, the 
Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive,  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  the  Nitrates 
Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, 
and  Baltic  Regional  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  Roadmap  2013-2020)  by  facilitating  the 
implementation of the planned actions and foreseeing complementing actions and projects. 

The  EUSBSR  has  contributed  to  the  agenda  of  specific  Ministerial  or  other  high  level 
meetings convened in the margins of already existing configurations (e.g. HELCOM (Baltic 
Marine  Environment  Protection  Commission  –  Helsinki  Commission),  the  Council  of  the 
Baltic Sea States, and the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference). The Strategy has given new 
stimulus to put back on the political agenda some topics of regional importance. For example, 
the  9th  Conference  of  the  Ministers  of  Culture  of  the  Baltic  Sea  States  (September  2015) 
organised  in  cooperation  with  coordinators  of  policy  area  ‘Culture’  was  the  first  high-level 
meeting  on  culture  since  2008.  Several  other  declarations  and  resolutions  recognising  the 
importance of the Strategy (e.g. in fields of tourism, culture, health, innovation, climate) have 
also  been  adopted  within  existing  regional  frameworks  (e.g.  the  Baltic  Sea  Parliamentary 
Conference, the Council of the Baltic Sea States, the Northern Dimension Partnership). 

13 

 
 
 
 
Integration and cooperation  

Different  dimensions  of  cooperation  and  coordination  have  been  positively  affected  by  the 
EUSBSR. The Strategy has helped strengthening coordination and cooperation between  and 
within  different  institutions  at  different  levels  (including  relevant  Commission  services),  as 
well  as  between  different  stakeholders  and  authorities  within  countries.  The  Strategy  has 
given  impulse  to  further  broaden,  strengthen  and  deepen  cooperation  between  participating 
EU  countries  as  well  as  between  the  EU  and  neighbouring  non-EU  countries  in  the  region, 
such as Iceland, Norway, Belarus and Russia. This was achieved through existing cooperation 
structures  and  the  development  of  joint  projects  in  the  areas  of  mutual  benefit.  Some 
partnerships  extended  beyond  the  Baltic  Sea  region,  involving  partners  from  other  regions 
(e.g. the UK, Portugal, Italy, and the Netherlands) for the benefit of the Baltic Sea region and 
more effective implementation of the Strategy’s objectives have also been built. 

Example: 

A close and sustainable dialogue between EU and non-EU countries in the Baltic Sea region 
is  being  facilitated  and  further  promoted  trough,  for  example,  project  Baltic  Sea  Youth 
Dialogue. It brings together youth from the Baltic Sea region, including Russia and Ukraine, 
who share a common interest in the history of the Baltic Sea region.  

The Strategy has  helped intensify cooperation and develop synergies and complementarities 
between  different  cooperation  structures  and  mechanisms  in  the  Baltic  Sea  region.  Strong 
links  between  environmental  areas  of  the  EUSBSR  and  HELCOM  have  been  developed  to 
avoid parallel or competing work. In December 2014, a dedicated session with environmental 
EUSBSR  thematic  areas  was  successfully  organised  as  a  part  of  a  HELCOM  Heads  of 
Delegation meeting. Concrete proposals on how to improve the synergies between HELCOM 
and  EUSBSR  were  defined  with  the  goal  to  better  communicate  the  policy  directions  and 
needs  by  HELCOM,  which  then  can  be  met  with  and  supported  by  the  EUSBSR  work  and 
projects.  In  May  2015,  a  joint  process  between  policy  area  ‘Hazards’  and  HELCOM  was 
launched with the aim to develop a regional status report on pharmaceuticals. Wide-ranging 
data  was  collected  and  evaluated  from  the  HELCOM  contracting  parties.  This  first-time 
compilation  of  pharmaceutical  data  in  the  Baltic  Sea  region  will  provide  a  unique  basis  for 
elaborating a regional plan of measures. It will also be used in the second holistic assessment 
of  the  Baltic  Sea  to  be  produced  by  HELCOM.  This  is  also  illustrated  by  one  of  the  EU 
priorities for its Chairmanship of HELCOM for 2016-2018: ‘further synergies with regional 
or European governance frameworks will be sought, for instance, with the EUSBSR’.12 

Funding  

Both, the preparation of the EUSBSR projects and the building-up transnational partnerships 
were  facilitated  by  the  launch  of  the  EUSBSR  Seed  Money  Facility  in  2013.  97  projects 
(worth approx. EUR 4 million) were granted for seed money funding during 2013-2016. Over 
the time the Facility has proven to be a very useful tool to support the alignment of funding, 
paving  the  way  to  new  important  macro-regional  projects  with  multinational  partners  that 

12  European Union Chairmanship of HELCOM (1.7.2016 – 30.06.2018) priorities: 

http://www.helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/EU%20Chairmanship%20of%20HELCOM.pdf 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
were  further  funded  by  different  funding  tools  (e.g.  Interreg  Baltic  Sea  Region,  Interreg 
Central Baltic, etc.).13 

Several transnational calls aligned with the EUSBSR objectives were launched. For example, 
in spring 2016 Finland and Sweden launched coordinated European Social Fund transnational 
calls  for  proposals  taking  into  consideration  the  EUSBSR.14  BONUS  ‘Innovation’  call  in 
2012  resulting  from  close  cooperation  with  flagship  ‘BSR  Stars’  under  the  policy  area 
‘Innovation’,  or  the  Swedish  Institute’s  (SI.)  call  in  2016  focusing  on  third  country’s 
participation in the Baltic Sea region are other few examples. These positively contributed to 
better and more efficient use of existing funding tools. 

A  pilot  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  managing  authorities’  network, 
mirroring  the  Baltic  Sea  Network  –  European  Social  Fund  (BSN-ESF)  network,  was 
established  in  2016.  It  aims  at  working  out  concrete  ways  of  supporting  the  EUSBSR 
implementation  by  the  ERDF  funded  country-specific  programmes,  as  well  as  increasing 
coordination across relevant macro-regional stakeholders and contributing to better utilisation 
of  resources  available.  In  order  to  provide  a  more  practical  discussion  on  cooperation  and 
coordination modalities among the country-specific programmes, the Network will first focus 
on innovation in the EUSBSR, specifically on smart specialisation in clean-tech. If and when 
the Network proves to be successful, the scope of cooperation is to be extended to other areas. 

A dialogue between key Strategy actors and representatives of different funding instruments 
has been promoted. One of the positive examples is the establishment of the ‘Strategic Project 
Development  Workshop’  by  policy  area  ‘Culture’.  It  aims  at  bringing  together  flagships 
(ongoing  and  potential  ones)  and  experts/representatives  of  different  funding  tools  with  a 
view to getting familiar about possibilities provided and specifics of certain funding tools.  

CHALLENGES 

Despite positive achievements, certain challenges at all levels of governance still remain and 
need to be overcome before the full potential of the EUSBSR can be achieved. They are inter-
dependent. Linkages between all levels of governance need to be strengthened. 

Political leadership 

Several reasons  (e.g. emergence of new political  priorities,  Strategy’s non-binding and  non-
regulatory character, incomplete presentation of short-term or immediate results showing the 
added value of the Strategy) suggest that the political commitment needs to be reinforced in 
the Baltic Sea region countries. A better involvement of sectorial ministries is required, which 
should integrate an EUSBSR perspective into their regular activities. 

13  E.g.  BLASTICS  –  Plastic  waste  pathways  into  the  Baltic  Sea  (Interreg  Central  Baltic);  Interactive  water 
management  (IWAMA)  (Interreg  Baltic  Sea  Region);  Enhancing  freight  mobility  and  logistics  by 
strengthening  inland  waterway  and  river  sea  transport  and  promoting  new  international  shipping  services 
(EMMA) (Interreg Baltic Sea Region). 

14  Sweden has launched a coordinated transnational call for proposals in the fields of social economy, inclusion, 
youth  employment  and  migrants.  Specific  priority  will  be  given  to  projects  addressing  the  EUSBSR  and 
implemented  in  that  geographical  area.  Finland  has  also  launched  a  call  for  projects  with  partners  from 
several EU Member States, financed under the Sustainable Growth and Jobs 2014–2020 programme, where a 
special  focus  area  is  cooperation  with  the  EU  Member  States  in  the  Baltic  Sea  region  in  support  of  the 
objectives  of  the  EUSBSR.  Supporting  the  EUSBSR  is  one  of  the  horizontal  principles  determined  in  the 
programme.  The  call  covers  four  themes:  employment,  youth  employment,  learning  and  skills  and  social 
inclusion. 

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Scope of the Strategy 

In 2014-2015 the Action Plan of the EUSBSR went through an extensive revision resulting in 
a more streamlined and focused Action Plan and re-confirming the commitment of actors on 
the ground. It has reconfirmed environment as a core field in the Strategy and witnessed the 
growing interest of cooperation, for example, in the fields of energy and culture. However, the 
broad  scope  of  the  Strategy,  in  particular  given  the  challenges  of  resources  scarcity  in 
Member States and the European Commission, remains an issue. In addition, the existence of 
too many thematic areas covered may impact negatively the strategic focus of EUSBSR. 

Human resources  

Not  all  Baltic  Sea  region  countries  have  allocated  sufficient  time  and  resources  to  key 
Strategy  implementers,  in  particular  to  thematic  area  coordinators  and  steering  group 
members. Low administrative support and insufficient staffing for the Strategy work still is an 
issue jeopardising the success of the Strategy.  

Lack  of  resources  for  day-to-day  work  and  different  level  of  motivation  of  actors  involved 
lead to uneven representation and commitment from the Member States in steering groups. In 
some  steering  groups  too  few  Member  States  participate.  Moreover,  many  of  country 
representatives  are  not  given  clear  mandate  from  their  home  administrations.  This  also 
explains  why  some  thematic  area  coordinators  seem  unable  to  coordinate  effectively  at 
macro-regional level, resulting in more bilateral orientation than foreseen by the Strategy.  

In  addition,  individual  managing  capacities  of  key  actors  vary  and  need  to  be  further 
strengthened.  They  need  to  be  equipped  with  tools  and  information  needed  to  manage 
transnational  cooperation  in  a  broad  sense  and  not  limit  their  work  mainly  only  to  projects 
development.  

Funding  

The alignment of funding still remains an issue, even though progress has been made. There is 
a gap between what is written in relevant programming documents and what is implemented 
in  practice.  The  information  provided  by  managing  authorities  of  European  Structural  and 
Investment Funds (ESIF) programmes and the results of the study ‘Cooperation methods and 
tools  applied  by  ESIF  programmes  for  2014-2020  to  support  implementation  of  the 
EUSBSR’15 show that different practical arrangements are foreseen to support the EUSBSR. 
These,  for  example,  include  but  are  not  limited  to  organisation  of  the  targeted  calls,  giving 
extra  points  or  preference 
joint 
implementation of projects, in which partners receive funding from the programmes of their 
respective country or region, spending part of the funds outside the programme area (Art. 70 
of Common Provisions Regulation) etc. 

to  a  project/action  with  macro-regional 

impact, 

For  example,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  inclusion  of  macro-regional  cooperation  into  a  wider 
range of projects funded by country-specific programmes (mainly by the ERDF), Sweden and 
Lithuanian  have  planned  a  flexible  mechanism  that  allows  ongoing  projects  to  apply  for 

15  The  study  was  commissioned  by  INTERACT  and  carried  by  Spatial  Foresight  (June  2015). 
http://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/communication/news/590702-cooperation-methods-and-tools-to-
support-the-eusbsr. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
additional funding for cooperation activities to be implemented with international partners in 
the macro-region, i.e. so called ‘transnational cooperation component’.  

However, up to now very few arrangements foreseen by different programmes have been put 
in practice. In addition, a high number of programmes remain reluctant and plan to continue 
‘business as usual’ and contribute to the implementation of the Strategy if projects satisfy the 
set criteria listed in the Programme or contribute to the objectives of the Programme.  

Though the Strategy is to be an integral part of all relevant EU, regional, national and local 
policy  frameworks,  there  is  still  over-reliance  on  EU  funding  and  in  particular  on  Interreg 
programmes. Possibilities provided by other financial tools need to be better exploited.  

Other challenges linked to funding include:  

  insufficient  dialogue  between  key  Strategy  implementers  and  representatives  of 

different funding instruments; 

  lack  of  willingness  to  coordinate  actions  and  activities  among  relevant  programmes 

within the country and between countries; 

  reluctance  and/or  lack  of  interest  from  respective  monitoring  committees  to 
acknowledge  the  added  value  of  transnational  cooperation  and  macro-regional 
strategies in achieving the objectives of respective Programme; 

  lack  of  clarity  of  practicalities  (e.g.  spending  money  outside  the  Programme  area  or 
combining  different  funding  tools  and  sources)  to  fund  projects  involving  multiple 
participants from several countries; 

  absence  of  one-stop  shop  containing  information  of  all  available  relevant  funding 
sources and calls (the launch of the dedicated website by INTERACT and the Swedish 
Institute (SI) (‘funding portal’) providing information on different funding possibilities 
for EUSBSR projects should ease the process); 

  limited financing for cross-sectorial/cross-thematic projects; 
  narrow-minded approach and a fear to lose money allocated to a specific region. For 
example,  many  regions  see  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF) 
funding as  their ‘own’  and think that it should be used  only  to  fulfil regional needs. 
However, a lot could be done without spending money outside the programme area by, 
for  example,  coordinating  activities  and  investments  with  relevant  actors  from  other 
regions/countries,  exchanging  information  and  coordinating  at  the  project  design 
stage.  In  this  respect  the  coordination  between  regions/countries  should  be  further 
strengthened.   

Communication and promotion 

Awareness  of  the  Strategy  and  the  understanding  its  role,  purpose  and  added  value,  in 
particular  in  the  light  of  already  existing  initiatives  in  the  region,  is  still  not  sufficient.  A 
better  awareness  of  the  Strategy  would  allow  it  to  better  reach  out  to  relevant  potential 
stakeholders, to increase the interest in engaging in projects and to attract new actors to the 
Strategy work.  

Effective communication should be done by all actors involved and at all levels, with special 
focus on the local and regional level where commitment needs to be reinforced. It should not 
be limited to stakeholders who are already aware of the Strategy and should clearly show the 
interest,  benefits  and  added  value  for  countries  involved,  as  well  as  for  ordinary  citizens, 
institutions  and  project  applicants.  Joint  or  coordinated  communication  efforts  between 
countries involved (e.g. trough publication of joint articles), more information on the Strategy 
and  possibilities  provided  by  it  through  illustration  of  success  stories  and  presentation  of 

17 

 
 
 
examples should be better utilised aiming to increase awareness of and promote the Strategy 
and  its  results.  A  better  use  of  the  visual  identity  of  the  EUSBSR  when  presenting  the 
Strategy-related work would also help to improve the EUSBSR branding. In this respect the 
EUSBSR Communication Strategy adopted in December 2015 should steer the way and help 
to increase awareness and visibility of the Strategy.   

Monitoring  

To  monitor  the  progress  of  the  Baltic  Sea  region  towards  the  agreed  objectives  and  the 
implementation of the EUSBSR is crucial. In the Council Conclusions on the governance of 
macro-regional  strategies,  the  Council  ‘invites  the  Commission,  in  cooperation  with  the 
Member  States,  to  support  the  development  of  adequate  monitoring  and  evaluation  tools’.16 
Therefore, there is a need to set-up a robust measuring and monitoring system, which should 
be  based  on  realistic  and  credible  targets  and  indicators  with  clear  baseline.  Reliable  and 
comparable  data  bases  at  the  appropriate  statistical  level  needs  to  be  established.  ESPON 
programme efforts to develop a consolidated territorial monitoring system for the Baltic Sea 
region should contribute to this objective.  

Setting targets and indicators suitable for measuring the impact of thematic area activities and 
its  contribution  to  fulfilment  of  the  objectives  remains  an  issue,  in  particular  in  view  of  the 
other  cooperation  activities  implemented  in  the  region  and  knowing  that  no  specific,  new 
funding is assigned to the Strategy. 

Process versus implementation  

Up  to  now  still  much  time  and  efforts  were  spent  on  process  and  governance  issues.  Two 
extensive and comprehensive revisions of the Action Plan were made since the launch of the 
Strategy. There is now a need to move from a process to an implementation oriented approach 
and  to  focus  efforts  on  a  successful  implementation  of  the  concrete  actions  foreseen  in  the 
Action Plan.  

Cross-cutting cooperation 

The four horizontal actions of the EUSBSR cover by their nature cross-cutting issues. They 
are  expected  to  support  the  implementation  of  each  policy  area,  which  up  to  now  has  been 
done  to  a  limited  extent.  There  is  potential  for  a  more  active  role  and  support  provided  by 
horizontal  action  leaders  on  cross-cutting  issues,  such  as  fund  raising  for  projects  and 
activities, establishing stakeholder networks in the region as well as neighbouring countries or 
project clustering. A better exchange and dialogue among relevant thematic areas would allow 
it  to  better  exploit  synergies  and  complementariness  (e.g.  in  case  of  an  increased  focus  on 
cross-sectorial  innovation  and  societal  challenges  in  the  smart  specialisation,  which  can  be 
better exploited). In addition, a closer cooperation between national coordinators and thematic 
area coordinators would strengthen the links between coordination and implementation levels. 

From project to policy level 

The link between project and policy levels needs to be reinforced. Coordinators of policy area 
and  horizontal  action  are  not  always  aware  of  project  results.  This  leads  to  their  limited 

16  Council Conclusions on the governance of macro-regional strategies 21 October 2014. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
capabilities to facilitate the liaison between project results and policy discussion/change. The 
increased awareness of project results would allow it to circulate, to build and to use them for 
policy improvements.  

Flagships: quality and sustainability 

Lack  of  partner  search  tools,  difficulties  to  find  and  attract  right  people  with  right 
competences  hamper  the  building  of  high  quality  projects.  Therefore  there  is  potential  for 
increasing  the  quality  of  flagships.  High  quality  projects  involving  partners  from  as  many 
countries as possible as well as addressing macro-regional challenges and producing tangible 
results with measurable impact need to be implemented. The results of the EUSBSR flagships 
are not always visible and sustainable and should be better managed, e.g. through follow-up 
projects and activities to avoid undermining the achieved results.  

RECOMMENDATIONS  

Based on experience reported here, the following areas of improvement have been identified: 

 

translate political will  into administrative support and ensure sufficient resources for 
day-to-day work on a long term basis; 

  organise  more  frequent  and  regular  political  discussions  on  the  EUSBSR  at  national 
level  in  the  Parliament  or  Government,  and  in  the  Council,  and  relevant  Ministerial 
meetings; 

  strengthen commitment of sectorial ministries; 
 

 

reinforce  alignment  of  the  EUSBSR  with  all  relevant  (EU,  regional,  national,  local) 
funding instruments;  
further  develop  and  strengthen  a  dialogue  between  managing  authorities  of  different 
funding  instruments  and  key  Strategy  implementers  in  order  to  achieve  intended 
results; 

  make full use of possibilities foreseen by different ESIF programmes; 
  develop,  at  country  level,  communication  plans  or  strategies  coherent  with  the 

 

EUSBSR Communication Strategy;  
improve  cross-cutting  cooperation  between  relevant  thematic  areas  (e.g.  through 
exchange  on  ways  of  working  and  joint  meetings)  with  a  view  to  increase  mutual 
benefits, as well as between national coordinators and coordinators of thematic areas; 

  define  a  more  active  role  of  horizontal  actions 

leaders 

in  supporting 

the 

implementation of policy areas;  
improve the liaison between project results and policy discussion/change; 

 
  explore  the  possibility  to  establish  a  system  for  the  rotating  Chair  of  the  EUSBSR 

 

national coordinators group; 
introduce a voluntary rotation of thematic area coordinators a regular basis (e.g. in 3-
year  terms);  this  would  ease  the  administrative  burden  falling  on  long  serving  host 
ministries and agencies, widen the networks, bring new ideas and increase the overall 
commitment  to  the  Strategy.  The  steering  group  and  a  close  cooperation  between 
incoming and outgoing coordinators would then represent continuity;  

  strengthening competence and capacity building (both on individual  and institutional 
levels)  of  existing  and  potential  stakeholders  of  the  EUSBSR  through,  e.g.  a 
combination of training programmes, workshops, information activities; 

  continue to secure a mixed participation of the private/public sectors, as well as with 

local and regional actors; 

19 

 
 
 
 

further  explore  opportunities  for  cooperation  in  smart  specialisation  for  creation  of 
strategic  linkages  to  tackle  common  challenges,  leverage  opportunities  at  the  Baltic 
Sea region level and look for alignment for S3 funding among the Baltic Sea region 
partner countries. 

20 

 
 
Report on the implementation of the European Union Strategy for the 
Danube Region 

In  the  Presidency  Conclusions  of  18  June  2009  the  European  Council  requested  the 
Commission to prepare an EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR)17. The Commission 
adopted  a  Communication  on  8  December  2010  (with  annexed  an  Action  Plan  identifying 
concrete actions and examples of projects in 11 priority areas)18, which was then endorsed in 
April 2011 by the Council19. It is the second (in time) EU macro-regional strategy, after the 
EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. 

The EUSDR unites 9 EU Member States (Germany, Austria, the Slovak Republic, the Czech 
Republic,  Hungary,  Slovenia,  Croatia,  Romania  and  Bulgaria)  and  5  non-EU  countries 
(Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine) and is 
home to 115 million inhabitants. 

A  first  Report  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions concerning the EUSDR was issued on 8 April 
201320. 

CONTENT – PRIORITIES 

Although the 14 countries are different in terms of economic strength, the region is strongly 
interlinked,  with  potential  for  further  integration  and  growth.  It  has  a  strategic  position, 
opening up the EU to its neighbours, the Black Sea region, the South Caucasus and Central 
Asia. It hosts the world’s most international river, which is a major transport axis, a crucial 
interconnected hydrological basin, and a world renowned ecological corridor. 

The  cooperation  activities  focus  on  four  pillars:  connecting  the  region;  protecting  the 
environment; strengthening the socio-economic aspects and building prosperity through 
security and capacity building21. 

17  European Council Conclusions of 19 June 2009, point 34: ‘It (…) invites the Commission to present an EU 

strategy for the Danube region before the end of 2010’. 

18  Communication  from  the  Commission  concerning  the  European  Union  Strategy  for  the  Danube  Region  - 

8.12.2010 - COM(2010) 715. 

19  Conclusions of the General Affairs Council, 13 April 2011 and Conclusions of the European Council, 23-24 

June 2011. 

20  Report from the Commission concerning the European Union Strategy for the Danube Region – 08.04.2013 -

COM(2013) 181 final. 

21  See Danube Region Strategy: Success Stories, European Commission, 2016. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Connecting the region 

Although  the  Danube  River  is  recognised  as  a  major  transport  corridor,  it  is  still  used  way 
below  its  full  capacity.  As  inland  waterway  transport  has  important  environmental  and 
efficiency benefits, its potential must be exploited in a sustainable way and in full respect of 
the  EU  environmental  acquis.  There  is  particular  need  for  greater  multimodality,  and 
extending  infrastructure  in  transport  nodes  such  as  inland  ports.  Priority  Areas  1A 
‘waterways’ and 1B ‘mobility – rail-road-air’ are working towards these objectives. 

Energy is another common challenge. Fragmented markets lead to higher costs and reduced 
competition. Reliance on too few external suppliers increases vulnerability, as periodic winter 
crises  testify.  A  greater  diversity  of  supply  through  interconnections  and  genuine  regional 
markets increases energy security. Improved efficiency, including energy saving and the use 
of  more  renewable  sources,  is  crucial.  This  is  the  area  in  which  Priority  Area  2  ‘energy’ 
works. 

With  a  shared  history  and  tradition,  culture  and  arts  reflecting  the  region’s  diverse 
communities, as well as its outstanding natural heritage, it has many attractive assets. ‘Culture 
and tourism’ is the field of action in Priority Area 3. 

Protecting the environment 

The Danube Region is a major international hydrological basin and ecological corridor which 
requires a regional approach to nature conservation, spatial planning and water management. 
Pollution does not respect national borders. Sustainable water management is needed, with a 
joint  effort  to  reduce  pollution  from  organic,  nutrient  or  hazardous  substances.  The 
environmental  impact,  for  example,  on  air  and  water  quality,  of  transport  links,  tourist 
developments, or new energy-producing facilities must also be taken into account. 

Major  flooding,  droughts,  and  industrial  pollution  events  are  all  too  frequent.  The  region’s 
inhabitants must be protected from disastrous events – such as floods and industrial accidents 
which  have  significant  negative  transnational  impact  –  by  preventive  and  disaster 
management  measures  implemented  jointly.  Work  undertaken  in  isolation  simply  shifts  the 
problem and places neighbouring regions in difficulty. The increasing frequency of droughts 
is  also  an  issue,  as  is  adaptation  to  climate  change.  Prevention,  preparedness  and  effective 
response  require  a  high  degree  of  cooperation  and  information  sharing.  The  loss  of  natural 
habitats  puts  pressure  on  fauna  and  flora,  and  affects  the  overall  quality  of  environmental 
health.  The  fragmentation  of  ecosystems,  land  use  intensification  and  urban  sprawl  are  also 
major pressures. 

Under this pillar, the areas of cooperation are, respectively, Priority Areas 4 ‘water quality’, 5 
‘environmental risks’ and 6 ‘biodiversity, landscapes, quality of air and soils’. 

Building prosperity  

The  Danube  Region  experiences  very  wide  disparities,  being  home  to  some  of  the  most 
successful  regions  in  the  EU  as  well  as  some  of  the  poorest.  In  particular,  contacts  and 
cooperation  are  often  lacking,  both  financially  and  institutionally.  Enterprises  do  not 
sufficiently  exploit  the  international  dimension  of  marketing,  innovation  or  research.  The 
share of highly educated people in the region is lower than the EU average, creating another 
pronounced  divide.  The  most  capable  often  move  to  other  areas.  Thus,  there  are  great 
opportunities to achieve results though cooperation and exchange of experience. 

22 

 
 
 
 
Investment  in  people  is  needed  to  enable  the  region  to  progress  sustainably  and  to  grow, 
prioritising knowledge and inclusion. Targeted support for research infrastructure stimulates 
excellence  and  deepens  networking  between  knowledge  providers,  companies  and  policy-
makers. Clusters and links binding centres of excellence into existing education and research 
networks extend the competitiveness of upstream enterprises to the whole region. 

Higher levels of employment are crucial as people need opportunities close to where they live. 
The  region  must  be  able  to  offer  bright  and  enterprising  people  a  future  through  stronger 
cooperation, including marginalised communities: one third of the EU’s population at risk of 
poverty lives in the area, many coming from marginalised groups. Under this pillar, Priority 
Areas  7  ‘knowledge  society’,  8  ‘competitiveness’  and  9  ‘people  and  skills’  are  developing 
joint cooperation initiatives in the region. 

Strengthening the region 

Significant  problems  persist  with  security  and  serious  and  organised  crime.  Trafficking 
human beings and smuggling goods are particular problems in several countries. Corruption 
undermines  public  confidence  and  hampers  development.  All  these  challenges  call  for 
reinforcement  of  the  rule  of  law,  both  within  and  across  jurisdictions.  Intelligence  must  be 
better  shared,  more  effective,  and  supported  by  joint  actions.  Structures  and  capacity  for 
private  and  public  sector  decision-making  must  be  improved,  including  good  planning  and 
international cooperation. These are the fields of action under Priority Areas 10 ‘institutional 
capacity and cooperation’ and 11 ‘security’. 

ACTORS/GOVERNANCE 

The thematic fields are led by priority area coordinators (PACs) – officials of national and 
regional administrations and experts in their areas. They are supported by counterparts from 
across  the  Danube  Region,  and  are  organised  in  Steering  Groups,  in  which  also 
representatives of civil society organisations may participate.  

At  national  and  regional  level,  implementation  is  ensured  by  national  coordinators  (NCs). 
NCs  serve  as  the  link  between  the  political  level  and  the  Priority  Areas  and  take  own 
decisions or prepare decisions to be taken at the political level. In addition, regular meetings 
of national Ministers of Foreign Affairs and sectorial ministers aim to ensure and renew the 
political commitment. 

The  European  level  helps  to  root  the  Strategy  in  EU  policies,  through  contacts  with  the 
stakeholders in the Danube countries – establishing links to EU decision makers, and through 
institutional  support  provided  by  the  EU  budget.  The  European  Commission  facilitates  the 
functioning  of  the  strategy  bodies  where  necessary  (e.g.  specific  scientific  Support  to  the 
Danube Strategy carried out by the JRC). 

In  order  to  facilitate  the  continued  cooperation  among  bodies  of  the  EUSDR,  a  Danube 
Strategy Point (DSP) was established in 2015. The DSP supports the actors involved in the 
implementation of the EUSDR and takes care of the communication activities of the EUSDR 
(including its website). 

The  Interreg  Danube  Transnational  Programme,  covering  the  whole  territory  of  the 
EUSDR,  directly  contributes  to  the  Strategy’s  implementation  through  its  thematic  priority 
axes  (aligned  with  the  Strategy’s  priorities)  and  its  support  to  the  Strategy’s  governance 
mechanisms and structures (notably via the Danube Strategy Point). 

23 

 
 
 
 
RESULTS 

Projects  

Since  2012,  joint  efforts  were  undertaken  to  commonly  develop  projects  aimed  at 
implementing the Action Plan of the EUSDR. In some cases, projects already existing  – for 
example  projects  co-financed  under  the  2007-2013  South  East  Europe  or  Central  Europe 
transnational cooperation programmes – formed the basis for joint actions or new projects by 
the  Priority  Areas  (PAs)  of  the  EUSDR.  In  many  other  cases,  new  projects  were  initiated, 
developed and implemented under the EUSDR. 

A specific initiative for the scientific support to EUSDR was launched by the JRC in 2013 in 
close cooperation with the key scientific partners of the Danube macro-region. In three years 
of activity, through its thematic clusters in key areas as bioenergy, water, land and soil, air, 
data and technology transfer, the initiative concretely contributed to the capacity building in 
the  region  and  led  to  over  40  scientific  publications  and  technical  reports,  7.000  data  sets 
organised and shared, and around 4.000 stakeholders involved. The JRC initiative includes the 
support to  Smart  Specialisation strategies in the Danube Region to  foster the integrated and 
coordinated approach towards S3 at macro-regional level. 
Overall, a rich set of initiatives are under way under the umbrella of the EUSDR22, which 
shows that the strategy is delivering results.  

Examples: pillar 1 (connecting the region) 

A  Masterplan  on  Fairway  rehabilitation  and  maintenance  of  the  Danube  river  and  its 
tributaries  was  prepared  by  PA  1A  (inland  navigation)  and  endorsed  by  the  Ministers  of 
transport  of all  EUSDR  countries  except  Hungary  on  3rd  December  2014.  This  Master  Plan 
lays down precisely the investment requirements in order to ensure navigability of the entire 
river  and  it  is  currently  being  implemented,  in  particular  though  the  FAIRway  project  co-
financed  by  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility.  It  was  again  endorsed  by  the  Ministers  of 
Transport of all EUSDR countries (with the exception of Hungary) on 24th June 2016.    

A  Masterplan  for  liquid  natural  gas  (LNG)  on  the  Rhine-Main-Danube  was  also  adopted, 
aiming  at  promoting  LNG  as  a  cleaner  fuel  for  transportation,  thus  allowing  for  reduced 
navigation costs while contributing to air quality of the region.  

A  practical  manual  on  border  controls  along  the  Danube  and  its  navigable  tributaries  was 
jointly  developed  by  PA  1A  and  11  (security)  and  published  in  2015.  It  allows  for  better 
planning of shipping as well as compliance with navigation regulations.  

Joint studies and models on gas market, geothermal energy and renewable sources have been 
undertaken  in  the  framework  of  PA  2  (energy).  They  pave  the  way  to  an  integrated  and 
efficient energy market in the region, reducing the cost of energy, the dependency on external 
sources and the impact on the environment. They also underline the possible synergies with 
the Energy Union and energy policy agenda of the EU. 

In  the  area  of  tourism,  the  Roman  Emperors  and  Danube  Wine  Route  projects  were 
incorporated in 2015 into the Council of Europe Cultural Routes. PA 3 (tourism) organised in 
June 2016 a ministerial conference on the new threats to tourism posted by global terrorism. 

22  See: Danube Region Strategy: Success Stories, European Commission, 2016. 

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Examples: pillar 2 (protecting the environment) 

DANUBEPARKS  2.0  allowed  further  developing  the  network  of  protected  areas  along  the 
Danube,  exchanging  and  promoting  expertise  in  nature  management.  The  network  won  the 
Natura 2000 award in 2015.  

STURGEON 2020, launched in 2013, provides for a set of coordinated actions, promoted by 
PA 4 (water) and 6 (biodiversity) to further rescue and protect the Danube sturgeon, a species 
which  is  still  strongly  endangered  by  infrastructure  projects  on  navigability  and  energy  and 
requires  an  integration  of  nature  conservation  consideration  at  all  stages  of  planning  and 
developing of infrastructure projects.  

SEERISK helped developing a methodology to assess the risks related to climate change (in 
particular,  floods,  which  are  recurring  in  the  Danube  region).  Through  CC-WARE,  projects 
for  mitigating  the  vulnerability  of  water  resources  were  implemented.  The  DANUBE 
FLOODPLAIN  project  has  been  further  developed  by  PA  5  (environmental  risks)  and 
endorsed  by  the  Environment  Ministers  at  the  2016  conference  of  the  International 
Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). 

The Danube Air Nexus cluster covers all countries of the Danube region. It aims to deal with 
air-related  issues  in  the  region  and  especially,  the  assessment  of  air  quality  sources  and  the 
assessment of the impacts of air pollution on health. 

Examples: pillar 3 (building prosperity) 

With  the  INCO.NET  project,  launched  in  2014  under  PA  7  (knowledge  society),  all  actors 
interested in the promotion of science and innovation in the Danube region are connected and 
provided with wide-ranging information. Joint research is also made possible at the two large 
river modelling centres set up with the DREAM project.  

A Danube Funding Coordination Network (DFCN) was set up in 2016 in order to synchronize 
national efforts leading to multilateral collaboration in research and innovation.  

In the area of labour market, focus of PA 9 (people and skills), ERASMUS+ co-finances duel 
vocational  education  in  the  Danube  region,  making  use  of  already  available  experience  in 
Germany and Austria. Youth in 16 schools are given the opportunity to participate in cultural 
dialogue 
the  project  EMPOWERING  YOUNG  PEOPLE-CONNECTING 
EUROPE.  

thanks 

to 

A  socio-economic  study  of  the  Danube  region,  published  in  2015,  has  been  coordinated  by 
PA  8  (competitiveness).  Main  aim  of  the  study  was  to  analyse  the  current  situation  in  the 
Danube  region  with  respect  to  prosperity,  entrepreneurship/SMEs  and  cooperation  activities 
in order to identify the obstacles and draw recommendations on areas where developments are 
necessary. The analysis serves as a basis for joint work particularly in the field of economic 
development 

Examples: pillar 4 (strengthening the region) 

The  overall  security  of  the  river  waterway  was  strengthened  by  the  DARIF  (Danube  River 
Forum)  project,  developed  by  PA  11  (security).  A  ministerial  conference  on  international 
terrorism in the Danube region was organised in January 2016. PA 10 (institutional capacity 
and cooperation) supported several projects by providing expertise on capacity building. PA 
1A has been particularly active in non-EU countries.  

25 

 
 
 
 
Several  important  horizontal  pilot  initiatives  have  been  coordinated  by  PA  10  (institutional 
capacity  and  cooperation)  with  the  support  of  the  European  Commission.  A  Technical 
Assistance Facility assisted the development of project ideas into ‘bankable/fundable’ project 
concepts.  The  START  (Danube  Region  project  Fund)  provides  small  grants  for  the 
development  and  implementation  of  projects  with  relevance  for  the  EUSDR  in  the  form  of 
seed money. Two call for proposals launched in 2014 and 2015 proved to be very successful, 
with more than 700 applications submitted from all 14 Danube region countries and a total of 
49 projects selected. 

The Danube Financing Dialogue brings together small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) 
from the whole Danube region with international financing institutions and national funding 
sources, providing a unique platform for stimulating match-making of SMEs financing needs 
with the financing possibilities. Five editions took place since the launch of the Strategy, the 
last  one  being  organised  in  Bratislava  on  May  2016.  Euro  Access  Danube  Region  offers  a 
website for potential beneficiaries to find the right EU programme to fund their project idea.  
The  data  base  list  current  calls  for  proposals  under  EU  programmes  that  are  open  for 
applicants in the Danube region. 

Based  on  funding  by  the  European  Parliament,  a  ‘Danube  Strategic  Project  Fund’  has  been 
launched in 2016 also by PA 10 in  cooperation with  the European Commission,  which will 
aim at supporting the elaboration of projects in view of their financing by ESIF or other funds, 
with specific focus on initiatives in non-EU countries and initiatives involving youth. 

Improved culture of cooperation 

Results from the EUSDR are not to be observed exclusively in the area or projects. One of the 
main results is the development of a cooperation approach in the concerned administrations 
stakeholders. The EUSDR has very clearly contributed to an improved culture of cooperation. 
The  change  in  the  mind-set,  creating  a  sense  of  common  responsibility,  helped  bringing 
together  stakeholders  which  were  only  loosely  connected  and  to  better  link  and  involve 
existing  transnational  institutions.  It  opened  opportunities  for  access  to  information,  know-
how and best practices in other countries, which helps finding solutions to common problems. 
This led to intensified cooperation between different PAs and MRS.  

Examples:  

Cooperation  between  Priority  Areas:  several  examples  of  projects  and  activities  jointly 
implemented  or  developed  by  different  Priority  Areas  can  be  mentioned.  Examples  are  the 
manual on border controls jointly developed by PA 1A (navigation) and PA 11 (security), the 
Danube INCO-NET developed by PA 7 (knowledge society) and 8 (competitiveness) and the 
DANUBEPARKS  project  developed  by  PA  3  (tourism  and  culture),  6  (biodiversity)  and  7 
(knowledge society).  

Cooperation  between  macro-regional  strategies:  due  to  the  significant  geographical  overlap 
between  EUSDR  and  EUSAIR  (Slovenia,  Croatia,  Serbia,  Montenegro  and  Bosnia-
Herzegovina), joint meetings have been held for thematic fields of common interest, such as 
transport,  energy  and  environment.  Representatives  of  relevant  Action  Groups  of  EUSALP 
(e.g.  energy)  have  attended  meetings  of  EUSDR  Priority  Areas,  in  view  of  establishing 
working links and create synergies. 

Dialogue with international organisations 

26 

 
 
 
 
It  also  led  to  intensified  dialogue  and  cooperation  with  existing  international  organisations 
operating in the region, which in turn helped to raise the political relevance of the region. 

Examples:  

A  joint  paper  on  cooperation  was  developed  between  the  International  Commission  for  the 
Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) and PA4 (water quality) and 5 (environmental risks) 
of the EUSDR.   

A  synergy  document  and  a  Memorandum  of  Cooperation  were  agreed  by  the  Carpathian 
Convention and several PAs of the  EUSDR. The Carpathian region  is a strategic functional 
area  within the  Danube region  and the  cooperation  between the  Carpathian  Convention  and 
the  EUSDR  priority  areas  allows  better  coordinating  regional  development  efforts  and 
creating synergies.   

A  joint  event  was  organised  in  Sarajevo  in  April  2016  by  the  EUSDR  (PA10,  capacity 
building and cooperation), Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy (DG REGIO), 
United  Nations  Environment  Programme  (UNEP)  and  the  Regional  Cooperation  Council 
(RCC),  aimed  at  discussing  possible  way  of  improving  the  participation  of  Western  Balkan 
countries in the EUSDR and EUSAIR, in particular in the area of environmental protection.  

EU enlargement and neighbourhood policy  

This is the context where the potential of the EUSDR for facilitating integration of candidate 
and potential candidate countries to accede the EU can be best used. The EUSDR, covering 
fourteen  countries,  nine  of  them  EU  Member  States,  clearly  contributed  to  the  EU 
enlargement  and  neighbourhood  policy  agendas  by  allowing 
thematic 
cooperation  and  enhancing  the  administrative  culture  in  non-EU  countries.  The  creation  of 
solid  networks  and  partnerships  across  sector  and  public/private  actors,  such  as  ministries, 
universities, research centres, NGOs, facilitate the stabilisation of sensitive areas. 

intensifying 

Examples:  

Under  the  auspices  of  the  EUSDR,  the  first  European  Grouping  of  Territorial  Cooperation 
(EGTC) with a non-EU country was set up (Hungary-Ukraine).  

In  order  to  fully  exploit  the  opportunities  offered  by  the  EUSDR,  Moldova  set  up  a  new 
coordination  scheme  in  2015  and  clearly  invested  in  its  participation  into  the  strategy,  in 
particular  by  involving  the  relevant  line  ministries  and  ensuring  collaboration  on  EUSDR 
relevant topics.  

Progresses  were  made  also  in  Ukraine,  where  the  fact  that only  four  regions  are  part  of  the 
EUSDR represents a further challenge.  

Horizontal cooperation at national level  

Spill-over effects at national level are also to be mentioned. Not only several projects would 
not have emerged or be further developed without the Danube strategy, but in some cases they 
also served to orient national policies and develop projects at regional or local level which are 
of benefit for larger areas, including the transnational dimension.  The EUSDR strengthened 
the  coordination  between  policies  at  national  level,  leading  to  an  improved  dialogue  and 
synergies  between  ministries.  This  in  turn  enhances  the  effectiveness  of  policy  making  and 
implementation.  This  is  particularly  the  case  in  countries  which  set  up  an  EUSDR 
coordination mechanism at national level in order to better address the multi-sector and multi-

27 

 
 
 
 
level  governance  nature  of  the  EUSDR.  Clearly,  the  coordination  also  facilitates  links 
between policies and funding opportunities. Furthermore, the EUSDR facilitates reaching out 
to relevant stakeholders both at national and local level, as well as the dialogue with NGOs. 
Local authorities and NGOs are generally not aware of the potential for regional development 
contained in the EUSDR, and reaching out by EUSDR national coordinators to the local and 
NGO  level  led  to  clear  improvement  of  the  awareness,  creating  further  potential  for project 
development and partnerships. In some cases it also allowed for a greater involvement of the 
sub-national  level  (regional  or  local)  in  the  design  and  implementation  of  national  sectoral 
policies. 

Examples:  

The  project  ReStEP  –  Regional  Sustainable  Energy  Policy  has  been  inserted  in  2015  in  the 
National Reform Programme of the Czech Republic as a successful example aiming at define 
the energy potential of renewable sources at regional level.  

In  Romania  the  GREEN  PORT  Giurgiu  was  developed  as  local  level  project  aimed  at 
enhancing navigability, as a new intermodal goods terminal by the Romanian municipality of 
Giurgiu and an Austrian company active in the logistic area. 

Governance 

One  of  the  most  visible  results  of  the  EUSDR  is  the  setup  of  an  Interreg  Danube 
Transnational  Programme matching  exactly the geographical area of the Danube Strategy 
providing  support  to  its  governance  (via  technical  assistance  to  PACs  the  DSP)  and 
contributing  directly  to  the  Strategy’s  implementation  through  its  thematic  priority  axes 
(aligned with the Strategy’s priorities). The results of the first call, completed in autumn 2016, 
show  that  the  large  majority  of  co-financed  projects  directly  or  indirectly  contribute  to  the 
implementation of the EUSDR.  

In 2014 the fourteen countries jointly set up a new body for facilitating the implementation of 
the  EUSDR  and  the  involvement  of  all  concerned  and  potentially  interested  actors,  the 
Danube  Strategy  Point  (DSP).  Following  a  decision  jointly  taken  by  all  participating 
countries  on  1st  September  2014,  based  on  four  applications,  the  DSP  is  hosted  by  the 
Representation of Baden Württemberg to the EU. The six members of the DSP staff were also 
recruited jointly by the EUSDR representatives, and the DSP has been operational since June 
2015, based on a commonly agreed work-plan. In the first year and a half of activity, the DSP 
and has  been  active mainly  in  the area of communication  (new visual  identity and coherent 
web  sites  for  all  PAs,  active  information  platform  on  ongoing  activities),  support  to  PACs 
(technical  assistance  and  coordination  of  reporting),  cooperation  between  PAs  and 
monitoring. The DSP is perceived as a great potential for further enhancing the effectiveness 
of the EUSDR, in particular by creating links and synergies between PAs and other relevant 
bodies and by providing monitoring and assessment tools. An assessment of the activities of 
the DSP will be carried out jointly by the EUSDR countries in 2017. 

The Presidencies by Austria (2014) and Baden-Württemberg (2015) significantly contributed 
to  the  enhancement  and  systematisation  of  the  EUSDR  governance.  The  Foreign  Affairs 
Ministers of the EUSDR, gathering in Brussels on 13th May 2015, took note of the progress 
and agreed on a number of arrangements: 

 

in order to ensure greater continuity of the work, the rotating principle for the chair of 
the  Strategy  is  expanded  to  a  Trio  Presidency  where  the  incumbent  Presidency 

28 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

prepares all major meetings and documents together with the outgoing and incoming 
Presidency; 
the Presidency organises and chairs at least two meetings of NCs between two Annual 
Fora; 
the  Presidency  also  organises  and  follows  up  meetings  of  the  Priority  Area 
Coordinators (PACs) and supports their initiatives for such meetings; 
the  Presidency  convenes  meetings  of  the  Ministers  for  Foreign  Affairs  and  other 
Ministers  in  charge  of  the  EUSDR  at  least  once  a  year.  In  addition,  meetings  of 
relevant  line  ministers  shall  be  organised  to  deal  with  questions  linked  to  the 
respective Priority Areas; 
the DSP shall support the political and operational  level of the EUSDR and  help to 
ensure  the  linking  of  the  Strategy  to  the  Interreg  Danube  Transnational  Programme 
and other EU financial resources. 

Communication  

It is agreed by all actors that better communication tools are essential in order to maintain the 
momentum on the EUSDR, in particular by showing what is happening, and to better plan the 
future  activities.  A  dedicated  website  of  the  EUSDR  (www.danube-region.eu)  presents  and 
inform  on  the  activities  and  results  of  the  Strategy  in  a  systematic  and  consistent  way.  In 
November 2016 a publication on ‘success stories from the EUSDR’ has been published by the 
European Commission in cooperation with the DSP.  

The Annual Forum, conceived as main event of the year is gathering on an annual basis all 
stakeholders and potentially interested actors to assess the implementation of the Strategy and 
discuss the way ahead. Ministerial meetings  (general or thematically  focused)  are organised 
back-to-back with the Annual Fora in order to keep the political momentum of the Strategy. 
They  also  feature  other  side  events  and  provide  ample  possibilities  for  networking  (e.g. 
exhibition of institutions or projects).  Five Annual For a have taken place so far, the three last 
ones organised by the rotating presidencies of Austria (2014), Baden-Württemberg (2015) and 
Slovakia  (2016),  together  with  the  European  Commission,  respectively  in  Vienna,  Ulm  and 
Bratislava.  

Funding 

The  priorities  of    the  EU  cohesion  policy  are  well  reflected  in  the  areas  of  work  of  the 
EUSDR,  which  –  as  mentioned  –  concerns  an  area  where  great  disparity  in  economic 
development are to be observed. 

Following the requirements in the EU 2014-2020 legal framework, most of the countries have 
incorporated  the  Danube  Strategy  dimension  in  their  regional,  national  and  cooperation 
programmes,  paving  the  way  for  better  coordination  and  synergies  during  the  programme 
implementation, which should lead to the funding of projects of macro-regional relevance. In 
this  context,  it  is  worth  mentioning  that  in  order  to  facilitate  the  developments  of  projects 
directly  implementing  the  EUSDR,  in  2016  new  targets  for  each  Priority  Area  (PA)  of  the 
EUSDR have been approved by the PAs and endorsed by the NCs.  

Several possibilities can be developed to use part of the funds to co-finance actions or projects 
of macro-regional scope and interest. Most of the EU countries have developed measures to 
improve  the  internal  coordination  with  the  objective  to  facilitate  the  funding  of  EUSDR 

29 

 
 
 
 
related projects. Several National Coordinators (NCs) and Steering Group members take part 
in the Monitoring Committee meetings of ESIF programmes as members or as observers. 

Managing  authorities  and  Monitoring  Committees  should,  in  cooperation  with  the  relevant 
EUSDR  actors,  develop  and  apply  specific  project  selection  criteria  recognising  the  added 
value  of  macro-regional  projects  and  their  contribution  to  the  EUSDR  PA  and  targets. 
Furthermore,  appropriate  calls  may  foresee  –  inter  alia  –  the  allocation  of  bonus  points  to 
projects  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  the  EUSDR  targets  and  actions.  Some 
Operational  Programmes  have  ear-marked  a  certain  percentage  of  their  funds  for  actions 
which may have a macro-regional impact. Where relevant, such calls aim at allocating funds 
in a well-targeted manner through specific calls for EUSDR projects within Priority Axis of 
Operational Programmes (OPs) or to a duly justified limited geographical perimeter.  

Acting as a one-stop-shop for the access to information on EU funding, the on-line platform 
EuroAccess Danube Region should help the EUSDR key implementers, but also directly the 
potential project promoters to find the right funding source for their projects.   

Examples:  

In Slovakia the Research and Innovations and the Integrated Regional OPs have included the 
implementation of EUSDR into the assessment and selection criteria.  

In Bulgaria the Human Resource Development OP envisages a specific operation dedicated to 
the Danube strategy, called ‘Danube Partnerships for Growth’. With a view to increase their 
added  value,  the  projects  will  be  implemented  by  partners  from  Bulgaria  and  at  least  one 
Danube country.  

In the Romanian Regional OP there will be a dedicated call for EUSDR projects in the fields 
of: energy efficiency, cultural heritage, road infrastructure and tourism, targeting only the 12 
Danube countries in Romania. 

The set-up of a network of European Social Fund (ESF) managing authorities in the Danube 
region  is  under  way,  following  the  successful  creation  of  such  network  in  Baden-
Württemberg. 

CHALLENGES  

Governance 

After 3 years (2012-2014) of direct support of by the Commission Technical Assistance (TA) 
and two years of indirect support (via the Danube Strategy Point), the EUSDR will enter into 
a  new  phase  in  2017,  since  its  bodies  (mainly  PAs  and  DSP)  will  receive  support  from  the 
Interreg  Danube  Transnational  Programme  based  on  European  Territorial  Cooperation  rules 
(85% co-financing rate). This is expected to further consolidate the activities of the EUSDR 
and enhance ownership by the participating states.  

In  terms  of  political  support,  overall,  in  the  years  2014-2016,  two  joint  statements  on  the 
EUSDR  have  been  issued  by  Foreign  Affairs  ministers  (2014  and  2015),  two  by  Transport 
ministers  (2014  and  2016),  one  by  ministers  in  charge  for  EU  Funds  (2015)  and  by  the 
ministers in charge for Research and Innovation (2016) and two by the Conference of Danube 
Parliamentarians  (2014  and  2015).  Other  ministerial  meetings  (for  example,  the  2016 
Ministerial Conference on Water) also echoed the EUSDR. Despite this, compared to the first 
years of activity, the EUSDR seems to be given a lower priority in the political narrative at 
national  level.  If  on  the  one  hand  this  is  physiological  as  with  any  initiative  reaching  the 
implementation phase, there is a need to maintain the political momentum since the countries’ 

30 

 
 
 
commitment directly affects the availability of human resources in the national and regional 
administrations, which are crucial for the good functioning of the strategy and work towards 
consolidation of the progress made and results achieved so far.  

Recent experience shows that besides a greater awareness of the strategy, the effectiveness of 
PAs largely depends on the personal commitment of officials, which makes the performance 
of PAs volatile and fluctuating rather than continuous. Steering Groups (SG) of several PAs 
of the EUSDR are clearly under participated and officials taking part in SGs often do not have 
a clear political mandate from the respective administrations. In short, there is a gap between 
the formal political support (which appears to be rather strong) and the substantial support by 
national administrations, which is not always equally strong. Since macro-regional strategies 
are long-term processes, continuity in political support is crucial. The participating states must 
take  their  responsibilities  and  ensure  sufficient  quantitative  and  qualitative  participation  to 
meetings and joint activities. The current situation raises inevitably the question as to whether 
the current number of PAs in EUSDR is still adequate – or should instead be reduced in order 
to better match the available human resources at national level. Moreover, regardless on the 
possible reduction of the number of PAs, a rotation in the role of Priority Area Coordination 
(with a maximum of 3 years) should be implemented so as to improve the ownership of the 
strategy and avoid that competence on specific areas remains concentrate in the same country 
administrations.   

As  regards  non-EU  countries,  improved  coordination  of  funding  opportunities  is  needed,  in 
particular in the Western Balkan countries. Although Serbia continues to be an active partner 
in the PAs it coordinates, further progress is needed in the participation of these countries to 
the  strategy.  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  and  Ukraine  are  still  in  the  process  of  appointing 
national  coordinators  for  the  EUSDR.  The  appointment  of  a  national  coordinator  and  the 
allocation  of  sufficient  resources  for  this  role  is  the  very  minimum  which  can  be  expected 
from a country which participates in the macro-regional strategy.   

The role of the European Commission is generally perceived as very important, although the 
insufficient and discontinuous participation of the relevant Commission services to activities 
of  the  relevant  PAs  remains  is  often  quoted  by  PACs  as  critical  factor  which  needs 
improvement. Still, although the European Commission will maintain its facilitation role and 
continue  to  encourage  cooperation  and  the  search  for  common  solutions  to  problems, 
participating countries should take responsibility and make the strategy work regardless of the 
active involvement of the European Commission. 

Funding  

The Ministers of Foreign Affairs and in charge of EU funds of the Danube countries have sent 
clear political messages on the need to unlock all available funds for the full implementation 
of  the  Strategy  through  the  necessary  investments.  They  have  also  committed,  through  the 
Joint Statements adopted in 2015, to take the necessary actions to improve the coordination of 
available funds at EU, state, regional and local level.   

Recalling that the Danube region countries’ average GDP per capita only reaches about two‐
thirds  of  the  level  of  the  EU  28  Member  States  and  less  than  60%  of  the  level  of  the 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, and that there 
are major development disparities within the Danube region, which hinder social, economic 
and  territorial  cohesion,  Ministers  reiterated  that  the  success  of  the  EUSDR  implementation 
requires  the  alignment  of  relevant  programmes  and  use  of  these  EU  funds  in  line  with  the 

31 

 
 
 
EUSDR PAs and targets. These commitments need to be reflected in the day by day activities 
of the relevant national and regional administrations. 

However, the situation on the ground is very diverse.  Overall, out of the 90 ESIF operational 
and  cooperation  programmes  which  are  relevant  for  the  EUSDR,  8  reported  in  2016  on 
specific financial contribution to the EUSDR (for a total budget of 285 Million ERDF and 20 
Million € IPA) achieved either via targeted calls of allocation of extra points. This situation 
can clearly be improved. 

There  continues  to  be  a  gap  between  the  Strategy  and  the  programmes,  which  too  often 
divides managing authorities and officials in charge for the EUSDR, even if sometimes they 
sit under the same ministry. As a consequence, some programmes are willing to contribute to 
the  implementation  of  the  EUSDR,  while  others  continue  with  their  ‘business  as  usual’  or 
even  see  the  strategy  as  an  element  of  ‘disturbance’.  This  must  be  changed  by  ensuring 
effective  internal  coordination.  The  EUSDR  should  not  be  seen  as  red-tape  but  is  an 
opportunity to make the implementation of ESI funds more coherent.  

The  involvement  of  EUSDR  key  implementers  at  national  level  into  the  work  of  ESIF 
programmes brings tangible results in the implementation, while increasing ownership. This 
can be a win-win since not only helps implementing the Strategy but enhances the coherence 
of  the  programmes’  actions.  Steering  Group  members  must  be  active  in  identifying  the 
funding sources and describing the added value of the projects to the managing authorities in 
their respective countries. There are still cases, where there are no links even if the Steering 
Group members work in the same institution where the managing authority is located. 

Specific  challenges  of  coordination  of  funding  opportunities  and  EUSDR  relate  to  IPA/ENI 
countries.  Also  the  integration  of  the  macro-regional  perspective  in  directly-managed  EU 
funds requires improvement. 

Monitoring 

The monitoring of the results of MRS is a challenging task. Not all results can be monitored 
in quantitative manner – this is particularly the case for example with the improvement in the 
mind-set for cooperation by the concerned administrations. Another difficulty depends on the 
fact  that  macro-regional  strategies  may  overlap,  depending  on  the  fields  of  activity,  with 
existing  organisations  and  fora.  However,  there  is  a  need  to  develop  common  tools  and 
methodology  for  better  identifying  results  and  critical  aspects  of  macro-regional  strategies. 
The new targets identified by the PAs in 2015 and approved by PACs and endorsed by NC in 
2016  are  meant,  where  possible,  to  improve  also  the  possibility  of  monitoring  the  results 
achieved. There is still work to do in this context. The Danube Strategy Point should provide 
a  crucial  support  for  the  development  of  a  sound  monitoring  and  evaluation  system  for  the 
Strategy.  Monitoring  also  serves  the  purpose  of  avoiding  possible  overlaps  and  similar 
activities developed in other policy frameworks. 

RECOMMENDATIONS  

Based on experience reported here, the following areas of improvement have been identified: 

 

translate political will  into administrative support and ensure sufficient resources for 
day-to-day work on a long term basis; 

  ensure  adequate  participation  of  national  representatives  to  Steering  Group  meetings 
of priority areas and consider reducing the number and scope of current priority areas 

32 

 
 
 
 
 

if sufficient resources are not allocated by participating Countries within well-defined 
time-frames; 
introduce  a  mechanism  for  regular  rotation  of  Priority  Area  Coordinators,  so  to 
enhance 
the  EUSDR  by  national  and  regional 
administrations; 

the  overall  ownership  of 

  strengthen commitment of sectorial ministries; 
  acknowledge the importance of national coordination mechanisms and reinforce them;  
  enhance the potential for aligning the existing funding instruments with the priorities 
(e.g. Danube financing dialogue, setting-up of an investment platform that would meet 
the needs of SMEs); 
further  develop  and  strengthen  a  dialogue  between  managing  authorities  of  different 
funding  instruments  and  key  strategy  implementers  in  order  to  achieve  intended 
results. 

 

33 

 
 
 
 
Report on the implementation of the European Union Strategy for the 
Adriatic and Ionian Region 

In December 2012, the European Council requested the European Commission to present an 
EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR) before the end of 201423.    

Building on the lessons learnt and experience from the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 
and  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Danube  Region,  the  Commission  adopted  in  June  2014  a 
Communication24  on  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  Region  and  its 
accompanying  Action  Plan25,  which  was  endorsed  by  the  European  Council  in  October 
201426.  The  strategy  incorporates  the  Maritime  Strategy  for  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  Seas, 
adopted by the Commission in November 201227.  

Home  to  more  than  70  million  people  and  key  for  Europe’s  geographical  continuity,  the 
Adriatic and Ionian Region is a functional area primarily defined by the Adriatic and Ionian 
Sea basins. It builds on the inter-governmental Adriatic and Ionian Initiative (AII), which was 
launched  in  2000  and  involved  eight  countries,  the  same  as  the  EUSAIR,  i.e.:  four  EU 
Member States (Croatia, Greece, Italy, Slovenia) and four candidate and potential candidate 
countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia).   

CONTENT – PRIORITIES   

The  general  objective  of  the  EUSAIR  is  to  promote  sustainable  economic  and  social 
prosperity in the region by improving its attractiveness, competitiveness and connectivity. The 
strategy  is  also  expected  to  play  an  important  role  in  promoting  the  EU  integration  of  the 
Western Balkans.  
In its 2013 report28, the Commission stressed that new macro-regional strategies should focus 
on a limited number of well-defined objectives. Within this framework, the EUSAIR is built 
on four thematic pillars addressing the core challenges and opportunities identified as being of 
central importance for the Adriatic-Ionian Region: ‘Blue Growth’, ‘Connecting the Region’, 
‘Environmental  Quality’  and  ‘Sustainable  Tourism’.  Moreover,  two  cross-cutting  aspects 
(‘Strengthening  R&D, 
including 
communication’) are to be considered across each pillar.  In addition, mitigating and adapting 
to  climate  change  effects,  as  well  as  managing  disaster  risks  are  recognised  as  horizontal 
principles for all pillars.   

Innovation  and  SMEs’  and 

‘Capacity  building, 

Each  pillar  identifies  a  series  of  topics  which  represent  the  main  areas  where  the  macro-
regional  strategy  can  contribute  to  improvements.  The  ‘Blue  Growth’  pillar  encourages 
innovative and maritime growth in the Adriatic and Ionian Region, by promoting sustainable 
economic  development  and  job  creation  as  well  as  business  opportunities.    In  doing  so,  the 

23  European Council Conclusions of 13-14 December 2012, point 26: ‘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 the end of 2014 (…)'. 

24  Communication from the  Commission concerning the European Union Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian 

Region – 17.06.2014 - COM(2014) 357 final. 

25  Action plan accompanying the Communication concerning the European Union Strategy for the Adriatic and 

Ionian Region - 17.06.2014 - SWD(2014) 190 final. 

26  Conclusions of the General Affairs Council, 29 September 2014 and Conclusions of the European Council, 

23-24 October 2014. 

27  Communication  from  the  Commission  adopting  a  Maritime  Strategy  for  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  Seas  - 

30.11.2012 - COM(2012) 713 final. 

28  Report concerning the added value of macro-regional strategies –27.06.2013- COM(2013) 468 final. 

34 

 
 
 
                                                            
three  following  topics  are  being  prioritised:    blue  technologies,  fisheries  and  aquaculture, 
maritime and marine governance and services.  

The ‘Connecting the Region’ pillar aims at improving transport and energy connectivity by: 
strengthening  maritime  safety  and  security  and  developing  a  port  system;  creating  reliable 
transport  networks  and  intermodal  connections  with  the  hinterland;  and  establishing  a  well-
interconnected and well-functioning internal energy market. To achieve these objectives, the 
pillar  focuses  on  three  key  topics:  maritime  transport,  intermodal  connections  to  the 
hinterland, energy networks.  

‘Environmental  Quality’  is  essential  for  ensuring  the  economic  and  social  well-being  of  the 
Region’s  inhabitants.  This  pillar  addresses  the  issue  through  cooperation  at  regional  level, 
focusing on three topics: the marine environment, pollution of the sea, transnational terrestrial 
habitats and biodiversity.  

Developing  the  Region’s  potential  in  terms  of  ‘Sustainable  Tourism’  can  be  accelerated  by 
offering innovative and quality tourism products and services.  Responsible tourism behaviour 
involving all actors involved in the sector is also important. To achieve the objectives of this 
pillar,  the  emphasis  is  put  on  two  topics:  a  diversified  tourism  offer,  and  a  sustainable  and 
responsible tourism management.   

ACTORS/GOVERNANCE 

The  governance  and  management  architecture  of  the  strategy  was  defined  in  a  Joint 
Statement29 adopted by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs (or their representatives) at the launch 
Conference of the strategy in November 2014. It is based on the MRS three-layers mechanism 
(political/ministerial,  coordination, implementation) envisaged  by the Commission  report on 
MRS governance30. 

29  The 

Joint  Statement 

the  Ministers 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/cooperate/adriat_ionian/pdf/joint_statement_governance_en.pdf. 

available 

adopted 

annex 

and 

are 

by 

its 

here: 

30  Commission Report on governance of macro-regional strategy, COM(2014) 284 final of 20.05.2014. 

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
At  the  implementation  level,  four  Thematic  Steering  Groups  (TSGs)  (one  per  pillar), 
composed of representatives from relevant sectoral departments in the countries, are tasked to 
implement  the  strategy  by  identifying  the  actions  and  projects  with  a  macro-regional  value 
which will best contribute to the achievement of its objectives. Each pillar is coordinated by 
two  Pillar  Coordinators  appointed  from  two  countries  (one  EU  Member  State,  one  non-EU 
country).  Given  its  particular  nature,  Pillar  2  has  four  Pillar  Coordinators:  one  pair  for 
‘Transport’ and one pair for ‘Energy networks’.   

The current country distribution, as agreed by the countries themselves, is as follows:  

  Greece and Montenegro coordinate Pillar 1;  
  Italy and Serbia coordinate Pillar 2;  
  Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina coordinate Pillar 3; and  
  Croatia and Albania coordinate Pillar 4.   

The governance architecture envisages a rotating system, although the duration of the current 
initial  assignment  has  not  been  set  and  should  be  decided  by  the  Governing  Board  (GB)  in 
due course.    

At the  coordination  level, acting as  interface between the political/ministerial level and the 
implementation  level,  the  EUSAIR  GB  is  co-chaired  by  the  European  Commission  and  the 
country  holding  the  rotating  chairmanship  of  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  Initiative  (AII)31.  It 
includes EUSAIR National Coordinators, Pillar Coordinators as well as representatives from 
the  AII  Permanent  Secretariat,  the  European  Parliament,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  and 
the European Economic and Social Committee. Its objective is to provide strategic guidance 
with respect to management and implementation of the EUSAIR and its Action Plan.  

In order to ensure a close coordination between the EUSAIR and the EU funds, it was agreed 
that each participating country should be represented in the GB by two National Coordinators, 
one  representing  the  Ministry  of  Foreign/European  Affairs,  and  the  other  representing  the 
Ministry/national authority responsible for EU funds. 

The  political  level  meets  in  the  ‘double  hat’  format  of  Adriatic-Ionian  Council/EUSAIR 
Ministerial  meeting.  In  line  with  the  approach  followed  at  the  coordination  level,  at  the 
EUSAIR Ministerial meeting held in Dubrovnik (Croatia) on the occasion of the 1st EUSAIR 
Forum in May 2016, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the eight participating countries were 
joined by their fellow Ministers/national authorities responsible for EU funds.  

The  Interreg  Adriatic-Ionian  (ADRION)  Transnational  Cooperation  Programme, 
covering the same territory of the EUSAIR, is contributing to the strategy’s implementation 
through its thematic priority axes (aligned with the strategy’s priorities). It also supports the 
strategy’s governance mechanisms and structures, notably via the EUSAIR Facility Point, a 
strategic project led by Slovenia and including partners of the eight countries, adopted by the 
ADRION Monitoring Committee in May 2016.  

RESULTS 

The EUSAIR is still in its initial phase. Since the launch of the strategy, activities have so far 
essentially consisted in putting into place effective governance structures as well as devising a 

31  Alongside  the  approach  followed  by  the  Adriatic-Ionian  Initiative,  the  country  ensuring  the  12-month  (1st 
June-31st  May)  rotating  chairmanship  of  the  AII  is  also  at  the  helm  of  the  EUSAIR  for  the  same  period. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina was in the lead until 31 May 2015, followed by Croatia in the period June 2015-May 
2016 and by Greece since June 2016.  

36 

 
 
 
                                                            
straightforward protocol for identifying processes, actions and projects that can contribute to 
the strategy’s objectives.  

It is worth noting that the involvement of the four Enlargement Countries in the governance 
process has, from the very beginning, been on a par with that of the four EU Member States. 
For instance, the rotating EUSAIR chairmanship is open to all participating countries and the 
coordination  of  each  TSGs  is  ensured  by  a  tandem  made  by  an  EU  Member  State  and  an 
Enlargement Country. 

Governance 

Governance structures were put in place in record time. The first GB meeting was convened 
in January 2015, a mere two months after the launch Conference, and the first round of TSG 
meetings took place in March-April 2015. 

At coordination level, unsurprisingly, governance-related issues dominated the agenda of the 
four GB meetings which took place so far.  

To start off on the right foot, participating countries were keen to devise, with the support of 
the Commission, detailed Rules of Procedure (RoP) for a transparent and smooth functioning 
of  the  Governing  Board.  With  regards  to  decision  making,  RoP  specify  that  decisions  are 
taken by consensus by National Coordinators (1 country – 1 vote).  

As intended, the Governing Board proved to be the central tool for strategic coordination of 
the strategy and for liaising with the political/ministerial leadership level. 

Important decisions taken by the GB include, inter alia: 

(1)  providing  the  TSGs  with  a  template  for  devising  their  Rules  of  Procedures  –  so  as  to 
ensure an harmonized approach – as well as a guidance document clarifying how they should 
apply the six broad criteria – included in the Action Plan – for identify actions and projects to 
be promoted under the EUSAIR;  

(2) determining the approach informing the EUSAIR Facility Point in providing support to the 
governance structures. The method chosen by National Coordinators foresees that support be 
given to each country to meet its needs for participating in all TSGs; 

(3) devising the concept of the Stakeholder Platform – foreseen in the Joint Statement adopted 
at the launch Conference – to be put in place by the EUSAIR Facility Point. 

At  implementation  level,  three  rounds  of  TSG  meetings  took  place  in  2015,  and  a  fourth 
round  in  the  spring  201632.  The  two  first  rounds  of  TSG  meetings  were  mainly  devoted  to 
discussing the RoP and the scope of the TSGs’ activities. 

Moving into actual work, by end 2015, all TSGs had identified priority actions, among those 
included in the Action Plan, on which concentrate their work in an initial phase.  

Activities  focused  next  on  the  pillar-specific  criteria/guiding  principles  to  help  shortlist  and 
label  projects  as  EUSAIR-relevant  in  their  respective  domain.  TSG-1,  TSG-3  and  TSG-4 
already made substantial progress in this respect.  

Concerning the political leadership, after the launch Conference, Ministers met again on the 
occasion  of  the  1st  EUSAIR  Forum  held  in  Dubrovnik  on  12-13  May  2016.  Commissioner 
Creƫu participated in both the ministerial meeting and the Forum.  

32  A fifth round is planned to take place in November-December 2016. 

37 

 
 
 
                                                            
In  the  ‘Dubrovnik  Declaration’  the  Ministers  re-affirmed  their  strong  belief  in,  and 
commitment  to,  the  strategy  and  provided  strategic  orientations  to  the  other  two  levels  of 
governance 
the 
responsibility of the relevant national administrations for: 

implementation).  These  orientations  emphasised 

(coordination  and 

a)  Providing  a  clear  mandate  to  TSG  members  and  ensure  that  the  latter  are  duly 

empowered; 

b)  Allocating adequate, dedicated financial and administrative resources to support Pillar 

Coordinators and TSGs members in fulfilling their duties; 

c)  Ensuring due involvement of sub-national governments in the TSGs’ work. 

In  addition  to  asking  the  TSGs  to  move  quickly  towards  identifying  initiatives  and  projects 
with  a  macro-regional  dimension,  the  Ministers  called  national  and  regional  authorities  to 
ensure that ESIF and IPA programmes as well as any other available national/regional funds 
concretely contribute to the achievements of the EUSAIR objectives.  

Last but not least, the Dubrovnik Declaration invited the GB to outline concrete avenues of 
action  helping  strengthen  the  resilience  of  participating  countries  in  the  face  of  the  refugee 
and  migration  crisis.  Moreover,  while  encouraging  all  EU-financed  programmes  in  the 
participating  countries  to  consider  how  best  to  address  this  challenge  within  existing 
programme priorities and objectives, it expressly asked the ADRION programme to provide 
support to specific action(s) in this regard. 

1st EUSAIR Forum and involvement of stakeholders 
At  the  1st  EUSAIR  Forum  in  Dubrovnik  (May  2016),  jointly  organised  by  the  European 
Commission and the Government of Croatia under its chairmanship of the strategy, more than 
600  participants  attended,  including  representatives  of  the  national,  regional  and  local 
administrations  of  the  eight  participating  countries,  as  well  as  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders 
(academia, business sector, civil society). Two high-level plenary sessions gathered political 
actors and experts around the topics of resilience and multi-level governance as key elements 
to  tackle  the  social  and  economic  challenges  of  the  region.  The  parallel  sessions  and  side 
events,  targeting  practitioners,  and  building  around  the  strategy’s  thematic  pillars,  aimed  at 
identifying frameworks and funding opportunities as a starting point for the identification of 
project ideas and proposals of action to be implemented.   

A  Business  to  Business  (B2B)  session  organised  as  a  side  event  by  the  Enterprise  Europe 
Network  (EEN)  brought  together  more  than  100  participants  from  SMEs,  universities, 
chambers  of  commerce  and  other  stakeholders,  with  the  objective  to  find  partners  for  new 
projects  and/or  explore  new  business  opportunities  on  topics  such  as  maritime  industry, 
maritime  biotechnology,  aquaculture,  tourism,  etc.  This  first  such  event  organised  in  the 
framework of an EU  macro-regional  strategy forum received very positive feed-back and is 
expected to continue in the future.  

The strategy builds on the positive experiences developed under the umbrella of the Adriatic 
and  Ionian  Initiative,  including  the  fora  of  universities,  chambers  of  commerce  and  cities.  
The  annual  conference  of  speakers  of  the  Parliaments  crucially  involves  and  integrates  the 
parliamentary dimension. 

However,  much  need  still  to  be  done  to  involve  stakeholders  in  the  concrete  strategy 
implementation.  As first step, a Stakeholder Platform is being defined within the framework 

38 

 
 
 
of  the  EUSAIR  Facility  Point  as  a  two-way  communication  tool  between  the  EUSAIR  key 
implementers and the stakeholders in the region.   

Inter-pillar coordination 

In order to strengthen the coordination across the four pillars – viewed as interdependent – as 
well as between the TSGs, address their common challenges and present them in a structured 
way  to  the  GB,  as  of  the  2nd  GB  meeting  in  October  2015  it  was  decided  to  hold  technical 
meetings of Pillar Coordinators the day preceding the GB. These meetings – which since then 
take place on a regular basis – facilitate discussion and decision making by the GB.  

TSG-1  and  TSG-3  furthermore  took  the  initiative  to  coordinate  their  work  on  the  topic  of 
Maritime  Spatial  Planning  (MSP)  and  Integrated  Coastal  Zone  Management  (ICZM), 
featuring  among  the  priority  actions  identified  by  both  TSGs.  A  joint  session,  organised  by 
these  TSGs  at  the  1st  EUSAIR  Forum  in  Dubrovnik,  12-13  May  2016,  resulted  in  a  list  of 
commonly supported strategic projects to develop jointly. Among these should be mentioned 
pilot  projects  integrating  MSP  and  ICZM,  green/blue  corridors  linking  land  and  sea  in  the 
Adriatic  and  Ionian  Sea  basins  and  tools  for  identifying  areas  suitable  for  co-existence 
between  sustainable  fisheries/aquaculture  and  other  economic  activities.  A  joint  meeting 
between TSG-1 and TSG-3 is due in November 2016. 

TSG-3 also produced a matrix showing interdependencies between the different pillars, both 
synergies and possible inconsistencies between the respective (tentative) targets set out in the 
Action Plan. 

Regional cooperation 

With  regards  to  coordination  with  other  regional  cooperation  structures,  the  GB  effectively 
coordinates EUSAIR activities with those of the intergovernmental Adriatic-Ionian Initiative 
(AII)33. With the entry into force of the strategy, the role of the thematic Round Tables of the 
AII  have  been  overhauled  so  as  to  become  auxiliary  tools  at  the  disposal  of  the  EUSAIR 
TSGs.  This  would  enable  them  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  TSGs  while  acting  as  interfaces 
between  these  Groups  and  the  relevant  stakeholders  in  the  Region.  Smooth  coordination 
between the GB and the AII came to full expression with the decision that, in order to avoid 
duplication  and  strengthen  synergies,  the  annual  meeting  of  the  AII  Ministers  of  Foreign 
Affairs  should  convene  as  a  ‘double  hat’  Adriatic-Ionian  Council/EUSAIR  Ministerial 
meeting.  The  first  such  a  double  hat  meeting  took  place  in  Dubrovnik  at  the  1st  EUSAIR 
Forum in May 2016. 

Furthermore,  the  TSGs  have  generally  given  considerable  attention  to  synergies  and 
complementarity  with  the  work  conducted  by  relevant  regional  cooperation  structures.  This 
concerns  for  instance,  recommendations  on  the  Blue  Economy  issued  by  the  Union  for  the 
Mediterranean for TSG-1, the work undertaken by the SEETO and the Energy Community for 
TSG-2,  initiatives  and  recommendations  under  respectively  UNEP/MED  and  the  Barcelona 
Convention for TSG-3 as well as, for TSG-4, UNESCO's programme for Cultural Heritage in 
South-East Europe or the work of the Council of Europe focusing on cultural routes. 

On  a  more  general  note,  coordination  between  the  EUSAIR  and  other  relevant  regional 
organisations  –  e.g.  the  Regional  Cooperation  Council,  the  Adriatic-Ionian  Euro  region,  the 

33  The Permanent Secretary of the AII is a standing member of the GB. 

39 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Conference  of  Peripheral  Maritime  Regions  of  Europe,  the  Central  European  Initiative  –  is 
sought.  

Coordination with other MRS 
Coordination with other MRS is essential. Five34 EUSAIR countries are also involved in the 
EUSDR and two35 in the EUSALP. Coordination in, for instance, the connectivity agenda in 
the region is mandatory between the EUSAIR  and the EUSDR and, to a minor extent, with 
the  EUSALP  too.  The  same  is  true  for  the  environment  and  tourism  priorities,  notably 
between the EUSAIR and the EUSDR.  

Several EUSAIR TSG members are also involved in the EUSDR. This facilitates contacts and 
synergies,  provides  an  opportunity  for  exchanging  good  practices,  speedier  responses  to 
similar challenges and greater visibility. Participation of EUSAIR TSG members in the fellow 
steering  groups  notably  in  the  EUSDR  –  and  vice  versa  –  is  already  taking  place,  e.g.  the 
participation of the EUSDR Priority Area Coordinator for Energy in the EUSAIR TSG-2 in 
April 2016.  

It is also worth mentioning the seminar, co-hosted by the Regional Cooperation Council and 
the  UNEP  in  Sarajevo  in  April  2016.  This  event  enabled  key  officials  under  respectively 
EUSAIR  and  EUSDR  to  compare  priorities  with  respect to  environmental  challenges  in  the 
Western Balkans. 

Coordination at national level  

Coordination  within  the  countries,  between  the  various  levels  of  the  administration  is  a 
distinctive  requirement  for  a  successful  participation  in  the  MRS.  As  good  practices,  it  is 
worth  mentioning,  in  the  case  of  Italy,  central-regional  coordination  mechanisms  (vertical, 
horizontal).  In  Greece,  coordination  between  EUSAIR  key  implementers  and  national 
ministries is in place. In Slovenia, inter-ministerial coordination is taking place, promoted by 
the National Coordinator of the three MRS in which the country takes part.  

Funding 

Alignment of ESIF/IPA funds with the EUSAIR is all the more important in a region where 
those resources constitute a large share of countries’ public investments.   

Approx.  100  ESIF  and  12  IPA  programmes  in  the  Region  are  potentially  relevant  for  the 
EUSAIR.  A  checklist  was  sent  to  programme  managers  with  a  view  to  gaining  a  first 
overview  of  how  national/regional  and  cooperation  programmes  contributed  to  the  strategy. 
17 out of the 37 respondents stated that, in different ways (e.g. extra points foreseen in calls 
for proposals, projects already financed, etc.), their programmes contribute to the achievement 
of the EUSAIR objectives. 

In the ADRION programme – largely aligned with the EUSAIR pillars and topics – out of the 
378  proposals  submitted  under  the  1st  call  for  proposals,  a  fair  number  of  projects 
contributing to EUSAIR objectives is expected to be selected. 

With  the  exception  of  the  ADRION  programme;  at  implementation  level,  the  cooperation 
between TSGs and ESIF/IPA programme authorities has so far been somewhat hesitant and 

34  Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. 
35  Italy and Slovenia. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
uneven. A first meeting between these programme authorities and EUSAIR key implementers 
took place on 12 May 2016 in the margin of the EUSAIR Forum in Dubrovnik. The aim was 
to  kick-start  a  sustained  dialogue  between  the  two  worlds  and  secure  mutual  benefits  of 
aligning EU funded programmes to strategy objectives. Follow up meetings at national level 
between ESIF/IPA programme authorities and EUSAIR key implementers, organised by the 
Commission  together with  the EUSAIR National Coordinator  responsible for EU funds, are 
taking place in each country as of the fall 2016. 

CHALLENGES 

Governance 

Since the launch of the EUSAIR, the actors in charge of bringing the strategy from ‘words to 
action’ have been through a steep learning curve. While these are still early days, an important 
gap  appeared  between,  on  one  hand,  the  political  commitment,  repeatedly  underlined  by 
Ministers, and, on the other, effective follow-up on the part of their national administrations, 
‘key implementers’ of  the strategy. This gap stemmed in part from persistent lack of adequate 
human,  financial,  administrative  and  technical  resources  which  these  administrations 
dedicated to implementing the strategy.  

Regardless of the progress achieved with respect to process and governance, the most serious 
hurdle  to  overcome  undoubtedly  remains  lack  of  leadership,  commitment  and  ownership 
among  these  administrations.  Many  TSG  members  and  Pillar  Coordinators  were  not  given 
clear mandates and empowerment from their home administrations that would allow them to 
take  decisions  at  TSG  meetings.  This  shortcoming  was  compounded  by  delays  in  the 
designation  of  the  standing  TSG  members  for  some  countries.  This  entailed  insufficient 
continuity  and  stability  among  members  as  well  as  –  in  some  cases  –  strikingly  poor 
attendance rates. This is particularly affecting some of the participating non-EU countries. In 
the  letter  they  sent  in  January  2016  to  the  Ministers  of  Foreign  Affairs  and  the  Ministers 
responsible  for  EU  funds,  Commissioners  Creţu  and  Vella  clearly  pointed  to  these 
shortcomings, requesting that they be addressed as a matter of urgency36.  

With  regards  to  insufficient  resources  allocated  by  national  administrations  to  the 
implementation  of  the  strategy,  the  EUSAIR  Facility  Point  should  provide  badly  needed 
support  to  Pillar  Coordinators  and  TSGs  as  a  whole  to  allow  them  to  fulfil  their  tasks 
effectively. Bringing into full operation of what is in effect a 9-partner network will, however, 
not be devoid of challenges. Moreover, the approach chosen by the National Coordinators37 
risks  being  administratively  cumbersome  to  apply,  hence  causing  unnecessary  delays  in 
particular  when  it  comes  to  implementing  Work  Package  T1  (logistic  support  to  TSG 
members). In any event, the Facility Point will not replace the need for the national/regional 
administrations  to  ensure  adequate  human  and  administrative  resources  for  fulfilling  their 
tasks as EUSAIR key implementers. 

In  the  meantime  –  whilst  by  no  means  fungible  with  the  effort  required  from  national 
administrations to drive the strategy forward or taking away their responsibility for doing so – 
over  this  initial  period,  on-going  Commission  input  proved  indispensable,  both  in  terms  of 
logistics  and  substance,  to  prevent  the  entire  process  from  stalling.  Such  input,  however,  is 

36  It  is  worth  noting  here  that  the  Dubrovnik  Declaration  can  in  effect  be  read  as  a  joint  reply  to  the 

Commissioners. 

37  Facility  Point  to  support  each  country  to  meet  its  needs  for  participating  in  all  TSGs,  vs.  Facility  Point  to 
support  each  TSG  to  meet  its  needs  including  those  concerning  participation  of  members  from  all  eight 
countries. 

41 

 
 
 
                                                            
neither sustainable nor even desirable. While the Commission should do the outmost to help, 
it  cannot/should  not  replace  the  participating  countries  in  the  driving  seat.  The  role  of  the 
Commission  should  remain  that  of  a  strategic  coordinator  –  where  its  involvement  brings  a 
clear added value - in partnership with the participating countries and in accordance with the 
subsidiary principle. In this respect, the involvement of Commission line departments in the 
implementation of the Strategy needs to be substantially improved.  

More  concretely,  at  the  coordination  level,  the  rotating  Presidency  should  provide  a  strong 
impulsion to the strategy and effectively take its lead, in close cooperation with the National 
Coordinators and all members of the GB. Designation of both National Coordinators (Foreign 
Affairs, or equivalent, and national authority responsible for EU funds) should be completed 
and effective participation in GB activities should be ensured. 

At  the  implementation  level,  in  addition  to  designation  and  attendance  issues  hampering 
decisions in TSGs , the circumstance that TSG members were faced with the, for them, often 
unusual – and at times uncomfortable – requirement of  shifting their outlook from a purely 
regional/national perspective to a transnational/macro-regional one tended to further slow the 
pace of decision-making.  

Another  challenge  peculiar  to  Pillar  Coordinators  has  been  that  they  all  de  facto  wore  four 
hats,  namely  as:  (1)  coordinators  of  the  collective  work  involving  all  eight  countries  on  the 
pillar  concerned;  (2)  reporters  and  spokespeople  and  for  the  TSG  concerned  to  the  outside 
world (as was the case at the first EUSAIR Forum); (3) representatives of their own country 
the  national/regional 
and  (4)  representatives  of 
administration  they  belong  to.  Whereas  the  two  former  roles  seemed  fully  compatible  with 
each other, there may have been instances where the national position clashes with a macro-
regional perspective. Likewise, if brought to its full logic, the fourth role might have tempted 
the  PCs  (a)  to  put  on  a  narrower  set  of  lenses,  privileging  the  topic(s)  for  which  their 
department is responsible at the possible expense of the other topics under the same pillar.  

their  particular  department  within 

More  specifically,  TSG-2  faced  a  particular  difficulty  owing  to  the  dual  nature  of  Pillar  2, 
covering both transport and energy. While the splitting the TSG into two subgroups provided 
for  more  focused  discussions  within  each  thematic  field,  its  management  proved  quite 
complex. Pending resources to be made available by the TSG members’ home administrations 
and the support to be provided by the Facility Point, the Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia put at 
the  disposal  of  TSG-2  a  Technical  Support  Unit  which  is  assisting  the  four  Pillar  2 
Coordinators in their day-to-day work and helping execute planned TSG-2 activities.  

Participation in, and contribution of, representatives from participating countries in the work 
of TSG 2 have been so far limited: uneven attendance rate and passive participation, lack of 
stable designation of members. For both Pillar-2 strands, concern was furthermore expressed 
about  possible  overlap  or  redundancy  with  other  initiatives  in  the  Region,  e.g.  the  ‘Berlin 
process’, the Energy Community, etc.  

TSG-3, for its part, underlined unsatisfactory coordination and communication among TSG-3 
members, partially compromising the discussion during meetings and weakening the process 
of exchange of views as well as the achievement of concrete outcomes. It also called for better 
cross-pillars  processes,  evaluations  and  synergies,  particularly  on  common  issues  and 
potential inconsistencies. 

42 

 
 
 
 
Inter-Pillar Coordination 

The technical meetings of Pillar Coordinators highlighted a number of shared challenges with 
respect to the TSGs’ functioning, namely: 

  creating  synergy  between  the  EUSAIR  and  the  work  undertaken  under  existing 

regional agreements38  so as to avoid duplication; 

  bringing in expertise from the other MRS; 

 

for  countries  –  other  than  Italy  –  reflecting  how  their  subnational  authorities  can  be 
associated more closely with the work of the TSGs; 

  ensuring intra-country coordination between ETC/national/regional funds; 

 

improving the visibility of the strategy. 

Possible developments of the strategy and its Action Plan 

With regard to the scope of the EUSAIR, since the conception of the strategy the refugee and 
migration  crisis  unfolded  and  is  likely  to  continue  to  heavily  affect  the  region  for  the 
foreseeable  future.  This  external  shock  should  be  taken  into  account  in  the  strategy.  As 
previously noted, in the Dubrovnik Declaration the Ministers invited the Governing Board to 
outline concrete avenues of action in this respect.  

Finally, the incomplete coverage of the Western Balkan region in the EUSAIR is also cause 
of  concern.  Council  conclusions39  recently  stressed  the  importance  of  the  inclusiveness 
principle which should govern EU relations with the Western Balkan countries. They support 
initiatives  and  structures  which  could  reinforce  economic  cooperation  with  these  countries, 
promoting connectivity and inclusiveness within the Region and with the EU. Pragmatic ways 
to associate all Western Balkan countries in the work of the EUSAIR, as appropriate, should 
be explored.  

Funding 

Concerning the EU funds in the Region, a long way remains to go to change mind-sets and 
bring  the  ESIF/IPA  programming  authorities  and  the  EUSAIR  key  implementers  closer 
together to cooperate towards their common goal: sustainable growth, jobs and prosperity in 
the region.  

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Based on experience reported here, the following areas of improvement have been identified: 

  as called for by the Dubrovnik Declaration, in the light of recent developments in the 
region,  consider  including  a  new  dimension  in  the  strategy and  its  Action  Plan  to  to 
target  youth,  cultural  and  educational  exchanges,  and  integration  of  refugees  and 
migrants into the labour market;  

38  The work conducted in TSG-3 could for instance be considered a sub-regional contribution to the Barcelona 

Convention. 

39  General  Affairs  Council,  15  December  2015  -  Council  Conclusions  on  Enlargement  and  Stabilisation  and 

Association Process. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 

for  Pillar  2,  ensure  better  synergies  and  complementarity  with  existing  instruments 
operating in the region, such as the ‘Berlin Process’, the Energy Community, etc.;  

  accelerate  and  intensify  the  work  of  laying  the  foundations  (governance,  capacity 
building) of the strategy: make effective use of e.g. Facility Point and other dedicated 
initiatives by the European Commission, with help of experts;  

 

 

following  the  example  of  the  EUSBSR,  set  up  a  pilot  ERDF/CF/IPA  programme 
authorities' network aimed at facilitating support from region and country-specific as 
well as multi-country operational programmes to EUSAIR implementation; 

likewise,  following  the  example  of  the  EUSDR,  set  up  a  network  of  ESF  managing 
authorities that could focus in particular on coordination of vocational training and job 
creation  projects  involving  young  unemployed  in  the  four  MS  alongside  young 
refugees and young adults in need of international protection; 

  building on positive experience from the EUSDR, work on the development of  tools 

for better access to information on EU funding; 

  give priority to capacity-building directed at EUSAIR key implementers as well as at 
programme authorities responsible for EUSAIR relevant operational programmes. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Report on the implementation of the European Union Strategy for the 
Alpine Region 

The European Council of 19-20 December 2013 invited the Commission, in cooperation with 
Member States, to elaborate an EU Strategy for the Alpine Region by June 201540, recalling 
its  conclusions  of  June  2011  and  the  Council  Conclusions  on  the  added  value  of  macro-
regional strategies of October 2013. 

Building  on  the  lessons  learnt  and  experience  from  the  other  previous  three  macro-regional 
strategies,  the  Commission  has  prepared  a  Communication  and  an  Action  Plan  on  the  EU 
Strategy  for  the  Alpine  Region  (EUSALP),  which  has  been  adopted  by  the  Commission  in 
July  2015.  On  27  November  2015  the  Strategy  was  endorsed  by  Council  of  the  European 
Union41 and by the European Council on 28 June 2016. 

The EUSALP covers seven countries: 

  5 EU Member States: Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia 

  2 non EU Member States: Liechtenstein and Switzerland 

of  which  48  Regions  are  involved  in  the  process42  and  is  home  for  more  than  80  million 
people. 

CONTENT – PRIORITIES 
The  general  objective  of  the  EUSALP  is  to  promote  sustainable  economic  and  social 
prosperity  of  the  Alpine  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 ecosystems. 

Three interdependent thematic objectives have been identified that focus on providing: 

1.  fair access to job opportunities by building on the high competitiveness of the Region; 
2.  sustainable internal and external accessibility; 
3.   a  more  inclusive  environmental  framework  and  renewable  and  reliable  energy 

solutions for the future. 

Moreover, since the existing cooperation frameworks in the Region are primarily sector-based 
or  do  not  match  the  geographical  scope  of  the  Strategy,  a  cross-cutting  objective  aiming  to 
build a sound macro-regional governance model for the Region. 

ACTORS/GOVERNANCE  

The basis of the Strategy’s  governance  system is  laid down in  the Milan Declaration of the 
Alpine  States  and  Regions,  in  accordance  with  the  Grenoble  Political  Resolution,  the 

40  Conclusions of the European Council of 19-20 December 2013, para 50. 
41  Council  Conclusions  on  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Alpine  Region,  27  November  2015  and  the  European 

Council, 28 June 2016. 

42  Austria  (Burgenland,  Kärnten,  Niederösterreich,  Oberösterreich,  Salzburg,  Steiermark,  Tirol,  Vorarlberg, 
Wien), France (Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur), Germany  
(Baden-Württemberg,  Bayern),  Italy  (Friuli  Venezia  Giulia,  Liguria,  Lombardia,  Piemonte,  Provincia 
Autonoma  di  Bolzano,  Provincia  Autonoma  di  Trento,  Valle  d'Aosta,  Veneto),  Switzerland  (Aargau, 
Appenzell  Ausserrhoden,  Appenzell  Innerrhoden,  Basel-Landschaft,  Basel-Stadt,  Bern,  Freiburg,  Genf, 
Glarus, Graubünden, Jura, Luzern, Neuenburg, Nidwalden, Obwalden, Schaffhausen, Schwyz, Solothurn, St. 
Gallen, Tessin, Thurgau, Uri, Waadt, Wallis, Zug, Zürich). 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Commission’s report on governance of macro-regional strategies and the Council Conclusions 
of  21  October  2014.  To  get  all  main  governance  questions  straight,  the  Commission  has 
furthermore drafted a ‘guidance note on the EUSALP governance’ approved by the Executive 
Board in April 2016.  

Like  the  other  strategies  the  EUSALP  has  three  inter-related  levels:  (1)  a  General 
Assembly/political  level,  (2)  an  Executive  Board/coordination  level,  and  (3)  nine  Action 
Groups/implementation  level. The Strategy’s Action  Plan  provides more details of the main 
guiding principles of the Strategy’s governance arrangements. 

The  General  Assembly  is  composed  of  (a)  representatives  from  the  participating  States 
(according  to  each  internal  governance  system),  (b)  representatives  from  all  the  Regions 
included  in  the  Strategy,  (c)  the  EU  Commission  (as  coordinator/facilitator),  and  (d)  the 
Alpine  Convention  (as  observer);  MEPS  might  participate  upon  invitation.  The  General 
Assembly  is  mainly  responsible  for  laying  down  the  general  political  guidelines  for  the 
Strategy.  It  furthermore  has  the  possibility  of  organising  ministerial  meetings  in  order  to 
create the necessary political awareness for the Strategy. 

The  Executive  Board  is  composed  of  (a)  seven  national  delegations  headed  by  the  National 
Coordinators, (b) the European Commission as an independent facilitator and coordinator, and 
(c)  the  Alpine  Convention  and  the  Interreg  Alpine  Space  Programme  as  advisors.  The 
Executive  Board  is  in  charge  of  the  overall  horizontal  and  vertical  coordination  of  the 
EUSALP Action Plan. This  includes inter  and intra-objective coordination and coordination 
with the Action Groups as well as vertical coordination inside each country. 

The  nine  Action  Groups  are  composed  of  representatives  from  national,  regional  and  local 
administrations – mostly empowered with decision making capacity (DMC) – as well as so-
called  ‘advising  guests’  that  can  enrich  the  expertise  that  is  needed  for  an  effective 
implementation work. The Action Groups are the main drivers of day-to-day implementation. 
Four of the nine Action Groups have one leader and five a tandem, which also expresses the 
good  cooperation  culture  in  the  alpine  region.  Aside  from  that  it  is  to  be  mentioned  that  a 
clear  majority  of  the  Action  Groups  are  led  by  regions  or  organisations  that  are  driven  by 
regions (e.g. EGTC: EUREGIO Tyrol-South Tyrol-Trentino).  

The  Interreg  Alpine  Space  Programme,  covering  the  territory  as  the  EUSALP,  directly 
contributes to the Strategy’s implementation through its thematic priority axes (aligned with 
the  Strategy’s  objectives)  and  its  support  to  the  Strategy’s  governance  mechanisms  and 
structures. 

RESULTS 
The  Strategy  is  still  at  an  initial  stage,  after  the  launch  event  which  took  place  on  25-26 
January  2016  in  Brdo,  Slovenia  and  the  governance  general  principles  and  modalities 
approved  by  the  Executive  Board  in  April  2016.  This  implementation  phase  has  started 
quickly  and  smoothly,  expressing  the  strong  willingness  of  the  involved  actors  to  work 
together in the region. 

An important factor contributing for this fast launch is certainly that the majority of the seven 
EUSALP countries are not only involved with their national/federal administration, but also 
with their regional ones. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Civil  society  actors  shown  as  well  a  great  interest  for  the  Strategy  and  they  are  or  will  be 
included  in the  works  of  EUSALP  –  in  stakeholder  seminars,  action  groups,  Annual  Forum 
and stakeholders platform. 

Very important and positive also is the fact that the EUSALP has very quickly aroused a lot of 
interest  among the European  parliamentarians. The EP so called ‘Bresso’s  report’ is a good 
example  as  well  as  the  formation  of  the  ‘Friends  of  EUSALP’  (group  of  MEP  particularly 
concerned by EUSALP questions). 

At  this  early  stage  and  given  its  short  time  span,  it’s  too  early  to  draw  conclusions  on  the 
implementation  of  the  Strategy.  However,  some  first  indications  can  be  summarised  as 
follows. 

The General Assembly constituted itself on 25 January 2016 in Brdo, Slovenia in the context 
of the so-called Launch Conference and adopted the ‘Brdo Joint Statement on the European 
Union  Strategy  for  the  Alpine  Region  (EUSALP)’.  In  this  document  the  General  Assembly 
inter alia ‘mandated the Executive Board to supervise and coordinate the translation of the 
objectives and priorities laid down in the Strategy into concrete actions’ and ‘endorsed the 
proposed leadership of the Action Groups’. The General Assembly also agreed to entrust the 
next presidency in 2017 to Bavaria (Germany). Overall, the General Assembly has enunciated 
its very big political support for the EUSALP, which once more holds a lot of promise for the 
next steps to come. 

The Executive Board had its first meeting on 19-20 April 2016 in Brussels, Belgium where it 
reached  inter  alia  agreement  on  the  main  governance  questions  (e.g.  how  to  guarantee 
objective  coordination)  as  well  as  on  its  own  Rules  of  Procedure.  A  second  meeting  took 
place on 26-27 September 2016 in Koper, Slovenia. Rules of Procedures for Action Groups 
were adopted. The proposal from Tyrol (Austria) to hold the Presidency of EUSALP in 2018 
was accepted by the Executive Board and will be proposed to the next General Assembly for 
endorsement. Executive Board also took note of the intention of Italy to submit its candidature 
for Presidency in 2019. 

All  the  nine  Action  Groups  are  already  in  place  and  their  first  meetings  have  been  very 
promising  with  a  proactive  attitude  among  the  participants.  Altogether  these  nine  Action 
Groups comprise approximately 225 members with a diverse background and representing all 
the area covered by the Strategy. 

After these first nine months of implementation phase, several concrete achievements can be 
observed, even though not all process questions have been completely settled. Many Action 
Groups  have  already  agreed  upon  further  working  methods  and  a  (framework)  work 
programme.  Very  positive  is  in  addition  that  a  couple  of  Action  Groups  start  collaborating 
with  other  Action  Groups  of  their  objective  as  well  as  with  those  that  address  other  policy 
fields.  

This  good  cooperation  spirit  is  also  demonstrated  by  the  quick  setting-up  of  a  project 
submitted to the Interreg Alpine Space Programme (so called AlpGov project) whose  ‘main 
objective  is  to  support  effective  and  efficient  EUSALP  implementation  in  a  systematic 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
transnational approach through designing and testing appropriate governance structures and 
mechanisms mainly on the level of Action Groups (AGs)’.43 

One important objective of AlpGov is to make the EUSALP Action Groups operative while 
using  joint  standards.  To  do  so,  the  project  partners  have  decided  to  establish  a  Board  of 
Action  Group  Leaders  (BAGL)  that  shall  ensure  a  permanent  exchange  of  knowledge  and 
experiences  among  the  Action  Groups.  Furthermore,  it  aims  at  ensuring  a  smooth  interface 
between coordination level (Executive Board) and implementation level (Action Groups). 

Already on 16 June 2016 the BAGL has met for the first time in Brussels for a stocktaking of 
the  Action  Groups  set  up  process  and  to  work  on  the  horizontal  coherence  of  the  Action 
Groups. A second meeting took place end of September 2016. 

Joint efforts have started in almost Action Groups to commonly identify and develop projects 
aimed at implementing the Action Plan of the EUSALP. 

However even if the activity in the different Action Groups is generally marked by a strong 
leadership,  which  has  allowed  delivering  quick  decisions  and  results,  some  unbalances  still 
remain in their composition, This composition  should reflect the commitment of all countries 
and its contribution to the dialogue. Sustainable long-term guarantees must be secured for the 
continuity, the stability and the empowerment of Action Group members who will represent 
the  countries  and  regions  involved  in  the  Strategy.  The  role  of  national  coordinators  in 
ensuring this is crucial. 

When it comes to reporting to the Executive Board all nine Action Groups should work on a 
common line. This is of paramount importance to guarantee a good interconnection between 
all the governance levels and to set the basis for effective cooperation among the nine Action 
Groups.  

During  this  first  year  of  implementation,  Action  Groups  have  shown  different  ‘levels  of 
maturity’,  also  due  to  the  fact  that  some  Action  Groups  could  build  on  existing  initiatives. 
This is also reflected in the level of preparation and degree of completion of their work plans. 

Some of the issues included in the work plans remain rather broad at this stage and need to 
become  more  focussed.  The  choice  of  some  thematic  priorities  may  also  appear  as  a 
pragmatic  one,  more  guided  by  the  need  to  deliver  results  rapidly  than  by  a  pure  strategic 
approach. Also some key issues identified in the Action Plan are currently not yet covered by 
the action plans of the groups. This will need to be fine-tuned in the medium term.  

CHALLENGES 
The  quick  start  of  the  EUSALP  has  raised  many  expectations  and  the  first  positive 
achievements suggest that it is going in the right direction. However, and taking into account 
the short time span of the implementation phase, some challenges remain crucial and need to 
be addressed without further delays to unlock the full potential of the EUSALP.    

Planning and funding 

43  This  project  was  adopted  by  the  Interreg  Alpine  Space  Programme  on  6-7  June  2016.  The  design  and 
development of AlpGov was done by all Action Groups, and has the Bavarian State Ministry of the Environment 
and Consumer Protection as lead partner. See p. 1 of the project description, A.2 Project summary. 

48 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Since  the  beginning  of  its  elaboration,  EUSALP  has  gradually  been  taken  into  account  in 
several EU policy areas as well as in national policies despite uneven levels of integration of 
EUSALP  priorities  in  national  or  regional  programmes,  especially  those  supported  by  the 
ESIF. 

However, bridging the gap between the Strategy and funding opportunities is challenging and 
securing the alignment of funding of all programmes intervening in the area of the Strategy 
with  the  objectives  of  EUSALP,  is  vital  to  the success  of the  Strategy.  Further  efforts  must 
therefore  be  deployed  at  administrative  level  to  ensure  the  financial  support  of  projects 
through existing regional, national and EU programmes. 

The first steps of implementation  of the Strategy have  also shown that  its integration in  the 
existing programmes has proven difficult, as they are governed by structures, frameworks and 
timeframes often non compatible with the needs of a MRS.  

The question is twofold: to turn the MRS to a success, Member States and Regions involved 
would  need  to  consider  it  as  a  priority,  and  not  just  add  it  to  existing  frameworks  or 
organisations.  Without  an  efficient  steering  and  coordination,  the  EUSALP  role  will  be 
limited  to  put  together  projects,  already  set  up  and  financed  on  the  territory,  to  derive 
synergies,  economies  of  scale  or    realise  bigger  projects  to  attract  external  funds,  e.g.  from 
European Investment Bank or other non-EU institutions. 

Governance 

In  this  first  year  of  implementation,  EUSALP  activities  focused  primarily  on  the  set  up  of 
governance  structures  and  their  rules.  This  was  done  in  a  good  cooperation  spirit  and  has 
required extensive discussion and consultation among key stakeholders. 

To  go  ahead,  the  Strategy  requires  consensus  building  amongst  partners,  and  even  if  is  it  a 
sign  of  their  commitment,  EUSALP  members  will  have  to  take  care  to  avoid  a  certain 
competition between different interests within countries at national and regional level as well 
as between countries. 

Concerning  the  challenge  of  the  fourth  goal  of  the  EUSALP,  the  Governance  Objective, 
crucial in the EUSALP context, much progress still lies ahead in. To fully secure the concrete 
implementation  of all parts  of objective on macro-regional governance, a much  more active 
participation  and  taking  full  ownership  of  this  objective  from  participating  countries  is 
required. This calls for new solutions, creative thinking, changing of mind sets, the creation of 
a sort of ‘Laboratory for Democracy’ where solutions for the governance of a complex system 
of forces and weaknesses of individuals and groups should be tested as well as ways of more 
or less the direct participation of citizens in political choices.  

Commitment  of  all  involved  countries  must  be  reflected  in  the  in  the  composition  of  the 
Action  Groups  and  in  the  contribution  to  the  dialogue.  Therefore,  sustainable  long-term 
guarantees must be secured for the continuity, the stability and the empowerment of Action 
Group members who will represent the seven countries involved in the Strategy. During 2017, 
the Commission will carefully look at this balance and will monitor if all groups are able to 
develop  and  implement  a  first  batch  of  projects,  and  to  recommend  policy  changes  as 
appropriate 

Likewise,  the  creation  of  several  subgroups  within  each  working  group  calls  for  a  strong 
internal coordination which needs to be thought of (definition of the role of each subgroup, 
reporting arrangements to the working group, decision making process, etc.).  

49 

 
 
 
Even though that some Action Groups have immediately after the launch of the Strategy felt 
the  need  to  coordinate  their  activities  and  to  meet  accordingly  on  a  regular  basis,  there's  a 
need for permanent monitoring whether the decisions made by the different groups go in the 
same  direction  (choice  of  focussed  topics,  coordination  of  activities,  linkages  between  the 
Action  Groups,  monitoring  of  the  actions,  etc.)  and  converge  towards  the  objectives  of  the 
Strategy.  For  the  Action  Groups  that  are  not  taking  this  approach  of  coordination,  the 
monitoring of their activity becomes even more crucial. 

In  the  case  of  pre-existing  cooperation  structures  or  networks,  it  is  of  course  important  to 
ensure  their  participation,  where  relevant,  in  order  to  build  on  existing  expertise  and  to 
organise possible synergies among themselves, in the openness spirit that must prevail in the 
implementation of the Strategy. Their mapping, as it has been planned in the different Action 
Groups of the objective 1, goes in the right direction. 

Linkages  between  all  levels  of  governance  need  to  be  strengthened,  and  in  particular  the 
articulation/coordination  between  Executive  Board  and  Action  Groups  is  still  unclear  and 
further concrete efforts are needed to reinforce this linkage 

The development of the stakeholder platform is also a challenge, as it aims at the involvement 
of  interested  stakeholders,  including  civil  society  at  large,  and  the  strengthening  of  their 
participation.  

Monitoring  

A sound monitoring system based on result oriented actions becomes crucial for measuring, 
steering,  explaining  and  promoting  the  progress  EUSALP  as  well  as  to  inform  and  enable 
decision-makers to define the policy. 

During the elaboration of the Communication and the Action Plan a first attempt was made to 
set-up  some  targets  and  indicators,  but  this  exercise  must  be  fine-tuned  in  the  upcoming 
months in order to put in place a robust measuring and monitoring system, which should be 
based  on  realistic  and  credible  targets  and  indicators  with  clear  baseline.  Reliable  and 
comparable  data  bases  at  the  appropriate  statistical  level  needs  to  be  established.  ESPON 
efforts  to  develop  a  consolidated  territorial  monitoring  system  for  the  Alpine  region  should 
contribute to this objective. 

The Commission has also launched a number of complementary actions: the organisation of 
participatory  workshops  with  the  support  of  experts,  support  to  dedicated  territorial 
monitoring systems and evaluation study on MRS. The results of these actions are expected in 
the course of 2017. They will, however, prove useful only if key stakeholders participate and 
take full ownership.  

Communication   

There is a clear need for a sound communication strategy on the EUSALP activities and its 
results  at  an  early  stage  and  throughout  the  process.  The  communication  strategy  should 
ensure coverage regarding the whole EUSALP territory and best possible involvement of all 
stakeholders and at all levels. It is crucial to raise awareness, to improve information flows at 
different levels (e.g. national, regional) and to ensure participation and involvement, also of 
the wider public and civil society. 

In  order  to  reach  this  goal,  the  AlpGov  project  is  currently  developing  a  EUSALP 
communication strategy which should contribute to ensure a sense of ownership of EUSALP 

50 

 
 
 
 
by those who live and work in the alpine area. The EUSALP website as integral part of the 
EUSALP communication strategy should become operational in early 2017. 

RECOMMENDATIONS  

The course of action should focus on the core challenges described above. Hence, based on 
the implementation to date, the following areas of improvement have been identified:  

 

further  develop  objective  4  which  in  particular  means  do  draft  a  clear  work 
programme for that objective as decided by the Executive Board in its first meeting in 
Brussels on 19/20 April 2016; 

  secure  representative  commitment,  continuity,  stability  and  empowerment  of  AGs 
members  who  will  represent  the  countries  involved  and  achieve  a  balanced 
composition of all nine Action Groups; 

  complete  the  governance  architecture  and  rules  in  order  to  make  them  effective  and 

provide a clear framework for action; 

  ensure effective cooperation between AGs leaders and national coordinators;  
  monitor  if  the  decisions  made  by  the  different  AGs  converge  towards  the  four 

objectives of the Strategy; 

  develop first ‘(lighthouse) projects’ and to launch their implementation; 
  develop the so-called stakeholder platform and ensure that actors from private sector 
are better involve as well as keep maintaining and attracting more actors from regional 
and local levels; 

  develop and implement quickly the EUSALP communication strategy;  

In  addition,  the  Commission  will  facilitate  a  smooth  handover  of  the  presidency  from 
Slovenia  to  Bavaria.  Moreover,  an  important  next  step  will  be  in  that  regard  to  develop  a 
sound work programme for the Bavarian presidency in 2017 and to ensure a continuous and 
fruitful interaction between policymakers and the implementation level. 

51 

 
 
 
 
Annexes: Maps of the different macro-regional strategies 

Annex 1: map of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 

52 

 
 
 
 
Annex 2: map of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3: map of the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region  

54 

 
 
 
 
Annex 4: map of the EU Strategy for the Alpine Region 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 5: map of the four EU macro-regional strategies 

56