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  COM(2016) 805 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the implementation of EU macro-regional strategies  {SWD(2016) 443 final}  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE 
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE 
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

on the implementation of EU macro-regional strategies  

1. Introduction: from words to action 

Globalisation has made countries more interdependent and problems must now be addressed 
across borders. This calls for a reflection on how macro-regions, as new functional areas, can 
contribute  to  improving  the  implementation  of  EU  policies  and  programmes  and  to  the 
achievement of territorial cohesion, as set out in Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union.  

The  emergence  of  macro-regional  strategies  (MRS)  has  been  driven  by  a  number  of  EU 
countries  and  regions  as  a  complement  to  traditional  country  policies  on  territorial 
management. They are designed to tackle common challenges e.g. innovation-driven growth, 
environment or climate change, using a bottom-up approach involving national, regional and 
local actors.     

Since the European Council endorsed the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) in 
2009,1  three  further  MRS  have  been  developed:  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Danube  Region 
(EUSDR) in 2011,2 the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR) in 20143 
and the EU Strategy for the Alpine Region (EUSALP) in 2016.4  

Involving 19 EU and 8 non-EU countries, MRS have now become an integral part of the EU 
policy framework. Their objectives are fully in line with EU political priorities; they reinforce 
synergies  between  different  EU  policies  and  instruments  and  are  anchored  in  the  cohesion 
policy framework.5  

MRS  add  value  to  the  cooperation dimension  of  cohesion  policy.  They  offer  a  platform  for 
multi-sectoral,  multi-country  and  multi-level  governance,  also  open  to  non-EU  countries. 
They can play a substantial role in helping these countries to strengthen their links with the 
EU and mitigate possible negative effects on the EU’s external borders.  
In view of the ‘3 no‘s’, – no new – EU legislation, EU funding or institutions – MRS fit into 
existing  initiatives  and  EU  policy  frameworks  (e.g.  TEN-T).  They  require  specific  action 
rather  than  new  policy  initiatives.  They  can  be  supported  through  programmes  under  the 
European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), including Interreg, and other EU funding 
instruments should be aligned towards common objectives.  

The purpose of this report is two-fold. First, the report gives an assessment of the strategies’ 
state of implementation, takes stock of the main results and gives examples of good practice. 
Second,  it  draws  lessons  from  the  experience  gained  so  far  and  presents  a  number  of 

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

European Council, 29-30 October 2009. 

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

June 2011. 

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

23-24 October 2014. 

4  Conclusions of Council, 27 November 2015 and the European Council, 28 June 2016.   
5  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 31 of Article 2. 

2 

 
 
                                                            
recommendations  on  possible  further  developments,  also  in  the  light  of  the  future  cohesion 
policy.  

Instead  of  presenting  MRS  progress  reports  at  different  times  in  a  fragmented  way  and  as 
stated in the Council Conclusions on the EUSALP, the Commission will publish one single 
report every two years as of the end of 2016. This will make it possible to compare MRS and 
will provide all institutions concerned with sufficient insights for an informed debate.  

The report is based on contributions from MRS stakeholders, European institutions, Member 
State representatives, academia and experts. It is complemented by a staff working document 
which  gives  a  more  detailed  assessment  of  the  state  of  implementation  of  each  strategy,  as 
well as specific recommendations. 

2. Cross-cutting issues 

MRS have fuelled interest in and awareness of European territorial cooperation and territorial 
cohesion and its added value. They are also gradually being used in sectoral policy areas to 
better implement policies across territories in an integrated way. All strategies face common 
cross-cutting issues, regardless of their degree of maturity; these are discussed below. 

Policy making and planning 

MRS have gradually been taken into account in EU policy areas, e.g. in research, climate and 
environment. This is also the case for national policies, despite uneven levels of integration of 
MRS priorities into national or regional programmes, especially those supported by the ESIF. 

The  strategies  have  strengthened  cooperation  in  certain  policy  areas,  e.g.  the  Navigability 
Danube  master  plan,  the  extension  of  the  Baltic  Energy  Market  Interconnection  Plan 
(BEMIP), the Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change in the Baltic Sea Region, or the Core 
Network  Corridors  and  its  links  with  key  cross-border  infrastructures.  Smart  specialisation 
strategies have been used to drive a more effective innovation  policy and push interregional 
cooperation in new value chains across borders.  
The  dissemination  of  the  macro-regional  concept  with  the  support  of  INTERACT6  has  led 
over  time  to  the  emergence  of  a  wide  array  of  interests  and  networks  formed  by  different 
actors  with  varying  powers  and  capacities.  It  has  allowed  partners  to  cooperate  in  specific 
fields such as research and innovation (e.g. the DanuBalt project on health). 

MRS also play a big role in developing links with non-EU countries, in particular accession 
countries, strengthening their connection to the EU.  

Most  of  these  initiatives  and  actions  need  momentum  and  would  benefit  from  stronger 
coordination  within  and  between  the  involved  countries  to  deliver  the expected  results.  The 
practice  of  combining  the  annual  fora  with  ministerial  meetings  contributes  to  it, and  at  the 
same time raises the political profile of MRS. For example, the experience of the Baltic Sea 
region  shows  that  long-term  strategic  thinking  must  remain  the  basis  for  macro-regional 
cooperation. 

Governance 

MRS  generally  include  a  three-tier  governance  system  with  policy,  coordination  and 
operational levels. Each strategy has set up its own structures and mechanisms based on the 
principles described in the Commission report on governance.7  

6  INTERACT is an EU-wide programme co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund designated 

to provide support to the managing authorities of Interreg programmes as well as MRS. 

7  COM (2014) 284 final. 

3 

 
 
                                                            
They  focus  on  an  optimal  use  of  existing  financial  sources  (e.g.  the  ESIF,  Horizon  2020, 
COSME,  LIFE),  better  implementation  of  existing  legislation  and  better  use  of  existing 
institutions. Some good practices can be highlighted; for example, Sweden has established a 
national Baltic Sea Network to facilitate EUSBSR implementation at national level. It brings 
together  different  actors  (e.g.  national  agencies,  county  administrative  boards,  regional 
associations, municipalities, managing authorities) involved in the strategy.  

The  question  of  ownership  of  MRS  is  gaining  more  traction  due  to  the  pressure  to  deliver 
results.  Steps  are  also  being  taken  to  establish  stakeholder  platforms  involving  civil  society 
and other organisations.  

The role of the rotating MRS presidency is growing in importance as most countries realise 
that it is not limited to the organisation of annual fora, but also includes driving the strategic 
direction of action.  

However, experience shows that such an approach to strategy implementation has its limits. 
These  include  challenges  in  the  following  areas:  efficient  coordination  and  cooperation 
structures;  empowering  key  implementers  (i.e.  national  coordinators,  members  of  steering 
groups)  and  providing  adequate  human  and  financial  resources;  representation  and 
commitment  from  all  participating  countries;  and  ensuring  the  competences  needed, 
continuity and stability of steering groups.  

These challenges are common to all MRS, though to varying degrees. In the EUSBSR, despite 
a  recent  revision  of  the  action  plan,  Member  States  have  many  priority  areas  to  reflect  the 
wide  diversity  of  stakeholder  interests.  In  the  EUSDR,  there  is  still  a  need  to  ensure  that 
priorities better match resources. In all cases, Member States need to take full responsibility 
for their implementation tasks and complement the Commission’s work.     

In  the  EUSALP,  coordination  between  the  Executive  Board  and  the  Action  Groups  is  still 
unclear. Further efforts are needed to strengthen this crucial link. Much progress is required in 
the  area  of  governance,  with  more  active  participation  and  a  sense  of  ownership  in  this 
priority area by participating countries. 

Governance  is  also  a  matter  of  concern  in  the  EUSAIR.  The  Commission  had  to  step  in  to 
offset a persistent lack of resources from participating countries, delays in the designation of 
members, and poor attendance at steering group meetings to prevent the entire process from 
stalling. Such an approach is neither sustainable nor desirable. 

Monitoring and evaluation 

There  is  increasing  demand,  not  least  from  the  Commission,  for  a  stronger  focus  on  the 
strategies’  core  priorities.  In  this  regard,  it  is  important  to  align  the  MRS  with  broader 
strategies for EU policy-making and to ensure regular reviews towards identified objectives, 
as this increases chances of delivering results. Without clearly defined indicators and targets, 
is  difficult  to  assess  how  well  the  planned  objectives  have  been  met.  A  sound  monitoring 
system  based  on  results-oriented  action  is  crucial  to  make  it  possible  to  measure,  steer  and 
report on each MRS to inform decision making.    

In line with the Council Conclusions on the EUSAIR and on the EUSALP, the Commission 
has taken a number of specific steps in this area.  

Several revised indicators and targets  were recently agreed for the EUSDR priority areas to 
match  the  strategy’s  evolution.  A  set  of  indicators  and  targets  was  agreed  in  2012  for  the 
EUSBSR.  For  the  EUSAIR  and  EUSALP,  the  exercise  will  be  fine-tuned  in  the  upcoming 
months. 

4 

 
 
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  an  evaluation  study  on  MRS.  The  results  of  these  actions  are 
expected over the course of 2017. However, they will only prove useful if key stakeholders 
participate and take full ownership in the process.  

They should also help the political level to decide, especially taking into account budgetary 
constraints,  which  priorities  and  actions  should  be  funded  and,  where  appropriate,  limit  the 
priorities to those areas where the macro-regional approach brings genuine added value. 

There  is  still  much  progress  to  be  made  in  this  area.  It  requires  collective  steering  and  a 
common sense of purpose based on a long-term perspective.  

Funding 

MRS are now part of the 2014-2020 ESIF legal framework which calls on countries to align 
their programming priorities with those of MRS and on managing authorities to strengthen the 
links between programme managers and key MRS implementers. The breadth of information 
provided by managing authorities is variable, depending on their degree of awareness. There 
is  progress  and  some  good  practice:  targeted  calls,  bonus  to  projects  of  macro-regional 
relevance,  direct  support  to  strategy  projects  or  participation  of  MRS  representatives  in 
programme  monitoring  committees  (e.g.  Slovak  Research  and  Innovation  Operational 
Programme 2014-2020; 2014-2020 Rural Development Programme for Lithuania). 

Nevertheless,  bridging  the  gap  between  the  strategies  and  funding  opportunities  is  still  a 
challenge.  The  on-going  dialogue  between  programme  managing  authorities  and  strategy 
actors  should  be  further  encouraged.  Managing  authorities  should  be  more  proactive  in  the 
implementation  of  MRS  in  their  programme  objectives  and  should  better  integrate  and 
coordinate relevant activity in the programmes.  

This  also  concerns  other  relevant  funding  sources  (national,  regional,  private,  etc.)  which 
could be mobilised to achieve MRS objectives. Synergies and complementarities with  other 
relevant funding instruments should be further explored.  

Communication 

Experience  shows  that  a  strong  communication  strategy  should  be  part  of  the  MRS.  It  is  a 
powerful  tool  to  raise  the  general  public’s  awareness  about  planned  actions  and  desired 
results.  It  should  spur  key  implementers  to  reflect,  at  an  early  stage,  on  how  strategies  can 
bring about a positive change for the population and how this can be presented in the media. 

The  EUSBSR  communication  strategy  adopted  in  December  2015  is  a  good  example  to 
follow in order to increase awareness and visibility of MRS. 

3. The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) 

3.1 Results  

After  seven  years  in  existence,  the  strategy  has  given  impetus  to  new  networks  and  has 
increased  the  effectiveness  of  existing  ones  (e.g.  the  Baltic  Sea  Fisheries  Forum, 
SUBMARINER). This has led to the start of new projects and the extension of existing ones 
(e.g. Interactive water management, Baltic Training Programme). The consolidation of multi-
level governance in the region has offered Baltic Sea actors a joint framework for dialogue. 

The strategy has contributed to shaping policy at different levels: broadening the scope of the 
BEMIP  initiative  by  including  new  areas  –  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy–  and 
shaping  the  work  of  the  International  Maritime  Organisation  on  developing  and  testing  e-
Navigation  infrastructure  and  services  in  the  region.  It  has  also  contributed  to  the 

5 

 
 
implementation  of  existing  legislation,  e.g.  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  the  Marine 
Strategy  Framework  Directive,  the  EU  Strategy  on  adaptation  to  climate  change.  Topics  of 
regional  importance  were  put  back  on  the  political  agenda  and  included  the  organisation  in 
2015 of the first high-level meeting on culture since 2008. 

Increased cooperation and coordination at all levels, be it within countries, between countries 
(EU and non-EU) or among regional organisations, has created stronger synergies.  

The  preparation  of  macro-regional  projects  supported  by  transnational  partnerships  and 
networks has been helped by the launch of the EUSBSR Seed Money Facility together with 
the  Interreg  Baltic  Sea  Region.  The  establishment  of  a  network  of  European  Regional  and 
Development Fund (ERDF) managing authorities in 2016 will allow a more efficient use of 
available  resources,  by  supporting  EUSBSR  implementation  with  ERDF  country-specific 
programmes and by increasing coordination among relevant stakeholders.  

These achievements have been supported by a comprehensive review of the EUSBSR Action 
Plan carried out in 2015, which led to a more streamlined and focused strategy. The review 
also contributed to  a  stronger  sense  of  ownership  by introducing  a  rotating chairmanship  of 
the group of national coordinators in 2014. 

3.2 Challenges  

Improving  the  environmental  state  of  the  Baltic  Sea  has  remained  the  main  focus  of  the 
EUSBSR since its launch in 2009. However, further efforts are needed taking into account the 
environmental  challenges  faced  by  the  Baltic  (eutrophication,  nitrates  from  agricultural 
sources, fisheries). The region could also benefit from improved connectivity in the fields of 
energy and transport and better response to impacts of climate change.  

In  addition,  the  rapid  increase  in  migrants  calls  for  more  cooperation.  Effective  integration 
actions, particularly in the education sector, should be further explored. 

Policy  making  could  be  improved  by  a  number  of  operational  measures.  These  include,  for 
instance: facilitating the management and sustainability of projects by offering partner search 
tools  able  to  identify  the  right  people  with  the  right  competences;  strengthening  the 
contribution of horizontal actions to implementation of each policy area; reinforcing the link 
between  project  and  policy  levels  by,  for  example,  informing  national  coordinators  about 
project results.  

4. The EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR) 

4.1 Results  

There have been several significant achievements since the strategy’s launch. 

Several projects started or were further developed as a result of the EUSDR. These include: 
the  master  plans  on  Fairway  rehabilitation  and  maintenance  and  on  LNG  navigation;  the 
creation  of  nature  protection  networks  and  the  development  of  common  methodologies  for 
natural risk assessment and management under climate change; and the setup of a network for 
improving security on the Danube River.  

The EUSDR has clearly improved the culture of cooperation, bringing together stakeholders 
and  better  connecting  existing  institutions  to  share  knowledge  and  experience.  It  has 
benefitted from high political support of the Danube ministerial meeting of transport ministers 

6 

 
 
to  ensure  better  governance  of  the  Danube  navigation,  e.g.  through  the  above-mentioned 
master plans.8 

Furthermore,  it  has  improved  dialogue  and  cooperation  with  existing  international 
organisations  in  the  region  (e.g.  International  Commission  for  the  Protection  of  the  Danube 
River, Carpathian Convention) through the development of joint initiatives and synergies. 

The Danube Financing Dialogue is one example of a match-making platform offered by the 
strategy so that project promoters and financing institutions can discuss and identify suitable 
solutions to issues related to financing projects in the region.  

The  EUSDR  has  also  made  the  governance  system  more  effective  by  strengthening 
coordination between policies and institutions at national level. It has facilitated reaching out 
to  relevant  stakeholders  at  both  national  and local  level,  as  well  as  continued  dialogue  with 
civil society organisations.  

Another important area where the EUSDR has made a genuine contribution concerns the EU 
enlargement  and  neighbourhood  policy  agendas.  It  has  helped  to  intensify  thematic 
cooperation with  the five  non-EU participating states and bring stability to  the area through 
solid  networks  and  partnerships.  Relevant  initiatives  include  the  setup  of  the  first  European 
Grouping  of  Territorial  Cooperation  with  a  non-EU  country  (Hungary-Ukraine)  and  the 
establishment  of  a  new  coordination  scheme  in  2015  to  allow  Moldova  to  take  part  in  the 
strategy.  Serbia  has  also  taken  an  active  stance  in  co-coordinating  two  of  the  strategy’s 
priority areas. 

Implementation of the EUSDR has been supported by the Danube transnational programme. 
The  latter  covers  the  same  geographical  area,  provides  financial  support  to  specific 
transnational  projects  and  supports  the  strategy’s  governance.  In  2014,  the  14  participating 
countries jointly set up the Danube Strategy Point (DSP), which became operational in June 
2015. The DSP has mainly been active in monitoring, communicating and supporting priority 
area coordinators and cooperation between priority areas.    

4.2 Challenges  

Notwithstanding  the  promising  initial  results,  the  EUSDR  would  benefit  from  a  number  of 
specific policy and operational measures, such as further integration on transport and energy 
infrastructure, measures countering water pollution, natural risks, common labour market and 
education  policies,  competitiveness  measures,  in  particular  for  SMEs  and  measures 
addressing demographic challenges and brain drain. The security dimension is still important 
as is the need to further develop capacity in public administrations.  

In  addition,  new  challenges  have  come  to  light  in  the  past  two  years,  for  example  those 
relating to migration flows and the global security and terrorism. 

The political momentum has somewhat decreased at national level compared to the first years 
of activity. As the strategy is a long-term process, continuity in political support remains vital, 
in  particular  through  the  provision  of  capacity  and  resources  for  implementing  the  strategy. 
Strengthening national coordination mechanisms is also essential. 

Administrative  capacity  to  deal  with  implementation  issues  and  to  improve  cooperation 
remains  an  issue,  in  particular  for  non-EU  countries.  This  still  requires  an  appropriate 
response at national and regional level.  

5. The EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR) 

8  Danube ministers meeting, Conclusions on effective waterway infrastructure rehabilitation and maintenance 

on the Danube and its navigable tributaries, Rotterdam, 20 June 2016. 

7 

 
 
                                                            
5.1 Results  

Given its short life span, EUSAIR activity has focused primarily on the set up of governance 
structures  and  rules.  This  has  required  extensive  discussion  and  consultation  among  key 
stakeholders, primarily national coordinators.   

The  strategy  requires  strong  coordination  at  EU  level  to  overcome  diverging  national 
interests,  in  the  light  of  the  significant  participation  of  non-EU  countries  with  significant 
socio-economic  disparities  and  notable  imbalances  in  their  institutional  and  administrative 
capacities.  The  model  of  coordination  proposed  in  the  Action  Plan  puts  the  four  accession 
countries on par with the four participating Member States as regard their participation in the 
governance structures, e.g. the rotating presidency open to all countries.    

There  has  been  particular  emphasis  on  ensuring  key  implementers’  sense  of  ownership  by 
making dedicated resources available to the thematic steering groups. The issue of financial, 
administrative and technical support has also been addressed.  

Dedicated support to the EUSAIR governance structures will also be provided by the ‘Facility 
Point’ – a strategic project approved in May 2016 under the Interreg ADRION programme. 
National  coordinators  endorsed  the  scope  and  design  of  the  Facility  Point  in  the  autumn  of 
2015. 

By end 2015, the four thematic steering groups had identified the priority actions on which to 
concentrate  their  work  in  the  initial  period  (e.g.  maritime  spatial  planning,  developing 
motorways  of  the  sea  or  fostering  Adriatic  -  Ionian  cultural  heritage),  as  well  as  specific 
guidance and selection criteria to help choose the right projects. 

Efforts  were  also  made  to  promote  sustained  cooperation  between  ESIF  and  Instrument  for 
Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) programme authorities and EUSAIR key implementers. This 
means  that  ESIF,  the  IPA  and  other  relevant  national  and  regional  funding  streams  should 
contribute  to  the  achievement  of  EUSAIR  objectives.  This  was  echoed  by  the  Dubrovnik 
Declaration  adopted  by  Foreign  Affairs  and  EU  Funds  ministers  at  the  1st  EUSAIR  Forum 
held in May 2016. The process is on-going and will require coordination among the different 
actors concerned. 

5.2 Challenges 

Despite  high  political  backing,  the  resources  made  available  by  participating  countries  to 
support  the  strategy  remain  largely  insufficient.  While  the  Commission  has  taken  an  active 
role  in  policy  coordination,  key  implementers  will  be  faced  with  persisting  difficulties  in 
delivering expected results in the absence of a clear commitment from national and regional 
administrations.  This  would  mean  securing  agreement  on  a  work  plan  with  a  specific 
timetable and ensuring contacts between project promoters, programmes and funding sources. 
It would also involve providing technical assistance and advice as appropriate. Financial and 
operational  support  provided  by  the  Facility  Point  should  help  overcome  some  of  these 
difficulties.  

While  challenges  and  opportunities  offered  by  the  strategy  remain  relevant  on  the  whole, 
Adriatic-Ionian  countries  are  confronted  with  a  major  refugee  and  migration  crisis  which  is 
likely to affect the region. This could be addressed through the EUSAIR in a coordinated and 
pragmatic way.  

Transport  and  energy  priorities  should  be  adjusted  to  complement  –  and  not  duplicate  – 
initiatives taken in other high-level cooperation fora (e.g. the ‘Berlin process’ or the Energy 
Community). 

8 

 
 
Ensuring funding alignment with the strategy’s priorities is essential. Further efforts must be 
made at administrative level to provide projects with the necessary financial support through 
available regional, national or EU programmes. 

6. The EU Strategy for the Alpine Region (EUSALP) 

6.1 Results  

EUSALP  implementation  started  in  the  first  half  of  2016.  This  was  done  quite  quickly  due 
mainly  to  the high  level of political and economic cooperation  in the area.  The regions,  the 
participating  countries  (of  which  two  non-EU,  Switzerland  and  Lichtenstein),  the  Alpine 
Convention  and  the  Interreg  Alpine  Space  programme  have  all  contributed  to  defining  the 
concept of the strategy, whereas the Commission has defined the steps to finalise and endorse 
it. The strategy has also been met with strong interest in the European Parliament, where an 
informal group was created (‘Friends of EUSALP’). 

Conclusions on the strategy’s implementation cannot yet be drawn. However, the governance 
structures and rules were broadly agreed prior to its official launch in Brdo in January 2016. 
The first Action Groups meetings resulted in an agreement on further working methods and a 
work programme identifying thematic topics (e.g. improving the value chain of alpine wood, 
focusing on climate change adaptation or defining future common space for dual-vocational 
education).  A  Board  of  Action  Groups  Leaders  will  be  established  to  ensure  the  permanent 
exchange of knowledge and experiences among the groups. 

The  Interreg  Alpine  Space  programme  will  support  the  strategy’s  implementation  with  a 
dedicated strategic project (AlpGov). 

6.2 Challenges   

The quick start of implementation has raised many expectations among stakeholders. In 2017, 
the Commission will carefully consider the balanced composition and stability of the Action 
Groups to ensure efficiency. It will also monitor whether all groups are able to develop and 
implement  projects  and  will  recommend  appropriate  changes.  The  embedding  of  EUSALP 
objectives in relevant ESIF programmes should also help.  

It  is  crucial  to  secure  the  full  implementation  of  the  macro-regional  governance  objective, 
which calls for new solutions for ‘institutional embedding’ to avoid duplication with existing 
structures and to ensure appropriate coordination mechanisms across actors and priorities. The 
development  of  the  stakeholder  platform  is  also  challenging  as  it  aims  to  involve  interested 
stakeholders, including civil society at large, and strengthen their participation.  

7. The way forward 

After  seven  years  of  implementation,  MRS  are  producing  their  first  results,  but  have  not 
shown their full potential yet. The benefits would be much greater if the Member States who 
initiated  these  processes  of  cooperation  would  retain  greater  responsibility.  Areas  where 
continued effort is needed relate to the effectiveness of the governance systems, the focus on 
results,  funding  and  relation  with  non-EU  countries.  Issues  need  to  be  considered  in  the 
context of the post 2020 reform of cohesion policy.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Improving effectiveness 

The success of the strategies depends on sound implementation in the years to come, as well 
as on readiness to adjust to changing circumstances, for example, the migration crisis. There 
needs to be further progress in the governance of MRS. This requires, in particular, that:  

  each strategy regularly assesses the effectiveness of its governance system in line with 
the  Commission’s  report  on  Governance  of  2014  and  makes  any  necessary 
adjustments; 

  sectoral ministries make a stronger commitment to achieving the MRS objectives; this 

implies a periodic rotation of thematic area coordinators; 

  close  cooperation  is  ensured  between  steering  groups  members  and  the  managing 

 

authorities of programmes  supported by ESIF or other instruments; 
the links between MRS are strengthened to exploit synergies and learn from each other 
with the support of INTERACT. 

Focusing on results   

MRS need to adapt to the demand for a stronger focus on performance which characterises the 
current  cohesion  policy  framework.  In  this  respect,  it  is  strongly  recommended  that  the 
following actions are taken:  

 

  set up or consolidate a sound monitoring system, with the support of the Commission 
and  the  ESPON  programme,  to  report  on  progress  and  support  their  strategic 
orientation;  the  Danube  Reference  Data  and  Services  Infrastructure  can  support  the 
establishment of a sound monitoring system;   
improve  the  quality  of  projects  and  processes  and  ensure  the  sustainability  of  their 
results, as well as the link between project results and policy actions; 
increase  awareness  at  all  levels  and  improve  the  communication  of  the  strategies’ 
added  value  and  results,  including  by  using  the  annual  fora  to  carry  out  a  critical 
review of the strategies; 
further explore thematic platforms (e.g.  S3 platform or climate dialogue platform) to 
increase the strategies’ thematic focus. 

 

 

Beyond funding  

Strategies  do  not  have  a  dedicated  budget  of  their  own.  Therefore,  they  require  a  more 
coordinated use of available funding streams at different levels. 

In  this  regard,  it  is  important  to  continue  the  current  dialogue  between  ESIF  programme 
managing authorities and key MRS implementers to align funding in the most appropriate and 
cost-effective  way.  Initiatives  like  the  establishment  of  the  ERDF  managing  authorities’ 
network in the Baltic should be explored by other macro-regions. Furthermore, EU funds or 
other  financing  tools,  including  financial  instruments  should  also  be  considered  to  support 
MRS  priorities  and  actions.  Synergies  with  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments 
should also be explored, in particular for bankable projects.  

Relations with non EU countries 

MRS have become an important instrument in the relations between EU Member States and 
their  external  neighbours,  both  with  accession  countries  and  parts  of  the  Neighbourhood 
Policy  (Eastern  Partnership)  and  the  Northern  Periphery  and  the  Arctic  region.  They  can 
foster  regional  development  and  cohesion  with  these  countries  and  nurture  the  relationships 
that the EU develops on its external borders.  

10 

 
 
 
Conclusions 

Reducing  regional  disparities  is  as  much  a  goal  of  MRS  as  is  the  creation  of  synergies  for 
growth and employment in the regions concerned. Macro-regions can help shape an integrated 
view on the future of the European territory. They can become an important instrument in the 
pursuit  of  territorial  cohesion  across  different  policy  areas,  and  can  also  inspire  similar 
approaches as the EU Urban agenda. They call for closer links between EU policy areas and 
EU funds.  

In order to untap their potential to the benefit of European citizens, links between MRS and 
cohesion policy should be further explored in terms of targeting strategic sectors, coordinating 
EU policies and instruments.  

In this regard, there are a number of questions which need to be addressed in the light of the 
future reform of cohesion policy. These may include: 

  How can the synergies and complementarities between MRS and relevant national or 
regional programmes supported by the ESIF be strengthened to maximise impact?  
  Should transnational programmes be (functionally) further aligned with MRS or other 

transnational cooperation frameworks and initiatives?  

  How  the  governance  system  of  MRS,  including  the  respective  roles  of  all  relevant 

actors, could be further improved? 

11