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: 2019-01-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission
Subjects: Adriatic and Ionian region, Alpine Region, Baltic Sea region, Danube region, EU macroregional policy, EU strategy, economic and social cohesion, regional aid, regional cooperation, regional development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 29.1.2019  SWD(2019) 6 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(2019) 21 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 4 

REPORT  ON  THE 
STRATEGY FOR THE BALTIC SEA REGION .............................................................. 6 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION 

REPORT  ON  THE 
STRATEGY FOR THE DANUBE REGION ................................................................... 16 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION 

REPORT  ON  THE 
STRATEGY FOR THE ADRIATIC AND IONIAN REGION ....................................... 26 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION 

REPORT  ON  THE 
STRATEGY FOR THE ALPINE REGION ..................................................................... 36 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION 

CONTRIBUTION OF PROGRAMMES TO MACROREGIONAL STRATEGIES ...... 45 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 

The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region ..................................................... 45 
The EU Strategy for the Danube Region......................................................... 47 
The EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region ...................................... 49 
The EU Strategy for the Alpine Region .......................................................... 51 

ANNEXES: MAPS OF THE DIFFERENT MACRO-REGIONAL STRATEGIES ....... 53 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

European Neighbourhood Instrument 

European Regional Development Fund 

ESI Funds 

European Structural and Investment Funds 

ESF 

ETC 

EU  

EUSAIR 

EUSALP 

EUSBSR 

EUSDR 

FP 

GB 

HA 

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 

EUSAIR 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 

Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance 

Joint Research Center 

2 

 
 
 
 
LNG 

MA 

MLG 

MRS 

MSP 

NC(s) 

NGO 

OP(s) 

PA 

Liquefied Natural Gas 

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-sized Enterprises 

Steering Group 

TEN-T 

Trans-European Transport Network 

TO 

TSG 

Thematic Objective 

Thematic Steering Group 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
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 EU 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,  EU institutions, Member States representatives, academia and 
experts. 

The  differing  structure  between  the  individual  chapters  on  each  of  the  four  macro-regional 
strategy is due to the different maturity of each strategy (they have been adopted at different 
time) hence the differing availability of data and deliverables. 

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

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

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

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

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

4 

 
 
 
 
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  whereby  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)  

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.  

The regulatory framework for the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds for 2014-2020 
places  MRS  into  the  legal  framework  of  the  EU  and  provides  a  comprehensive  definition  of  it. 
According to the Common Provisions Regulation 2014-20201, a ‘macro-regional strategy’ is an 
integrated  framework  endorsed  by  the  European  Council,  which  may  be  supported  by  the  ESI 
Funds 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.  

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  its  anchoring  to  integrated,  strategic,  longer-term-
oriented  and  open-ended  frameworks.  In  addition,  MRS  are  requested  by  the  participating 
countries  and  reflect  their  strong  political  commitment  towards  joint  achievement  of  common 
objectives.  

MRS  aim at  addressing  challenges  and  opportunities  specific  to  a certain  geographical  area  and 
define a set of shared, long-term objectives agreed by the participating countries. The objectives 
vary according to the needs of the macro-region concerned. Prominence is to be given to strategic 
issues bringing an added value to horizontal EU policies.  

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.  

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
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 a Communication on 
the  EUSBSR  on  10  June  20094  alongside  a  detailed  Action  Plan.  The  European  Council 
endorsed this approach in October 20095.  

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 interest6. 
A first progress report on the implementation of the EUSBSR was issued in June 20117. 

The  first  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  four  macro-regional  strategies,  thus  including 
the EUSBSR, was issued in December 20168. 

RESULTS  

The  implementation  of  the  EUSBSR  has  been  progressing  over  the  last  years  and  various 
results, varying from one thematic area to another, have been achieved. These are summarised 
below. 

Governance 

Further  efforts  to  strengthen  ownership  of  countries  involved  have  been  taken  up  with  the 
adoption, in June 2017, of the rules of procedure for the Group of National Coordinators of 
the  EUSBSR.  Among  others,  they  outline  the  composition  of  the  group,  its  rules, 

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 Norway has recently shown interest in being more involved in EUSBSR and have attended NC-meetings as an 
observer. 
7  Commission  report  on  the  Implementation  of  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  -  22.6.2011  - 
COM(2011) 381 final.   
8  Commission  report  on  the  implementation  of  EU  macro-regional  strategies.  16.12.2016  -  COM(2016)  805 
final. 

6 

 
 
                                                           
responsibilities, tasks and a decision-making procedure. The rules of procedure also establish 
the  order  of  rotating  chairmanship  of  National  Coordinators  Group  and  organisation  of  the 
EUSBSR annual forum until 2025. This brings more stability to the governance structure and 
allows focusing better on more concrete implementation matters. Moreover, it was agreed that 
the non-attributable reports of the group are to be published on the EUSBSR website making 
the governance process more transparent.  

Contrary  to  other  EU  macro-regional  strategies  (e.g.  in  the  Danube  and  the  Adriatic  and 
Ionian regions), so far no dedicated ministerial meetings have been held back-to-back to the 
EUSBSR  annual  fora.  An  important  step  forward  towards  this  has  been  made  at  the  annual 
forum of the EUSBSR in Tallinn (June 2018) where a possibility to organise regular meetings 
of ministers responsible for regional development  of the eight  countries  back-to-back to  the 
annual forum, was raised9. These ministerial meetings could adopt conclusions or declarations 
that should help implementation e.g. by giving a mandate to the strategy’s key implementers. 
Nevertheless, this suggestion requires further reflections on its practical application.  

Since the last reporting in 2016, the EUSBSR Action Plan has been revised with an updated 
version published in March 2017. Apart from a number of technical updates and corrections, 
main changes on substance concern a revised chapter of policy area ‘Transport’, the inclusion 
of  a  new  action  on  the  integration  of  refugees  in  policy  area  ‘Education’,  and  Lithuania's 
appointment as a co-coordinator of policy area ‘Energy’. Moreover, in the governance chapter 
a  new  section  on  the  procedure  to  follow  in  case  of  change  of  thematic  coordinators  was 
added. 

A more extensive revision of the EUSBSR Action Plan is to be launched at the end of 2018. 
The  main  aim  of  the  revision  is  to  make  the  Action  Plan  more  up  to  date  with  a  view  to 
reflecting new emerged needs and priorities as well as to make it more streamlined and better 
focused on priorities that are of strategic relevance and bring clear added value from a macro-
regional perspective.  

Policy development and implications 

Implementation  of  actions  under  the  EUSBSR  continued  to  support  and  further  foster 
implementation  of  relevant  EU  legislation  and  strategies,  in  particular  in  the  field  of 
environment. While the European Commission adopted the first-ever Europe-wide strategy on 
plastics  in  January  2018,  an  important  work  in  fighting  against  plastic  marine  litter  has 
already being carried out in the framework of the EUSBSR. 

The work carried out in the framework of the EUSBSR has been recognised in the HELCOM 
Ministerial  Declaration  of  March  2018,  namely  the  establishment,  under  policy  area 
‘Hazards’, of a regional cooperation platform (Baltic Sea Pharma) to reduce pharmaceuticals 
in  the Baltic Sea. The declaration acknowledged that projects  of common interest  under the 
EUSBSR  had  given  substantial  contribution  to  the  implementation  of  the  HELCOM  Baltic 
Sea Action Plan (BSAP)10. Furthermore, in the same declaration the countries committed to 
continue  the  constructive  cooperation  with  actors  involved  in  the  EUSBSR  framework  to 

9  Matti  Maasikas,  Undersecretary  for  European  Affairs,  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Estonia,  in  his  closing 
speech  at  the  annual  forum  in  Tallinn  (4-5  June  2018)  suggested  having  regular  meetings  of  ministers 
responsible for regional development of eight countries organised back-to-back to the annual forum. 
10 HELCOM Ministerial Declaration of 6 March 2018: 
http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/HELCOM%20at%20work/HELCOM%20Brussels%20Ministerial%20Declara
tion.pdf  

7 

 
 
                                                           
contribute to the implementation of the BSAP and to endeavour to ensure synergies between 
the priorities of the BSAP and, among other frameworks, the EUSBSR Action Plan.  

Project examples 

1. Save the Sea Objective 
The project BLASTIC11 aims at reducing plastic waste and, thereby, the inflow of hazardous 
substances into the Baltic Sea by mapping and monitoring the amounts of litter in the aquatic 
environment.  As  a  result,  the  project  compiles  a  list  of  sources  and  pathways,  as  well  as 
recommendations for resource efficiency in the waste and water sector. 

Eco-efficiency  of  the  Baltic  Sea  region's  maritime  industry  has  been  increased  by  projects 
such as ECOPRODIGI12 that aims at reducing the ecological footprint of transport vessels 
during  their  lifecycles  trough  digitalisation.  ECOPRODIGI  supports  Baltic  Sea  region  in 
becoming a front-runner in maritime industry digitalisation and clean shipping. 
EnviSum13  Environmental  Impacts  of  Low  Emission  Shipping:  Measurements  and 
Modelling  Strategies.  The  project  results  will  provide  policy  makers  and  authorities  with 
tools and recommendations for the development of future environmental regulations, and the 
shipping sector with guidance to support future investment decisions.  
The  platform  Baltic  Sea  Pharma14  is  an  ongoing  EUSBSR  flagship  project.  The  main 
objective of the platform is to foster, via regional cooperation, the implementation of physical 
measures  within  a  reasonable  timeframe,  e.g.  by  2020,  resulting  in  reduced  emissions  of 
pharmaceuticals to the Baltic environment. 

2. Increase Prosperity Objective 

A challenge of ageing society in  the  Baltic Sea region  has been addressed through projects 
like BaltSe@nioR15. The project develops innovative solutions to support enterprises in the 
Baltic  Sea  Region  in  product  development  aimed  at  raising  comfort  and  safety  of  seniors' 
home living. 
BSR  Stars16  is  a  flagship  within  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region.  It  aims  at 
strengthening  competitiveness  and  economic  growth  by 
research 
environments,  clusters  and  SME  networks  –  creating  innovation  partnerships  that  address 
common  challenges  in  the  Baltic  Sea  Region.  In  addition,  it  also  aims  at  strengthening 
innovation policy capabilities to work with smart specialisation on a macro-regional level. 
BalticRIM17  will  bring  together  actors  in  charge  of  maritime  cultural  heritage  (MCH)  and 
spatial  planning  from  seven  countries,  including  the  Russian  Federation,  around  the  Baltic 
Sea to jointly develop commonly agreed spatial planning perspectives for MCH. Through the 

linking  strong 

11 https://www.blastic.eu/  
12 http://ecoprodigi.eu/ 
13 https://blogit.utu.fi/envisum/envisum-project-2/  
14 http://www.swedishepa.se/Environmental-objectives-and-cooperation/Cooperation-internationally-and-in-the-
EU/International-cooperation/Multilateral-cooperation/Baltic-Sea-Region-EUSBSR/Policy-Area-Hazards/A-
cooperation-to-reduce-pharmaceuticals-in-the-Baltic-Sea/  
15 http://www.baltsenior.up.poznan.pl/  
16 http://www.bsr-stars.eu/  
17 https://www.submariner-network.eu/projects/balticrim/about-balticrim  

8 

 
 
                                                           
transnational  exchange  of  experience  and  knowhow  and  the  joint  development  of 
these perspectives, these actors will gain new knowledge on ways to steer the integration of 
MCH  into  cross-sectoral  planning  processes.  Furthermore,  they  will  learn  how  to  foster 
sustainable Blue Growth through the use of synergies between MCH and other activities by 
intelligent management and spatial planning. 
Baltic Science Network18 (BSN). Its aim is to provide science and research ministries of the 
Baltic  Sea  region  states  with  an  overall  coordination  framework  to  develop  and  implement 
science policy in a macro-regional dimension and to ensure a better representation of macro-
regional  interests  on  the  EU  level.  The  BSN  project  also  aims  to  develop  and  implement 
transnational strategies, incentives and programmes to support higher education, research and 
innovation and to develop R&I excellence. 
School to Work19 (S2W) aims to strengthen transnational cooperation between stakeholders 
in the Baltic Sea Region in the field of education and work in order to prevent early school 
leaving  and  develop  support  for  vulnerable  groups  of  students/youth,  specifically  NEETs, 
early school leavers and newly arrived refugees. 

3. Connect the Region Objective 
EMMA20  is  a  Flagship  of  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  aiming  to  enhance 
freight mobility and logistics by strengthening inland waterway and river-sea transport and by 
promoting  new  international  shipping  services.  The  container  barge  pilots  in  Poland  and 
Sweden are noticeable examples of its outcomes so far. 
TENTacle21  -  Capitalise  on  the  core  network  corridors  implementation  for  the  prosperity, 
sustainable  growth  and  territorial  cohesion  in  the  BSR.  The  TEN-T  core  network  corridors 
(CNC) is an instrument of the EU transport policy, aimed to improve mobility, intermodality 
and interoperability on the major transport axes across Europe. The Baltic Sea Region (BSR) 
is  intersected  by  three  core  network  corridors:  Scan-Med,  North  Sea-Baltic  and  Baltic-
Adriatic.  A  broad  range  of  stakeholders  are  expected  to  be  involved  in  a  joint  action  to 
remove physical, technical, operational  and administrative bottlenecks along these corridors 
by the year 2030. 
Baltic  InteGrid22  is  aiming  to  contribute  to  sustainable  local  electricity  generation,  further 
integration  of  the  regional  electricity  market  and  enhancing  security  of  supply  around  the 
Baltic  Sea.  The  Baltic  InteGrid  will  provide  a  professional  network  for  expertise  exchange 
and a state-of-the-art interdisciplinary research on the optimization potential of offshore wind 
energy in the Baltic Sea region by applying the meshed grid approach. The project is a step 
towards  the  creation  of  a  fully  interconnected  and  integrated  regional  energy  marked,  the 
implementation  of the Baltic Energy Market  Interconnection Plan and the demonstration of 
coordinated offshore wind connection solutions. 

18 http://www.baltic-science.org/  
19 https://www.s2wflagship.eu/  
20 http://project-emma.eu/  
21 http://tentacle.eu/  
22 http://www.baltic-integrid.eu/  

9 

 
 
                                                           
4. Horizontal Objectives 
Coherent  Linear  Infrastructures  in  Baltic  Maritime  Spatial  Plans  –  Baltic  LINes23.  Baltic 
LINes  seeks  to  come  to  joint,  pan-Baltic  planning  solutions  for  shipping  routes  and  energy 
transmission  corridors  in  the  Baltic  Sea,  which  may  later  on  be  integrated  into  national 
Maritime  Spatial  Plans  (MSPs).  The  project  will  set  new  standards  for  stakeholder 
involvement  in  MSP.  In  order  to  develop  the  planning  solutions,  a  spatial  data  interface 
collating  relevant  data,  a  thorough  analysis  of  future  scenarios  for  sector  development 
(involving stakeholders) and a clear coordination process will be set up. MSP authorities will 
thereby be enabled to  develop  the  most appropriate framework conditions for  Blue Growth 
activities for the coming 10-15 years 
‘Let’s communicate!24’ project aims to maintain and further develop the communications of 
the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region.  The  project  gathers  current  information  about 
EUSBSR  developments  to  its  communication  channels, promotes  the  use  of  the  EUSBSR 
visual  identity  and  provides  with  communication  support  and  tools  to  the  EUSBSR 
stakeholders.  In  addition, the  project  will  reach  out  to  new  target  groups  in  order  to  attract 
new stakeholders to take part in action. 

Communication  

According to Eurobarometer on ‘Citizens' awareness and perceptions of EU regional policy’ 
of  spring  201725,  the  EUSBSR  is  the  best  known  EU  macro-regional  strategy  among  EU 
citizens with 14% of them being aware of it. Meanwhile, the level of awareness at the Baltic 
Sea region level varies from 16% to 60%. The highest level of awareness has been recorded in 
Finland (60%), Estonia (51%) and Sweden (51%) where more than half of responds are aware 
of  the  Strategy.  They  are  followed  by  Latvia  (46%),  Lithuania  (31%),  Poland  (31%), 
Denmark  (25%)  and  Germany  (16%)26.  The  results  of  the  Eurobarometer,  showing  a  rather 
significant  gap  of  awareness  among  the  Baltic  Sea  region  countries,  should  be  taken  into 
account  when  planning  and  implementing  communication  activities,  especially  at  country 
level, as well as when updating the communication strategy of the EUSBSR (aiming to make 
communication more strategic, long-lasting and focused).  

The  past  few  years  have  witnessed  good  progress  in  communication  of  the  EUSBSR,  in 
particular  with  the  implementation  of  the  ‘Let's  communicate!’  project.  Various  activities 
have  been  carried  out  in  the  framework  of  the  project  leading  to  increased  visibility  of  the 
Strategy and improved internal as well as external communication. These include - but are not 
limited to - creation of a blog platform on the EUSBSR website, active use of social media 
channels  (e.g.  Twitter,  Facebook,  Flickr),  organisation  of  thematic  events  with  various 
EUSBSR  stakeholders  -  including  with  business  representatives,  production  of  a  series  of 
promotional  videos  on  the  EUSBSR,  launch  of  communication  toolkits  for  EUSBSR 
implementers (national coordinators, thematic area coordinators and flagship leaders), etc.  

23 https://vasab.org/project/balticlines/  
24 http://www.centrumbalticum.org/en/projects/lets_communicate!  
25 Eurobarometer on ‘Citizens' awareness and perceptions of EU regional policy’, March 2017: 
http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/FLASH/surve
yKy/2145  
26 In case of Germany four landers (Berlin; Brandenburg; Hamburg; Mecklenburg-Vorpommern; and Schleswig-
Holstein) are part of the EUSBSR. 

10 

 
 
                                                           
Monitoring and evaluation  

Since  the  last  report,  certain  steps  have  been  taken  with  a  view  to  developing  an  adequate 
monitoring  system.  A  macro-regional  territorial  monitoring  tool  is  being  developed  by  the 
ESPON27  programme  to  continuously  observe  the  development  trends  and  patterns  at  the 
level of the four EU macro-regional strategies, including the EUSBSR, and for the whole EU. 
It is about identifying development opportunities and territorial challenges in order to present 
the MRS with  insight  on the need of reinforcing or reorienting their objectives and policies 
while bringing together statistical information and policy objectives. The policy objectives of 
the  VASAB28  long  term  perspective  will  be  taken  into  account  when  it  comes  to  the  Baltic 
Sea  region.  A  workshop  on  macro-regional  territorial  monitoring  was  held  during  the 
EUSBSR annual forum in Tallinn in June 2018 and there will be more stakeholder meetings 
are planned in late 2018. Development of a monitoring tool will allow monitoring better the 
progress made in implementing the Strategy towards the set objectives, targets and indicators 
and  will  provide  a  more  solid  basis  for  changes  to  be  made  with  a  view  to  improving  the 
performance of the Strategy. 

Funding  

Further work has been carried out in the ERDF Managing Authorities Network established in 
2016.  In  order  to  provide  a  more  practical  discussion  on  cooperation  and  coordination 
modalities  among  the  ERDF  programmes,  the  network  decided  to  focus  initially  on 
innovation,  more  specifically  on  smart  specialisation  in  clean-tech.  As  a  first  result  of  the 
ERDF  Managing  Authorities  Network,  a  pilot  project  –  ‘Cleaner  Growth29’  –  has  been 
initiated,  with  the  aim  to  develop  transnational  collaboration  proposals  to  help  regions 
implementing  smart  specialisation  strategies  focusing  on  clean-tech.  Two  pioneer  projects 
will  be  pursued  under  the  ‘Cleaner  Growth’  umbrella:  ‘Jointly  Entering  New  Markets’  and 
‘Commercializing Forest-Based Protein – Verification and Improvement of Protein Quality’. 
It is worth noting that there is already a growing interest to expand the cooperation within the 
Network in other areas (e.g. digitalisation and blue growth).  

Following the creation of the ERDF Managing Authorities Network, the Baltic Sea Network 
for the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (BSN-EAFRD) and a network for 
the Managing Authorities for the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund have been formed in 
2017. The BSN-EAFRD Network aims to facilitate and strengthen transnational cooperation 
in  the  EAFRD  in  order  to  invigorate  the  link  between  the  EAFRD  and  the  EUSBSR. 
Currently  the  Network  is  working  to  align  the  contribution  of  the  rural  development 
programmes  (RDPs)  to  the  bio-economy  with  the  EUSBSR.  During  bi-annual  meetings, 
members  of  the  network  exchange  ideas,  for  instance  on  common  actions  to  develop  bio-
economy  projects,  analyse  possible  scenarios  to  facilitate  transnational  cooperation  and 
possibilities to ensure coordination between RDPs. 

The above mentioned networks, along with the Baltic Sea Network – European Social Fund 
operational  since  2011,  reflect  the  need  and  wish  for  stronger  macro-regional  cooperation. 
The  networks  are  good  examples  of  joint  planning  and  coordination  and  are  to  be  used  for 
enabling  regional  cooperation  in  the  framework  of  national/regional  programmes.  For 

27 https://www.espon.eu/ 
28  Vision  And  Strategies  Around  the  Baltic  sea.  It  is  an  intergovernmental  multilateral  co-operation  of  11 
countries of the Baltic Sea Region in spatial planning and development (http://vasab.org/) 
29 https://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/attachments/article/590847/Niclas%20Forsling_ERDF%20MA-
Network%20progress%20and%20current%20status%2013th%20of%20June%20at%20Annual%20Forum.pptx.pdf 

11 

 
 
                                                           
example: by coordinating themes for transnational cooperation, planning and developing joint 
transnational  actions,  projects  and  processes  under  the  ESF,  ERDF,  EARDF  and  EMFF 
programmes 2021-2027. 

While  these  networks  gradually  are  becoming  more  mature  (in  terms  of  mission  and  work 
plan),  there  is  a  need  across  all  networks  for  more  stable  institutional  support  (such  as  for 
example Chairmanship and secretariat work) with a view to ensuring that they are sustainable 
in the long run.  

Embedding  the  Strategy  into  relevant  existing  policy  frameworks  remains  an  issue.  Better 
integration of the EUSBSR in relevant EU, regional, national and local policy frameworks in 
the next programming period is needed in order to better utilise the potential provided by the 
Strategy. 

Since  June  2018,  the  website  EuroAccess,  previously  providing  information  on  funding 
opportunities  in  the  Danube  region,  has  been  relaunched  and  now  includes  information  on 
over 200 EU funding programmes relevant for all four MRS. Potential applicants can look for 
open  calls  for  project  and  filter  results  based  on  their  type  of  organisation,  their  country  of 
origin, and the thematic focus of their project idea, amongst others. This tool should facilitate 
the search of funding instruments to implement macro-regional projects and processes in the 
Baltic Sea region.  

Russia is already involved in some 20 flagship projects as associated partner (including four 
of the above projects  presented in  the box:  ECOPRODIGI, EnviSum,  BalticRIM and  Baltic 
Science Network (BSN)). Furthermore, the EUSBSR has been able to create good contacts - 
for example via its Horizontal Action Neighbours30 - with the regional governance in North-
Western  Russia  and  develop  a  positive  environment  from  which  to  move  into  even  more 
concrete cooperation.  

The signing of a financing agreement (in early 2018) between the EU and Russia concerning 
the  participation  of  the  latter  in  the  Interreg  Baltic  Sea  Region  transnational  programme, 
created a fertile  ground for extended cooperation. Now Russian partners are now able to  be 
full  partners  in  the  projects  (not  anymore  just  associated  partners)  and  the  cooperation  can 
move to a more advanced level. This is a significant achievement of the EUSBSR. As a lesson 
learnt,  it  can  be  said  that  if  the  funding  system  is  working,  there  are  possibilities  for  cross 
border and/or transnational cooperation even in a challenging political situation. 

Cross-strategy cooperation 

The cooperation between the EUSBSR and other macro-regional  strategies has been further 
developed  with  a  view  to  maximise  mutual  co-benefits  and  impacts.  The  cross-strategy 
cooperation has taken in different forms (e.g. implementation of joint projects, sharing of best 
practices and experience, etc.). The cross-strategy cooperation has been very much facilitated 
by  Interact  who  organised  several  thematic  meetings  among  partners  coming  from  different 
macro-regions  (e.g.  on  climate  change  and  disaster  risk  prevention  issues,  transport-related 
issues, capacity building, etc.).  

Cross-strategy  cooperation  in  the  field  of  communication  is  also  taking  place  with,  for 
example, an annual EU MRS conference on media and communication organised in Slovenia 
for  the  first  time  in  September  2017.  The  conference  concluded,  inter  alia,  in  agreeing  to 
enhance cooperation between the four strategies in the field of communication and to create a 

30 http://www.cbss.org/strategies/eusbsr-horizontal-action-neighbours/  

12 

 
 
                                                           
single horizontal pillar for all four MRS on media and communication focusing in particular 
on common content, participative process and innovative tools.  

Civil society  

Civil  society  is  playing  an  important  role  in  implementing  the  EUSBSR.  Several  thematic 
areas  in  the  EUSBSR,  in  particular  the  policy  area  ‘Education’  and  horizontal  action 
‘Capacity’, are co-coordinated by actors representing the civil society. The horizontal action 
‘Capacity’, among other, aims at increasing the involvement of local and regional authorities 
as well as the involvement of civil society organisations in the implementation of the Strategy. 
Other  thematic  areas  (e.g.  bio-economy,  education)  also  foresee  some  actions  with  the 
involvement  of  civil  society.  Moreover,  representatives  of  civil  society  are  also  part  of  a 
number of flagships initiatives of the EUSBSR under several thematic areas.  

Following the example of the EUSDR, a participation day aimed at bringing together regional 
and local actors as well as representatives from civil society, academia, media and business, 
was  organised  for  the  first  time  in  the  Baltic  in  2017  back-to-back  to  the  annual  forum  in 
Berlin. The event proved to be a success and was repeated in June 2018, back-to-back to the 
annual forum in Tallinn.  

CHALLENGES 

Though  the  Strategy  continues  bringing  positive  results,  some  challenges  still  remain  and 
need to be overcome with a view to better utilise the potential of the Strategy. The challenges 
are interlinked and interdepended.  

Political commitment and leadership  

Difficulties  in  finding  new  co-ordinators  for  certain  thematic  areas  as  well  as  poor 
representation of countries at some steering committee raise concerns about countries’ interest 
in  certain  thematic  areas.  Suboptimal  involvement  of  line  ministries  continues  to  hurdle 
implementation of the Strategy and, therefore, should be improved.  

Scope of the Strategy 

Too broad scope of the Strategy remains an issue and should be addressed in the upcoming 
revision  of  the  EUSBSR  Action  Plan.  A  better  focus,  especially  on  the  areas  where  macro-
regional cooperation brings clear added value, would increase effectiveness and improve the 
success rate of the Strategy. This is also in line with the Council Conclusions on the 1st Report 
on the implementation of MRS of April 2017, stressing that a stronger result-orientation and a 
focus  on  relevant  priorities  is  likely  to  increase  the  overall  performance,  as  well  as  the 
visibility of the strategies.  

Governance  

The current EUSBSR governance and annual forum support mechanisms are seen as too time 
area 
consuming 
coordinators/organisers  of  the  annual  fora.  Therefore,  the  support  mechanisms  need  to  be 
reconsidered and simplified. 

administrative  burdens  on 

and  putting 

too  much 

thematic 

Steering  groups should be strengthened with  participation of all countries concerned and by 
turning them into real policy cooperation instruments. The same person should act as a focal 
point and a member of a steering committee of certain thematic area. This would bring more 
stability  and  would  allow  ensuring  consistency  of  the  position  taken  concerning  the  same 
matter.  

13 

 
 
Funding 

The  stakeholders  consider  the  EU  funding  sources  (namely  the  ETC  programmes,  despite 
their  limited  resources)  as  the  most  important  ones  for  the  implementation  of  the  Strategy. 
The  national  and  other  funding  sources  have  been  more  difficult  to  obtain,  which  may 
illustrate the lack of political commitment in some Member States. It is critical for the future 
of the Strategy to find ways to  embed cooperation and EUSBSR activities in the ESI Funds 
mainstream  programmes.  Efforts  to  access  shared  or  centrally  managed  EU  funds  (ESF+, 
Horizon2020,  Life,  etc)  as  well  as  available  national,  regional  and  private  funding  sources 
should be continued and increased. 

Communication 

Though in the past years good progress has been made in the field of communication, further 
efforts  are  needed  to  strengthen  it,  especially  at  country  level  and  in  national  languages,  as 
most  of  communication  so  far  has  been  done  in  English.  Communication  in  a  national 
language would allow bringing the Strategy closer to citizens living in the Baltic Sea region, 
reach  out  broader  audiences  and  people  who  are  not  yet  aware  of  the  Strategy  as  well  as 
attract new actors to the Strategy work. With a view to making communication more strategic, 
coherent  and 
impactful,  common  messages  should  be  defined  around  certain  big 
topics/themes relevant to the EUSBSR. These messages are to be framed (e.g. by the way of 
storytelling) in the national, regional and local context showing relevance of the messages to 
the people to whom they are addressed. Capacity building in communication should also be 
pursued allowing people responsible for communication of the EUSBSR to be equipped with 
rights skills and tools to do so. 

THE WAY FORWARD 

Actions in the upcoming period should be focused on tackling the challenges identified above 
and taking stock of, and capitalising on, results obtained so far. Based on the experience and 
on the information gathered from EUSBSR key implementers, the following areas for further 
improvement have been identified: 

-  Strengthen  the  ownership  and  commitment  of  line  ministers  by  emphasizing  the 

potential benefits, which the EUSBSR may bring;  

-  Use the programming exercise of upcoming 2021-2027 period to embed the selected 
EUSBSR  priorities  in  mainstream  programmes  as  cooperation  elements  (in  the 
proposed regulations, cooperation is introduced as a horizontal objective for Cohesion 
Policy).  This  coincides  with  the  update  of  the  Action  Plan  and,  with  coordinated 
efforts, there is a window of opportunity that needs to be seized; 

-  Reinforce the alignment of the EUSBSR with all relevant funding instruments; 

-  Use the revision of the Action Plan to choose and select few core priorities based on 
identified  macro-regional  trends  and  challenges  which  are  seen  as  the  most  relevant 
and for which EU and national funds should be mobilised; 

-  Continue the efforts in communication to increase the visibility and the results of the 

Strategy; 

-  Continue  to  strengthen  monitoring  and  evaluation  to  better  link  the  activities  and 
objectives  of  the  EUSBSR  to  the  overall  development  in  the  region,  but  also  better 
monitor the progress of the different policy areas and horizontal actions; 

14 

 
 
-  Continue  to  foster  cooperation  between  EU  and  non-EU  countries  around  the  Baltic 

Sea Region. 

-  Strengthen  the  capacity  of  the  actors  involved  in  implementing  the  EUSBSR  by 
developing the role of the steering committees and the flagship concept further.    

15 

 
 
 
 
 
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)31.  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)32, which was then endorsed in April 2011 by the 
Council33.  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 
201334. It was then followed by the 1st single report on the four MRS of December 2016.  

RESULTS 

Projects 

In  the  period  referred  to  in  this  report,  joint  efforts  continued  to  be  undertaken  to  develop 
projects aimed at implementing the EUSDR Action Plan and achieving the targets set for each 
Priority  Area.  As  the  Interreg  Danube  Transnational  Programme  (DTP)  became  fully 
operational during this period, launching two calls for proposals as well as initiatives directly 
supporting the EUSDR (such as financial support to the Priority Areas and the Seed Money 
Facility instrument), it is not surprising that most of the projects referred to in this section are 
co-financed  by  the  DTP.  However,  projects  emerged  also  on  the  basis  of  other  funding 
sources,  such  as  Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF),  Erasmus+,  7th  EU  Framework 
Programme  R&I  (FP7),  Interreg  CBCs,  mainstream  ESI  Funds  Programmes  and  national 
funds.  Whereas  several  projects  initiated  before  2016  continued  to  be  implemented  in  2017 
and  2018,  other  projects  were  initiated  in  the  past  two  years  and  their  implementation  will 
continue in the next years. 

Project examples 

Pillar 1 (connecting the region)  
In the framework of the FAIRway35 project, co-financed by the Connecting Europe Facility, 
five new surveying vessels (three more coming up in 2018-2019) have been put in operation, 
five  additional  gauging  stations  in  Croatia  have  been  erected,  a  transnational  Waterway 

31 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’.   
32  Communication  from  the  Commission  concerning  the  European  Union  Strategy  for  the  Danube  Region  - 
8.12.2010 - COM(2010) 715.   
33 Conclusions of the General Affairs Council, 13 April 2011 and Conclusions of the European Council, 23-24 
June 2011.   
34 Report from the Commission concerning the European Union Strategy for the Danube Region  – 08.04.2013 -
COM(2013) 181 final.   
35 http://www.fairwaydanube.eu/eusdr/ 

16 

 
 
                                                           
Monitoring  System  (WAMOS)  for  consistent  FAIRway  data  is  being  set  up  and  additional 
fairway marking vessels are in the pipeline. 

An extremely important result of the cooperation within the EUSDR relates to the dredging 
activities,  started  in  Summer  2018,  on  the  Bulgarian-Romanian  common  section  of  the 
Danube River, since ensuring a minimum depth is crucial for allowing navigation when water 
debit is scarce.  

Cooperation  also  continued,  in  particular  between  Priority  Areas  1A  (navigation)  and  11 
(security)  on 
the  updated  manual  on  cross-border  controls  and  harmonisation  of 
administrative  forms,  leading  to  a  reduction  in  waiting  times  and  to  more  effective  control 
procedures.   

In the area of land transport, for the first time an overview of identified short-term transport 
strategic projects in the Danube Region (Transport Analysis for the Danube Region36 – TAD) 
was carried out with the support of the European Investment Bank. This study is the first step 
towards developing a transport masterplan for the Danube region.  
As regards energy, within the DARLINGe37 project, fifteen partners representing geological 
surveys,  universities,  industry,  regional  energy  and  development  agencies,  ministries  and 
municipalities,  work  together  to  improve  energy  security  and  efficiency  in  the  Danube 
Region  by  promoting  the  sustainable  utilization  of  the  existing,  however  still  largely 
untapped,  deep  geothermal  resources  for  the  heating  sector.  Moreover,  Priority  Area  2 
(energy)  contributed  to  establish  the  Central  and  South  Eastern  Europe  Gas  Connectivity38 
(CESEC)  and  paved  the  way  for  identifying  priority  projects  and  corresponding  financial 
sources for their realisation. This  contributed to  fund gas interconnectors  between Romania 
and  Hungary  and  between  Poland  and  Slovakia,  as  well  as  to  the  funding  of  the  LNG 
terminal in Krk, Croatia. These projects contribute to the security of supply of energy in the 
Danube Region,  the  competitiveness  of  energy  markets,  and the  climate and  environmental 
objectives pursued in the context of the Energy Union.  
In  the  area  of  tourism,  the  project  CultPlatForm_2139  was  selected  for  co-financing  by  the 
Danube  Transnational  Programme.  It  aims  at  discovering  hidden  heritage  and  expanding 
cultural routes and initiating a cultural policy network in the fourteen countries of the Danube 
Region.  Moreover,  a  project  on  cultural  routes  in  the  four  macro-regions  (Routes4U)  was 
started  in  cooperation  with  the  Council  of  Europe  and  is  currently  being  implemented  with 
the aim of enhancing the integration within macro-regions, including the EUSDR. 

Pillar 2 (protecting the environment) 

Several projects have been implemented or developed in the area of water management and 
environmental  risks,  in  particular  those  related  to  floods,  which  are  being  aggravated  by 
climate  change.  JOINTISZA40  concerns  the  first  integrated  Tisza  River  basin  management 
plan. The DanubeSediment41 project aims at ensuring sediment balance in the river system.   

36 https://www.danube-transport.eu/uploads/files/1_EIB_Transport_Study_for_the_Danube_Macro-Region_-
_Executive_Summary.pdf  
37 http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/darlinge  
38 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/infrastructure/high-level-groups/central-and-south-eastern-europe-
energy-connectivity  
39 http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/cultplatform-21  
40 http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/jointisza  

17 

 
 
                                                           
The reliable and comprehensive hydrologic data is the basis of sound forecasting in view of 
flood  risk  mitigation  in  order  to  better  the  protect  human  lives  and  the  social  estate; 
DAREFFORT42 will deliver an outstanding overview about the present status of the national 
forecasting  capabilities.  SIMONA43  aims  at  delivering  ready-to-deploy  Sediment-quality 
Information.  Thanks  to  cooperation  within  the  EUSDR,  a  civil  protection  mechanism  was 
activated,  supported  by  DG  ECHO,  in  order  to  tackle  pollution  of  the  Tisza  river  from  the 
abandoned  Solotvyno  salt  mine  in  Ukraine,  with  transboundary  effects  in  Romania  and 
Hungary.    
Ecological connectivity is the focus of the TRANSGREEN44 (promoting green infrastructures 
in  the  Carpathian  region,  a  project  which  allows  also  cooperation  with  the  Carpathian 
Convention),  ConnectGReen45  (improving  the  ecological  connectivity  between  natural 
habitats,  especially  between  Natura  2000  sites  and  other  protected  area  categories  in  the 
Carpathian  ecoregion  of transnational  relevance)  and  MEASURES46  (establishment  of 
ecological corridors for sturgeons and other migratory fishes). Tackling invasive alien species 
in  the  Sava  River  basin  (the  largest  tributary  of  the  Danube)  is  the  focus  of  SavaTIES47 
project.  Several  networks  and  task  forces  dealing  with  transboundary  environmental  issues 
continue to be very active in the Danube Region thanks to the Danube Strategy, such as the 
Danube Sturgeon Task Force and DANUBEPARKS48.  

Important projects which involve non-EU countries have been realized under the umbrella of 
the  EUSDR,  such  as  the  complex  water  management  development  of  the  area  of  the  Baja-
Bezdan  Canal  (between  Hungary  and  Serbia)  and  the  “SAFETIZSA”  project  (between 
Hungary  and  Ukraine),  with  respectively  ca.  8  million  Euro  awarded  by  IPA  CBC  and  4 
million Euro awarded by ENI CBC programmes. 

Pillar 3 (building prosperity) 

A  remarkable  achievement  of  the  Danube  Strategy  is  the  establishment  of  the  Danube 
Funding  Coordination  Network,  which  promotes  joint  funding  actions  on  Research  and 
Innovation. A first pilot multilateral call on scientific and technological cooperation for 2017-
2018 was launched in 2016 and a second call is currently in preparation. Through joint calls, 
existing  bilateral  agreements  on  scientific  cooperation  are  open  up  to  multilateral 
cooperation,  leading  to  a  more  effective  and  strategic  use  of  the  available  funds.  The 
networks  on  R&I  set  up  in  the  framework  of  PA  7  (knowledge  society)  also  allowed  to 
enhance the collaboration in  the  framework of COST and EUREKA, strengthening the ties 
between research communities. 

The development of a Joint Bio-based Industry Cluster Policy Strategy (JBCS) as well as a 

41 http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/danubesediment  
42 http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/dareffort  
43 http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/simona  
44 http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transgreen  
45 http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/connectgreen  
46 http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/measures  
47 http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/sava-ties  
48 http://www.danubeparks.org/  

18 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
bundle  of  new  methods  and  tools  to  support  clusters  for  transnational  working  is  being 
developed  in  the  framework  of  the  Danube  BioValNet49  project.  The  Made  in  Danube50 
project  aims  at  building  fifteen  sustainable  bioeconomy-based  innovation  partnerships 
involving  forty  regional  companies,  contributing  to  the  competitiveness  of  SMEs  in  the 
South-Eastern Danube Region as well as generating significant change for the entire area by 
supporting regional Smart Specialisation Strategies. 

In the area of People and Skills, cooperation efforts continued, leading to several fruitful joint 
initiatives  and  projects.  A  centre  to  implement  dual  vocational  training  in  the  professions 
needed  by  the  construction  industry  was  set  up  in  Chisinau  (Moldova)  with  the  support  of 
Austrian  public  (ministry  for  Labour,  Social  Affairs,  Health  and  Consumer  Protection)  and 
private (STRABAG) funds. With Danube@work51 focus is put on digitalisation of work and 
related opportunities. EDULAB52 brings together partners from the higher education sector, 
business  organisations,  national  public  authorities  and  policy  makers  to  link  education  and 
employment in  the region  in  a sustainable way. CODES  – Competence-Oriented Education 
for  Elementary  Schooling  -  aims  at  building  cross-border  cooperation  of  educational 
institutions,  with  a  view  of  strengthening  key  educational  competencies.  The  eGovernance 
renaissance  project  aims  at  creating  an  education  platform  on  processes  in  public 
administration for students of EUSDR countries.  

Pillar 4 (strengthening the region) 
Joint initiatives on security in the framework of DARIF53 (Danube River Forum) continued. 
In  2017,  illegal  fishing  and  breaches  of  waterway  transport  rules  have  been  under  the 
spotlight.  Cooperation  on  bomb  disposal  is  being  organised  around  the  Central  European 
CBRN-E Training Centre located in Hungary.  
The Bavarian police developed the Danube Domestic Burglary Project54 (DDBP) as a follow 
up to the Danube Property Crime Project55 (DPCP) in cooperation with authorities of Serbia, 
Austria and Europol.  

Cooperation between the Priority Areas “security” and “navigation” continued on the basis of 
the  jointly  developed  “Manual  on  border  controls”  and  “Recommendations  for  improved 
border controls”.  

Based on European Parliament Funds, a “Danube Strategic Project Fund” was set up in 2017 
and  used  for  the  support  of  twelve  projects  of  strategic  impact,  especially  in  view  of 
Enlargement  and  Neighbourhood  policies,  and  fostering  integration  and  reconciliation  of 
Danube countries, with a particular focus on the training of young people.  

In  the  framework  of  the  Priority  Area  dealing  with  institutional  capacity  and  cooperation, 
based  on  technical  assistance  fund,  the  database  and  search  tool  EUROACCESS56,  created 
initially in 2016 for the EUSDR, was further developed and extended to other macro-regions. 

49 http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/danubiovalnet  
50 http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/made-in-danube  
51 https://www.oegb.at/cms/S06/S06_90.0/home?d=Touch  
52 http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/edu-lab  
53 https://www.keep.eu/keep/project-ext/42779/DARIF  
54 https://www.danube-security.eu/news/new-project-proposal-within-pa-11-danube-domestic-burglary-project  
55 https://www.keep.eu/keep/project-ext/42781/DPCP?ss=a8f1c1714c4c63f1326d357d96fe9e75&espon=  
56 https://www.euro-access.eu/  

19 

 
 
                                                           
In order to  facilitate integration among bordering countries, an initiative on border cadastre 
and  land  registry  aiming  at  identifying  and  possibly  harmonising  legal  requirements  was 
launched.  

Both  Moldova  and  Ukraine  have  adapted  their  administrative  services  in  order  to  enhance 
their participation in the EUSDR activities. 

Policy impact 

Several  initiatives  and  projects  developed  within  the  EUSDR  have  a  significant  impact  on 
policies – or derive from and implement sectoral policies, including crucial EU policies, as in 
the  areas  of  transport,  energy  and  environment.  The  link  between  projects  and  policies  is 
extremely  important  since  policies  need  to  be  fed  with  concrete  project  results  and,  in  turn, 
they set the conditions for successful projects and joint initiatives.  

Several  examples  can  be  mentioned.  The  activity  of  Priority  Area  1A  (navigation)  led  to 
several ministerial conclusions, contributing to enhance the political focus on the underlying 
projects.  EUSDR-related  activities  led  to  higher  visibility  of  policies  and  improvement  of 
coordination  between  national  administrations  (e.g.  in  the  area  of  security)  or  with  existing 
international  organisations  (e.g.  ICPDR,  Danube  Commission,  Carpathian  Convention). 
Priority Area 1B (land-transport) stimulated discussions at political level on the Balkan Rail 
Freight  Corridor.  Joint  activities  of  Priority  Area  5  (environmental  risks)  contribute  to 
implement  the  EU  adaptation  strategy  to  climate  change  as  well  as  the  flood  Directive. 
Initiatives in  the field  of energy  contribute to  de-carbonisation of energy  production, one of 
the main goals of climate policy.  

EUSDR-related activities also  helped shaping  national  activities by  adopting  a transnational 
approach  (e.g.  in  the  case  of  national  programmes  against  natural  disasters  in  several 
countries,  or  the  road  planning  along  the  Slovenian  coast).  The  European  Parliament 
acknowledged the political  relevance  of the ongoing initiatives and provided funds for pilot 
projects and innovative actions.  

Candidate  and  potential  candidate  countries  find  in  the  EUSDR  a  reliable  platform  to  help 
them paving their way towards EU integration. Their participation in the EUSDR governance 
on an equal footing with EU Member States help them to get familiar with the EU working 
methods, hence to prepare for EU membership.  

Similarly,  the  participation  of  ENI  countries  (Moldova  and  Ukraine)  in  the  EUSDR-related 
joint  work  –  which  had  intensified  significantly  in  the  years  2016  to  2018  -  facilitate  the 
implementation of their EU Association Agreements.  

Finally, it has emerged that the EUSDR contributes to effective multi-level governance and, 
ultimately, helps building a solid ground for anti-nationalistic agenda. 

Funding 

The integration and growing alignment of the EUSDR with the Danube Interreg Transnational 
Programme (DTP) in 2017 and 2018 greatly helped conceiving, developing and co-financing 
projects implementing the EUSDR Action Plan. A total of 76 projects of direct relevance for 
the EUSDR  were approved during the first  two  calls of the DTP. The DTP also  launched a 
Seed Money Facility tool, specifically dedicated to project ideas stemming from the EUSDR. 
On  18  July  2018  the  Monitoring  Committee  approved  19  small  scale  projects  for  funding 
under this scheme.  

20 

 
 
In  addition  to  the  DTP,  which  is  the  most  relevant  source  of  financing  of  EUSDR-related 
project  but  which  –  in  light  of  the  limited  budget  –  is  constrained  to  projects  with  relative 
small budget (around 2 million € in average), other funds have been used in order to finance 
projects. The most relevant additional funding sources in the years 2017-2018 have been CEF, 
mainstream  ESI  Funds  OPs,  Cross-Border-Cooperation  Programmes  as  well  as  national 
funds.  Moreover,  projects  have  been  co-financed  by  Erasmus+,  FP7  and  ESF.  As  regards 
mainstream OPs, the alignment of funds with the EUSDR varied in the different participating 
countries.  As  was  the  case  of  the  previous  implementation  report,  a  checklist  was  sent  to 
Managing Authorities of around 100 programmes in the Region to assess their contribution to 
the Strategy. The reported figures that show the programmes` contribution to the Strategy has 
significantly increased from about EUR 532,467,926 to about EUR 2,583,767,072 €. It must 
be highlighted, however, that the approach of individual programmes on evaluating how and 
to what extent a project contributes to the EUSDR’s objectives differs. This may only lead to 
a rough estimation of funds contributing to the Strategy.  

In order to highlight some ways on how programmes approached macro-regional cooperation, 
the  following  examples  can  be  mentioned.  Romania  earmarked  EUR  383  million  to  the 
EUSDR from the budget of the Regional Operational Programme and provided for additional 
bonus  points  for  EUSDR projects  in  the  Large  Infrastructure OP.  Bonus points for  EUSDR 
relevant projects were also used in the Romania-Bulgaria CBC programme. In Bulgaria, the 
transport  infrastructure  OP  finances  with  EUR  10  million  the  purchase  of  multifunctional 
dredging  equipment.  The  Bulgarian  Human  Resources  and  Regions  in  Growth  OPs  also 
contributed to  achieve EUSDR-related targets.  Slovenia indicated that embedding in  OPs  in 
2017 led to  a contribution  of  EUR 205 million  for the three MRS in  which it takes part.  In 
Baden-Württemberg,  two  funds  specifically  dedicated  to  EUSDR  have  been  established, 
projects have been supported with EUR 4.3 million leveraging around EUR 4.8 million more 
from third parties.  

Governance and regional cooperation 

In 2017 and 2018 there have been considerable improvements on cooperation between sectors 
of  the  EUSDR  as  well  as  with  other  organisations.  In  addition,  synergies  and  cooperation 
have  been  achieved  between  Priority  Areas  of  different  MRS,  thanks  in  particular  to  the 
coordination efforts successfully undertaken by the INTERACT programme.  

The  manual  and  recommendation  for  border  controls  is  a  tangible  result  of  cooperation 
between  Priority  Areas  1A  (navigation)  and  11  (security).    Priority  Area  11  also  initiated 
cooperation  with  the  Danube  Commission  on  security  of  navigation.    Cooperation  between 
the  ICPDR  and  Priority  Areas  4  (water),  5  (environmental  risks)  and  6  (biodiversity) 
continues  to  bear  fruits  and  benefits  to  all  parties  involved.  A  memorandum  of  cooperation 
between the Secretariat of the Carpathian Convention and Priority Areas 1B (land transport), 
2 (energy), 4 (water), 5 (environmental risks) and 6 (biodiversity) was endorsed and forms the 
basis  of  projects  of  joint  interest  (such  as  TRANSGREEN).  Overall,  although  several 
examples  of  good  cooperation  among  Priority  Areas  and  with  other  organisations  are 
identified, potential for further improvement remains. 

As  regards  the  governance  of  the  EUSDR,  the  system  developed  since  2014,  with  rotating 
presidencies  supported  by  a  “Trio”  (incumbent  presidency,  past  and  future  presidency) 
continued  to  give  good  results,  in  particular  for  the  work  of  the  National  Coordinators  and 
Priority  Area  Coordinators.  Since  2017  the  DTP  (the  Interreg  Programme  which  matches 
exactly the geographical area of the Danube Strategy) has taken over the financial support to 
the Priority Area Coordinators (PACs) of the EUSDR. The transition, initially looked at with 

21 

 
 
some preoccupation by PACs, fearing an increase of bureaucratic tasks in order to obtain the 
funds, was managed smoothly. All PACs have expressed appreciation for the simplification of 
reporting  requirements  (in  particular  e-reporting).  Two  joint  meetings  of  EUSDR  National 
Coordinators  and  Monitoring  Committee  of  the  DTP,  in  2017  and  2018,  paved  the  way  to 
launch a specific DTP call for the set-up of a new Danube Strategy Point as from late 2018. 
The DTP has effectively contributed to make this delicate and important process a success.  

Within  Priority  Area  3  (Tourism)  a  joint  structure  to  facilitate  and  support  the  work  of  the 
Bulgarian and Romanian Coordinators was set up in 2016, with seat in Ruse (BG). 

Civil  society  has  been  actively  included  in  meetings  of  certain  steering  groups  of  Priority 
Areas as well as in events and annual  fora. As regards Priority Areas, some rely heavily on 
technical  input  by  civil  society  (e.g.  the  Tasks  forces  in  the  framework  of  Priority  area  6  – 
Biodiversity) for other Priority Areas (e.g. 1B  - land transport), civil society participation is 
more  concentrated  to  conferences  and  events.  Participation  Days  were  organised  nationally 
and back to back with annual fora. The Hungarian and Bulgarian Presidencies of the EUSDR 
organised  events  dedicated  to  civil  society,  such  as  the  International  Danube  Day  and  the 
photo  competition  “one  day  on the Danube”.  A forum  of citizen prior to the annual  forum 
held  in  2017  was  organised  by  Hungary  and  the  results  of  the  event  were  echoed  by  the 
annual forum held in Budapest  the same  year. Representatives of Academia are regularly in 
involved via Priority Area 7 (knowledge society) and those of local authorities via the Council 
of Danube Cities and Regions  and the  Danube  Local  Actors Platform  supported by Priority 
Area 10 – institutional cooperation. 

CHALLENGES 

General remarks 

There  is  a  widespread  consensus  among  the  main  actors  of  the  EUSDR  that,  despite 
undoubted recognition of the importance of the Strategy, its achievements and potential, the 
political momentum around the Strategy is somehow declining and there is a need to re-boost 
it, in particular renewing ownership and commitment by the participating countries.  

The  current  participation  (both  quantitative  and  qualitative)  in  the  Steering  Groups  of  the 
Priority  Areas  is  unsatisfactory,  which  generates  frustration  by  several  PACs.  Although  a 
certain rate of turnover is physiological, in some cases participating countries have failed to 
re-appoint  national  coordinators  and/or  members  of  Steering  Groups  after  changes  have 
occurred. Certain participating countries have not had a National Coordinator or members of 
Steering  Groups  for  as  long  as  some  years.  Moreover,  in  several  cases  participation  to 
Steering Group of Priority Areas is quite passive and does not contribute to the identification 
of projects and initiatives of common interest.  

Certain  PACs  maintain  that  some  of  the  actions  foreseen  in  the  Action  Plan  cannot  be 
achieved due to  the  current  low level  of participation in  Steering Groups.  In this context,  it 
has been mentioned by several National and Priority Area Coordinators that the participation 
of the line-DGs of the European Commission to the work of the Priority Areas is also varying 
and there is room for improvement. 

The already started process aimed at revising for the first time the Action Plan of the EUSDR 
offers the opportunity to tackle these challenges. It allows to look at the current priorities and 
identify needs for change, including, where appropriate, new Priority Areas or the application 
of sunset clause for existing ones, or the grouping of existing priorities within the same pillar. 
In addition, the revision of the Action Plan offers the occasion to re-discuss, after seven years, 

22 

 
 
the  allocation  of  coordination  roles  of  Priority  Areas,  taking  also  into  account  the  wish 
expressed  by  countries  which  currently  do  not  hold  such  a  role,  to  acquire  one.  Although 
rotation  of  PACs  should  only  be  implemented  on  a  voluntary  basis,  it  is  necessary  to  find 
solutions in order to renew ownership and tackle low participation in Steering Groups as well 
as to involve new actors in coordination roles. 

Monitoring and evaluation 

Many  actors  are  concerned  by  the  difficulties  of  monitoring  the  results  of  the  EUSDR  by 
clearly distinguishing between projects and initiatives originating from the EUSDR itself and 
those  which  would  have  been  developed  independently  on  the  EUSDR.  This  uncertainty 
makes  it  difficult  to  communicate  the  results  of  the  Strategy.  Consequently,  there  is  wide 
agreement that the ongoing revision of the Action Plan must be based on a sound evaluation 
of  the  results  and  that  new  actions  and  projects  must  be  to  the  maximum  extent  possible 
measurable. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the EUSDR, like all MRS, is 
not  a  cooperation  programme,  but  a  political  platform  for  cooperation,  without  a  clearly 
identified baseline.  

It  is  a  fact  that,  in  addition,  the  EUSDR  leads  to  several  non-tangible  results,  such  as  an 
improved  culture  of  cooperation,  greater  capacity  of  administrations  to  coordinate  policies 
internally and to think beyond administrative and political borders: all elements which, per se, 
cannot be measured, but which are clearly part of the EUSDR’s assets. Completed studies on 
macro-regional strategies such as the COWI57 study in 2017 and currently ongoing initiatives 
such as the ESPON study are useful as they contribute to improve the monitoring of the result 
of the strategies.  

Governance  

The  absence,  since  2017,  of  a  common  body  fully  dedicated  to  supporting  EUSDR 
governance  is  widely  recognized  as  having  hampered  the  smooth  development  and 
implementation of the Strategy, in particular in relation to coordination between the different 
Priority  Areas,  technical  support  as  well  as  communication  (in  particular  through  weekly 
update of the web site).  

The experience of the Danube Strategy Point (DSP), set up in 2015 and discontinued in 2017, 
showed  -  despite  not  all  tasks  of  the  DSP  were  equally  fulfilled  -  the  importance  of  having 
such  a  dedicated  body  in  the  EUSDR,  due  to  the  complexity  of  the  actions  foreseen  by  the 
Strategy, the scale of the common initiatives and projects and the wide geographical coverage 
of the EUSDR. As mentioned in the previous section, a new DSP was successfully selected 
and is expected to become fully operational by the end of 2018, which will be of great benefit 
to the EUSDR. 

Another  critical  issue  relates  to  the  administrative  staffs  dedicated  to  the  EUSDR  by  the 
participating countries, which does not always allow fulfilling the objectives of the Strategy. 
Despite regular statements – at annual fora or ministerial meetings – a gap remains between 
those statements and the staff and resources which are actually devoted to the EUSDR.  

Funding  

Despite  the  growing  number  or  projects  and  initiatives  being  financed,  in  particular  by  the 
DTP,  as  well  as  the  efforts  accomplished  by  some  participating  countries  to  embed  the 

57 COWI study: ‘Macro-regional strategies and their links with cohesion policy’ – November 2017: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/cooperate/macro_region_strategy/pdf/mrs_links_cohesion_policy.pdf 

23 

 
 
                                                           
into  mainstream  OPs  and  national  funds, 

the  situation  remains 
EUSDR  priorities 
unsatisfactory.  The  awareness  of  the  benefits  of  MRS  should  be  raised  among  the  possible 
funding  programmes.  Programmes  at  different  levels  differ  in  terms  of  their  geographical 
focus or refer to the diverse legal status of the partner countries (e.g. EU and non-EU). The 
lack  of  understanding  of  the  added  value  of  the  macro-regional  cooperation  might  lead  to 
further challenges for innovative partnerships and hinder joint actions.  

DG REGIO organised in February 2017 a study-visit for Romanian Managing authorities. It 
was the occasion for several Managing authorities to learn about the practical implications of 
the EUSDR and develop ideas in view of increasing the absorption rate. This initiative from 
Romanian authorities deserves to be welcomed and should be extended to other participating 
countries,  especially  in  those  where  mainstream  OPs  do  not  see  their  relevant  role  in  the 
macro-regional cooperation. 

Several National Coordinators asked for a reformulation of the “3 Nos” principle in order to 
provide to the EUSDR a greater funding security for implementing the initiatives which are 
jointly conceived. On the other hand, the very essence of MRS is to trigger the use of funds 
from  other sources,  rather than to  implement  projects  with  own-funding. The matter, in  any 
case,  remains  the  subject  of  lively  debates,  as  long  as  the  gap  between  the  Strategy  and 
funding will remain significant.  

Communication 

The benefits of the EUSDR for the territory are not always sufficiently visible and this creates 
frustration  at  the  level  of  Priority  Areas.  It  is  common  understanding  that,  in  light  of  the 
strategic  character  of  the  EUSDR,  targeted  communication  initiatives  are  necessary.  On  the 
other  hand,  evidence  shows  that  when  communication  tools  are  available,  the  EUSDR 
features higher on the political agenda at national or local level.  

THE WAY FORWARD 

Actions in the upcoming period should be focused on tackling the challenges identified above 
and taking stock of, and capitalising on results obtained so far. Based on the experience and 
on the information gathered from EUSDR key implementers, the following areas for further 
improvement have been identified: 

-  Strengthen  the  ownership  and  commitment  of  line  ministers  by  emphasizing  the 
potential benefits which the EUSDR may bring and invite them to duly empower the 
officials representing their ministries at SG meetings; 

-  Ensure that the revision process of the EUSDR Action Plan, to be completed in 2019, 

reflects the implementing capacities of participating countries;  

-  Ensure a balanced distribution of Priority Area coordination roles; 

-  Continue  to  seek  for  synergies  and  complementarities  with  existing  instruments  and 

organisations already operating in the Region; 

-  Encourage a continuous participation of all relevant Commission DGs in SG meetings; 

- 

Improve the dialogue between the EUSDR and ESI Funds/IPA authorities in order to 
identify  and  fund  broader  range  of  projects  and  actions  in  the  mainstream 
programmes.  This  will  be  even  more  important  in  the  planning  of  upcoming 
programming  period  (2021-2027)  where  cooperation  is  introduced  as  a  horizontal 
objective for Cohesion Policy (Commission Proposal); 

24 

 
 
-  Enhance exchange of experiences among programmes that are already funding, or plan 
to fund, macro-regional relevant projects, even across macro-regional strategies.  

-  Promote actions, in line with the EUSDR priorities, that bring added value to the EU 

enlargement process in Western Balkan countries.  

-  For the next generation of the transnational programme dedicated to the EUSDR, find 

a better balance between IPA and ERDF funds. 

25 

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

At the time when this Report is published, the European Union Strategy for the Adriatic and 
Ionian Region will be entering its 5th year of implementation.  
The  EUSAIR  was  endorsed  by  the  European  Council  in  October  201458,  on  the  basis  of  a 
Communication59  on  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  Region  and  its 
accompanying  Action  Plan  adopted  by  the  Commission  in  June  2014.  The  Strategy 
incorporates  the  Maritime  Strategy  for  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  Seas,  adopted  by  the 
Commission  in  November  201260,  which  is  mainly  dealt  within  the  thematic  Pillar  I  (Blue 
Growth).  

The Strategy was developed around the Adriatic and Ionian Region seen as a functional area, 
inhabited by about 70 million people. It builds on the inter-governmental Adriatic and Ionian 
Initiative (AII), launched in 2000, which concerns 8 countries - 4 EU Member States (Croatia, 
Greece,  Italy  and  Slovenia)  and  4  candidate  and  potential  candidate  countries  (Albania, 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia). The Strategy thus benefits from traditional 
cooperation  among  stakeholder  networks  (e.g.  fora  of  cities,  universities  and  chambers  of 
commerce)  established  since  the  beginning  of  the  2000s  on  both  sides  of  the  Adriatic  and 
Ionian seas. More networks were established later on.  

RESULTS 

The  launch  of  the  EUSAIR  back  in  the  autumn  2014  raised  high  expectations,  among 
implementers,  stakeholders  and  citizens,  of  immediate  tangible  results  in  terms  of 
strengthened cooperation and macro-regional actions and projects.  

However, the very nature of macro-regional strategies requires a change of mind-set among 
key  implementers  and  stakeholders,  asking  them  to  leave  aside  a  purely  national  logic  and, 
instead, to think and act in the interest of the entire Region. Since this is clearly a process that 
takes time, tangible results are unlikely to come about in the short run. Accordingly, while the 
Strategy  has  now  been  in  existence  for  four  years,  results  visible  to  external  stakeholders 
remain  few.  Internally,  however,  in  addition  to  fully  operational  governance  bodies, 
noteworthy  progress  has  been  achieved  as  regards  understanding  of  potential  benefits  of 
strengthened collaboration and networking, not to forget a growing sense of community when 
broaching common concerns at a wider policy level.  

The  participation  of  enlargement  countries  in  the  EUSAIR  governance  on  an  equal  footing 
with EU Member States is to be considered a capacity building process accustoming them to 
the EU working methods and preparing for their future EU membership. 
According  to  the  COWI61  report,  at  the  moment  of  its  delivery  (November  2017),  the 
EUSAIR was to be considered still in its first phase of maturation62 (activities related to the 

58 Conclusion of General Affairs Council, 29 September 2014 and Conclusions of the European Council, 23-24 
October 2014. 
59  Communication  from  the  Commission  concerning  the  European  Union  Strategy  for  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian 
Region – 17.06.2014 – COM (2014) 357 final.  
60  Communication  from  the  Commission  adopting  a  Maritime  Strategy  for  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  Seas  – 
30.11.2012 – COM(2012) 713 final.  
61  COWI  study:  ‘Macro-regional  strategies  and  their  links  with  cohesion  policy’  –  November  2017: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/cooperate/macro_region_strategy/pdf/mrs_links_cohesion_policy.pdf 

26 

 
 
                                                           
set-up  of  the  MRS,  capacity  development,  etc.).  Nonetheless,  considering  the  developments 
occurred  since  then,  it  would  be  more  appropriate  to  place  now  the  EUSAIR  in  phase  II 
(operating  phase,  ability  of  the  MRS  to  manage  joint  structures,  ability  of  stakeholders  to 
establish joint structures, etc.). 

Projects 

All four Thematic Steering Groups – though at  a different level of development  - identified 
preliminary lists of priority actions and projects within their respective pillars, acknowledged 
to have a distinct macro-regional added value and to contribute to the implementation of the 
EUSAIR Action Plan. These shortlisted actions and projects are now at different stages, going 
from project ideas to be developed from scratch to bankable projects ready for funding as well 
as  projects  already  been  funded  -  including  through  the  Interreg  Adrion  transnational 
programme - and currently in their implementation phase. 

Project examples 

Under Pillar 1 “Blue Growth”, a number of project proposals is currently under evaluation by 
TSG  1  as  concerns  their  macro-regional  value  and  contribution  to  the  achievement  of  the 
Pillar’s  objective.  These  proposals  span  from  project  ideas,  to  mature  projects  ready  for 
implementation,  up  to  projects  already  under  execution.  Examples  of  the  latter  include 
projects financed by the Interreg Adrion programme, like the NEORION63 project, promoting 
green  maritime  technologies  and  new  materials  to  enhance  sustainable  shipbuilding,  or  the 
ARIEL64  project,  promoting  transnational  networking  among  small  scale  fisheries  and 
aquaculture enterprises in the Adriatic-Ionian region.  Pillar/Thematic Steering Group (TSG) 
1  is  also  working  closely  with  Pillar/TSG  3  on  topics  of  common  interest,  e.g.  Maritime 
Spatial Planning. 

Pillar  2  “Connecting  the  Region”,  is  dealing  with  Transport  and  Energy  networks. 
Concerning  the  former,  the  TSG  2  subgroup  “Transport”  has  so  far  selected  43 
projects/measures meant to contribute to the implementation of the Strategy’s Action Plan: 30 
are  infrastructural  projects  while  13  are  “soft”  measures.  Projects  encompass  initial  project 
idea – which needs to be further developed – and “bankable” projects ready for funding. An 
example  of  the  latter  is  the  ADRIPASS65,  a  project  funded  under  the  Interreg  Adrion 
programme  aiming  at  promoting  efficient  maritime  –  hinterland  connections  by  analysing 
physical and non-physical bottlenecks on the TEN-T corridor sections of the region. Another 
example  of  project  is  the  Motorway  of  the  sea  Venice-Patras66,  which  has  be  approved  for 
financing under the Connecting Europe Facility. The “Transport” sub-group is also engaged 
in  the  establishment  of  a  Transport  masterplan  for  the  EUSAIR  region.  The  aim  of  the 
masterplan  is  to  create  synergies  among  national  plans  and  investment  programmes  in  the 
light  of a common macro-regional strategy on connectivity, accessibility and inclusion. The 
masterplan should allow to identify areas of intervention where common actions and shared 

62  According  to  the  COWI  report,  MRS  undergo  three  phases  of  development/maturation:  I  capacity  of  the 
internal  actors  mainly  at  individual  level;  II  development  of  the  institutional  capacity  and  performance  of 
internal MRS actors managing the Strategy and capacity of external stakeholders to respond to the strategy: III 
external stakeholders and the region as a whole are performing.  
63 https://neorion.adrioninterreg.eu/  
64 https://ariel.adrioninterreg.eu/  
65 https://adripass.adrioninterreg.eu/  
66 https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport/2016-eu-tm-0342-m  

27 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
decisions need to be undertaken.  

The TSG 2 sub-group on “Energy networks” has so far reached consensus on a first open list 
of  10  projects  with  a  macro-regional  value.  This  list  includes  both  initial  project  concept 
requiring further development (example:  “Eastern Mediterranean Gas Pipeline”) and mature 
projects,  some  of  them  already  under  (partial)  implementation  (examples:  “EUSAIR  Power 
Exchange” aiming to create the conditions for an efficient energy market in the region, or the 
“LNG Logistic and Planning” for the coordination and harmonisation of initiatives regarding 
LNG use as a fuel for marine transport). The “Energy networks” sub group is also considering 
the setting up of a Master plan regarding energy infrastructure needs in the region.  

Finally,  both  “Transport”  and  “Energy  networks”  sub-groups  are  willing  to  engage  in 
structured dialogues with international financial institutions to discuss funding options for the 
projects shortlisted.  

Under  Pillar  3  “Environmental  quality”,  TSG  3  is  working  to  identify  an  initial  list  of 
projects  that  should  be  agreed  by  consensus  by  the  participating  countries.    Efforts  are  also 
made  to  develop  cross-pillar  projects  on  themes  like:  “combining  Integrated  Coastal  Zone 
Management  and  Maritime  Spatial  Planning”  as  inclusive  and  complementary  governance 
tools;  or  “large-scale  pollution  contingency  plans”.  TSG  3  has  also  developed  a  matrix 
covering  the  four  Pillars.  Its  aim  is  to  provide  the  TSGs  with  a  tool  which  would  allow  to 
screen  their  project  proposals  with  a  view  to  assess  synergies  or  conflicts  with  the  other 
Pillars. 

Concerning  Pillar  4  “Sustainable  tourism”,  TSG  4  selected  six  priority  topics  (out  of  the 
fifteen  included  in  the  Action  Plan  –  Pillar  4)  on  which  focus  its  initial  activities.  In  that 
framework,  criteria  were  established  through  which  project  proposals  could  be  assessed.  So 
far, in two rounds, 8 + 21 project proposals were evaluated (examples: "Innovative region for 
an  innovative  tourism  -  Enhancing  the  regional  SME  skills  and  competitiveness";  
“WineSenso").  Projects  identified  should  be  further  supported  with  a  view  to  help  them 
finding the funds needed for their implementation.  

TSG  4  is  also  preparing  cross-pillar  project  proposals:  on  “Managing  Tourism  Flow  in 
Protected  Areas”  (with  TSG  3)  and  on  “Sustainable  Infrastructure:  Promotion  of  a  Quality 
oriented, Sustainable Tourism Offer in  EUSAIR  Destinations” (with TSG 2 and 3). Finally, 
TSG 4 is also playing an active role in contributing to the 2018 EU-China Tourism year and 
the 2018 European Year of Cultural Heritage. In this context, possibilities for cooperation and 
funding  are  considered  with  the  UNWTO  and  the  Council  of  Europe.  Regarding  the  latter, 
TSG  4  submitted  proposals  to  the  Council  on  the  development  and  accreditation  of  two 
cultural routes, namely: "the Olive Trees route" and the "Roman Emperor route". 

Governance 

Definition  of  an  effective  governance  structure  and  establishment  of  the  instruments 
supporting it, took  much time and efforts.  Now that  the governance architecture is  in  place, 
the  Governing  Board  (GB)  and  TSGs  should  make  all  possible  efforts  to  stimulate  the 
development  of  projects  and  actions  with  macro-regional  added  value  and  give  a  boost  to 
implementing the Action Plan and its objectives. 

During the last two  years, governance-related issues have continued to be central in the GB 
agendas. Progress was made in the following areas: 

28 

 
 
  After  three  years  of  GB  co-chairmanship,  the  Commission  stepped  back  leaving  full 
chair responsibility to the country holding the EUSAIR (rotating) Presidency. In doing 
so - after the initial start-up period of the Strategy - the Commission wanted to align 
with the practices in force in the “older” MRS so as to enhance ownership on the side 
of the rotating Presidency. 

  The  so-called  “Trio  Presidency”  arrangements,  already  applied  in  other  MRS,  were 
agreed.  Accordingly,  the  incumbent  Presidency  is  supported  by  the  past  and  future 
Presidencies; 

  The  EUSAIR  Facility  Point  (FP)  is  progressively  getting  operational,  including  by 
providing operational and administrative support to the TSGs, the GB and the annual 
fora.  It  is  also  progressing  towards  helping  TSGs  to  develop  macro-regional  project 
concepts  and to  monitor and evaluate Action Plan implementation.  FP is  also  taking 
care of communication activities. Participation of enlargement countries in the FP has 
encountered some issues - mainly due to changes in the countries’ institutional setting 
-  that  are  gradually  being  solved.  Delays  have  been  encountered  in  establishing  a 
stakeholder platform; 

  The  labelling  procedure  and  the  “Broad  criteria  common  to  all  Pillars,  guiding  pre-
screening process”, aimed at identifying measures/projects with macro-regional added 
value, were agreed after thorough discussions; 

  Two capacity-building workshops took place in Spring 2018, organised by the Facility 
Point Plus project. The primary purpose of the two events, targeting respectively the 
TSG  members  and  the  National  Coordinators,  was  to  improve  their  capacity  to 
identify  jointly  and  agree  on  actions  benefitting  participating  countries.  Further 
capacity building activities are planned in the near future. 

At implementation level, the TSGs continued to meet regularly. However, participation from 
countries  representatives  is  often  lacking.  Nonetheless,  they  made  progress  in  identifying 
priority  projects  per  pillar.  They  should  now  focusing  on  promoting  the  implementation  of 
those  projects  which,  in  many  case,  require  financing,  but  also  administrative/technical 
coordination among national/regional authorities.  

At political  level, the annual  fora and the EUSAIR ministerial  meetings  were occasions for 
Governments to express their continued commitment and their belief that the EUSAIR brings 
significant  added  value  to  cooperation  in  the  Region.  Two  EUSAIR  fora  (Ioannina,  11-12 
May  2017  and  Catania,  24-25  May  2018)  took  place  during  the  period  concerned,  and  two 
Ministerial  Declarations  were  delivered  giving  the  following  lines  of  action  to  national 
administrations: 

  Allocating  sufficient  financial,  administrative  and  technical  resources  and  making 

competent and duly empowered staff available; 

 

Involving subnational levels of government and mobilise regional stakeholders for the 
implementation and development of the Strategy; 

  Deepening the dialogue initiated between ESI Funds/IPA programme authorities and 

EUSAIR key implementers; 

  Jointly agreeing – among all eight countries - for the 2021-2027 programming period, 
on  common  macro-regional  priorities  to  be  included  in  all  ESI  Funds  Partnership 
Agreements  and  IPA  programming  (framework)  documents,  as  well  as  jointly 

29 

 
 
identifying  macro-regional  measures  and  projects  to  be  implemented  through 
coordinated planning and programming of national/regional ESI and IPA funds; 

  Outlining concrete avenues of action for helping strengthen the resilience of EUSAIR 

participating countries in coping with the refugee and migration issue. 

Coordination at national level 

In  2017,  the  Commission  mandated  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and 
Development (OECD) to review the arrangements put in place by the EUSAIR countries for 
implementing the Strategy. The purpose of this review – still on-going – is to help streamline 
and improve horizontal (cross-sectoral) and vertical coordination within and between national 
and regional administrations in each country in light of good practices. Initial findings point to 
a  variety  of  arrangements  put  in  place;  a  number  of  participating  countries  have  thus 
established internal coordination systems involving ministries of foreign affairs, authorities in 
charge of EU funds, sectoral ministries and regional/local administrations. The review should 
also formulate recommendations as to how shortcomings observed could be overcome67.  

EUSAIR fora and involvement of stakeholders 
The 2nd and 3rd EUSAIR fora, respectively in 2017 and 2018, offered important opportunities 
for  raising  awareness  of  the  Strategy  and  for  increasing  its  visibility.  In  both  cases,  a 
significant number of stakeholders, national, regional and local administrations, the business 
sector  as  well  as  media,  took  stock  of  progress  achieved,  discussed  challenges  facing  the 
Region  and  exchanged  ideas  and  experience  on  projects,  actions  or  activities  of  macro-
regional relevance.  
The 2nd EUSAIR forum in Ioannina, under Greek Presidency, focussed on “Blue Growth and 
its interrelations with other EUSAIR pillars: Environmental Quality, Sustainable Tourism and 
Connecting the Region”. Both the plenary sessions and sectoral and side-meetings registered 
high  attention  and  interest  on  the  matters  discussed.  Overall,  the  forum  was  successful  in 
attracting  more  than  600  participants.  There  was  a  clear  perception  that  although  much 
remained to be done, the Strategy was going in the right direction.  
Concerning the 3rd EUSAIR forum held in Catania, under Italian Presidency, special attention 
was  paid  to  “improvement  of  connectivity  as  a  booster  for  successful  development  of  the 
area”. The plenary sessions, parallel meetings (one per pillar on financing opportunities) and 
numerous  side  events  (on  eco-connectivity,  LNG,  resilience  to  natural  disasters,  migration, 
etc.) raised a mixed level of interest, also due to the late announcement of the events. 

As for the first EUSAIR forum, a Business to Business (B2B) side event was organised both 
at the second and third forum by the Enterprise European Network (EEN). In both cases the 
event was successful with a high number of participants (240 in Ioannina and 190 in Catania), 
mainly  SMEs,  business  associations  and  agencies  and  some  academic  research  centres  and 
regional and national public authorities. 

The number of business meetings was also very high and was boosted in the case of Catania 
by  the  presence  of  22  Chinese  tourist  operators  invited  in  the  framework  of  the  EU  China 
Tourism Year 2018 (ECTY 2018) and by the fact that, after three years of implementation of 
the EUSAIR, stakeholders are more aware of opportunities offered by the Strategy. 

67  EUSAIR  Synthesis  Report  (draft):  Multi-Governance  and  Cross-Border  Practices  Supporting  the  European 
Union Macro-Regional Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region, OECD, July 2018. 

30 

 
 
                                                           
Stakeholders  have  generally  contributed  a  good  deal  to  the  EUSAIR  fora.  However,  much 
remains  to  be  done  to  increase  their  participation  in  implementing  the  Strategy  and  their 
interaction with governance structures.  

So far, the commitment of the fora of universities, chambers of commerce and cities working 
under the umbrella of the AII continues to  be sustained and will be further enhanced in  the 
framework of the AI-NURECC68 initiative in cooperation with the Conference of Peripheral 
Maritime  Regions  of  Europe  (CPRM)  and  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  Euro-Region.  This  pilot 
project  –  decided  at  the  initiative  of  the  European  Parliament  -  aims  at  supporting  the 
EUSAIR  strategy  implementation  via  a  number  of  initiatives  in  the  fields  of  youth  action, 
cultural and creative industry, tourism and training. AI-NURECC actions will also contribute 
to strengthen cooperation between the EU and the enlargement countries involved. 

Inter-pillar coordination and cooperation 

The four EUSAIR pillars being interdependent, macro-regional actions and projects must be 
coherent  and mutually supportive. Actions and projects  carried out  under each pillar should 
complement and reinforce the impact of those carried out under the other pillars69. Moreover, 
many projects identified by the TSGs, particularly those related to environmental protection, 
cannot be restricted to one pillar only as they are, by their nature, cross-pillar. 

For this reason, TSG 3 has consistently stressed the need to establish more active cross-pillar 
coordination.  The  matrix  it  produced  highlights  synergies  and  complementarities  but  also 
possible incompatibilities between objectives pursued under the different pillars aims. This is 
expected  to  make  it  easier  for  each  TSG  to  spot  opportunities  for  fruitful  inter-pillar 
cooperation  and  to  identify  actions  common  to  more  than  one  pillar.  Such  inter-pillar 
initiatives could be developed with the support of the Facility Point Plus project, which aims 
at supporting the development of project ideas and concepts relevant to more than one pillar 
and at turning them into more mature, bankable projects. 

Coordination  among  pillars  continues  to  be  ensured  also  through  “Technical  meetings  of 
Pillar Coordinators” facilitated by the Commission and preceding GB meetings.  

Regional Cooperation 

The  GB  and  TSGs  continue  to  have  a  special  relationship  with  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian 
Initiative70.  The  AII  Round  Tables,  overhauled  after  the  endorsement  of  the  EUSAIR,  have 
attempted to  act  as interfaces between TSGs  and regional stakeholders  and to  increase their 
participation  in  the  EUSAIR  governance  processes.  However,  to  bring  real  benefit,  this 
instrument needs fine-tuning and better coordination with the work of the TSGs.  

The TSGs  have continued to  consider and find complementarities with  the work of sectoral 
regional and international organisations on matters of interest for the EUSAIR. This concerns, 
for  instance,  the  search  for  synergy  and  cooperation  of  TSG  1  with  the  Union  for  the 
Mediterranean on the Blue Economy; of TSG 2 with the SEETO and the Energy Community; 
of TSG 3 with UNEP/MAP and the Barcelona Convention: and of TSG 4 with UNWTO and 
the Council of Europe. 

68 Adriatic Ionian Network of Universities, REegions, Chambers of commerce and Cities (AI-NURECC) 
initiative 
69 Broad criterion “f” common to all pillars to guide project pre-screening processes 
70 The AII Permanent Secretariat is a standing member of the GB and the Ministerial meeting, tacking place at 
the margin of the annual forum and closing the yearly chairmanship, is a joint EUSAIR-AII meeting.  

31 

 
 
                                                           
Finally, cooperation and coordination with the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of 
Europe has increased in the framework of the mentioned AI-NURECC initiative where they 
act as lead partner.  

Coordination with other MRS 

Macro-regions  are  not  closed  systems;  they  need  to  interact  and  coordinate  across  their 
borders, notably in the case of transport, energy networks, tourism or environment protection. 
Accordingly,  coordination,  cooperation  and  exchange  of  information  with  other  MRS  is 
essential for the coherence and for the effectiveness of the EUSAIR, all the more so that most 
EUSAIR countries are also member of other MRS71.  

The fact that several GB and TSG members are also involved in the EUSDR helps compare 
systems,  exchange  experiences  and  good  practices  and  find  complementarities  and  possible 
synergies among MRS.  

In  this  respect,  it  is  worth  mentioning  the  “Mediterranean  Coast  and  EU  MRS  Week” 
organised  by  the  Slovenian  Government  each  year  since  2016.  This  event  brings  together 
experts, stakeholders and the general public to discuss issues connected to the implementation 
of the MRS with the aim to enhance coordination among them as well as communication.  

Funding 

As far as funding and alignment of ESI/IPA funds with the EUSAIR are concerned, it is worth 
noting that constructive relations have been established between Pillar Coordinators and the 
Interreg Adrion Monitoring Committee. Suggestions by Pillar Coordinators were considered 
to shape the Adrion 2nd targeted call for proposals. 

The  picture  is  somewhat  different  as  regards  the  contribution  of  mainstream  (national, 
regional)  programmes  to  the  EUSAIR.  Even  though  most  country-specific  ESI  Funds 
programmes  implemented  in  the  Region  indicate  that  they  contribute  to  the  Strategy, 
coordination among the authorities managing these programmes in the EUSAIR countries for 
the  purpose  of  carrying  out  joint  or  parallel  projects  serving  the  same  macro-regional 
objectives,  is  still  lacking.  Some  indication  on  the  support  provided  by  ESI  Funds  and  IPA 
programmes  to  the  EUSAIR  can  be  found  in  the  section  “Contribution  of  programmes  to 
macro-regional strategies” at the end of this document.   

The  Adrion  programme  -  which  covers  the  same  geographical  area  as  the  EUSAIR  and  the 
priority axes of which are largely aligned with the Strategy’s objectives - as a result of its first 
call for proposals has funded 34 projects under its three priority axes (1 Innovative and Smart 
Region; 2 Sustainable Region; 3 Connected Region) for a total budget of EUR 33.1 million. 
Projects are now under implementation. A second call for proposals was launched in March 
2018 covering only Priority  Axis  2 (e.g. environment and tourism/cultural  heritage) with  an 
overall budget of about EUR 34.3 million. 

Monitoring 

Generally, assessment of how the implementation of the EUSAIR Action Plan is being carried 
out is a task for Pillar Coordinators, due to report on their activities and achievements to the 
GB  once  per  year.  As  from  2018,  the  Facility  Point,  under  Greek  leadership,  is 
complementing the Pillar Coordinators work by developing a more in-depth monitoring and 
evaluation  system,  collecting  data,  building  a  knowledge  base,  establishing  baselines, 
indicators and targets and working on an annual monitoring report.  

71 EUSALP (Italy and Slovenia), EUSDR (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia).  

32 

 
 
                                                           
Communication 

Communication is an important aspect of the Strategy. It helps raise awareness and visibility 
among  stakeholders  and  citizens.  Communication  activities  are  being  carried  out  by  the 
Facility  Point.  Its  activities  include  keeping  the  official  web-site  up-to-date,  communicating 
on  social  media,  launching  online  campaigns,  publishing  information  videos,  organising 
public events, etc.  

CHALLENGES 

Governance 

While learning how to operate under a newly created governance architecture does not happen 
overnight, the persistent gap, after four  years of existence, between political commitment as 
expressed in ministerial declarations and actual follow-up at the administrative level, calls for 
reconsidering the governance set-up.  

The  Facility  Point  -  now  largely  (though  not  entirely)  operational  -  cannot  replace  national 
administrations  which,  as  requested  several  times  by  ministers  in  their  annual  declarations, 
must provide adequate human, financial, administrative and technical resources dedicated to 
the implementation of the Strategy.  

Ownership  of  the  Strategy  by  the  participating  countries,  considered  a  must  ever  since  its 
launch,  needs  to  be  considerably  strengthened.  The  Commission’s  step  down  as  co-chair  of 
the GB as of February 2018 is a move in that direction.  

The  role  of  the  Commission  remains  no  less  significant  as  it  keeps  its  function  of  strategic 
coordinator.  However,  at  the  coordination  level,  it  is  now  high  time  for  the  pro-tempore 
Presidency  to  take  the  lead  and  give  a  boost  to  the  implementation  of  the  Strategy  in 
cooperation with all National Coordinators and with the support of the Facility Point in all its  
territorial  dimensions.  The  newly  established  “Trio  Presidency”  is  a  good  move  in  that  
direction as it can be expected to foster stability and continuity as well as provide additional 
support to the rotating Presidency; it nevertheless needs being put to the test.  

As  noted  by  some  Pillar  Coordinators,  at  the  implementation  level,  the  repeated  absence  of 
some countries in TSG meetings continues to be a problem hindering effective functioning of 
the TSGs. The reasons behind it are, on the one hand, persistent lack of clear mandate given 
to  TSG  members,  leading  to  poor  empowerment  (in  some  cases)  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
insufficient  continuity  and  stability  of  TSG  members,  owing  to  frequent  administrative 
reorganisations  resulting  in  positions  remaining  unfilled  for  lengthy  periods  of  time  and 
unexperienced staff taking over the position of TSG members. 

As far as the substance of their work is concerned, it has to be noted that, even though TSGs 
produce  lists  of  prioritised  projects,  there  is  still  uncertainty  as  to  how  these  EUSAIR  -
labelled projects are considered by EU funding programmes. 

The Stakeholder Platform, to be developed under the Facility Point, is not ready yet. Both key 
implementers and stakeholders are repeatedly asking for it as it is expected to ensure a more 
direct flow of information to and from stakeholders, better communication and possibility to 
share experiences, best practices and build new partnerships. 

Possible developments of the Strategy and its Action Plan  

A  new  challenge  -  both  at  coordination  and  implementation  level  -  in  the  coming  months 
might  result  from  the  possible  accession  of  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia  in 

33 

 
 
the  EUSAIR  -  after  its  inclusion  in  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  Initiative  -  as  requested  by  the 
EUSAIR/AII ministers in the Catania Declaration of 24 May 2018. 

Both the Dubrovnik and the Ioannina Declaration pay considerable attention to the migration 
and  refugee  challenge.  Participating  countries  committed  to  exploring  ways  in  which  the 
Strategy  could  contribute  to  strengthening  the  resilience  of  Adriatic  and  Ionian  countries  in 
this  respect.  The  proposal,  mentioned  in  the  Ioannina  Declaration,  to  set  up  a  collaborative 
platform  to  coordinate  better  the  eight  countries’  response  to  the  migration  issue  and  to 
consider an expansion of the EUSAIR Action  Plan to  include integration of migrants  in  the 
labour market, has not been followed up upon yet.  

Funding 

As  far  as  the  funds  for  implementing  Strategy’s  measures  and  projects,  over  and  above  the 
important  but  small Adrion  programme, it would be necessary  for participating  countries to 
find  common  grounds  on  procedures  that  would  allow  easier  access  to  support  from  larger 
ESI  Funds/IPA programmes, as  well as EU  funds under  direct management (Horizon 2020, 
LIFE, etc.). 

The need to balance EU funds potentially available to EU and non-EU countries for EUSAIR 
measures and projects has been voiced repeatedly by several National Coordinators. 

Dialogue meetings, promoted by DG REGIO, between ESI Funds Managing Authorities and 
EUSAIR key stakeholders in the four EU Member States, took place between October 2016 
and  January  2017.  However,  ESI  Funds  mainstream  programmes,  in  the  current  2014-2020 
period,  continue  to  operate  mainly  according  to  national  logics.  Good  results  in  term  of 
macro-regional projects  can be reported only in the case of some Interreg programmes (e.g. 
CBC Italy-Croatia, IPA-CBC Italy-Croatia-Montenegro).  

Dialogue  meetings  between  EUSAIR  key  implementers  and  national  authorities  responsible 
for  IPA  funds  in  the  four  Enlargement  countries  should  also  take  place  at  the  earliest 
convenience. 

THE WAY FORWARD 

Actions in the upcoming period should be focused on tackling the challenges identified above 
and taking stock of, and capitalising on results obtained so far. Based on the experience and 
on the information gathered from EUSAIR key implementers, the following areas for further 
improvement have been identified: 

-  Continue  to  seek  for  synergies  and  complementarities  with  existing  instruments  and 
organisations already operating in the Region, such as the ‘Berlin Process- WB6’, the 
Energy Community, the Union for the Mediterranean, the Secretariat for the Barcelona 
Convention, Blue Med, the Regional Cooperation Council, SEETO, etc.; 

-  Promote actions, in line with the EUSAIR priorities, that bring added value to the EU 

enlargement process of Western Balkan countries; 

-  Strengthen the ownership and commitment of line ministers by making them aware of 
the potential benefits  that the EUSAIR may bring, and invite them to  duly empower 
the officials representing their ministries at TSG meetings; 

-  Encourage  a  continuous  participation  of  all  relevant  Commission  DGs  in  TSGs 

activities; 

34 

 
 
-  Make  the  Stakeholder  Platform  within  the  Facility  Point  operational  without  any 
further  delay  so  as  to  facilitate  regional  and  local  stakeholders’  contribution  to  the 
Strategy,  raise  their    awareness  of  the  opportunities  offered  by  the  EUSAIR,  and 
improve communication; 

- 

Improve the dialogue between the EUSAIR and ESI Funds/IPA authorities in order to 
identify and fund projects and actions also in the mainstream programmes. This will 
be  even  more  important  for  the  upcoming  programming  period  (2021-2027)  where 
cooperation  should  be  an  horizontal  objective  for  Cohesion  Policy  (Commission 
Proposal); 

-  With regard to the migration and refugee issue, ensure the necessary follow up to the 
recommendation delivered by ministers in the Ioannina Declaration (2017) to set up a 
collaborative platform to better coordinate countries’ response to the migration crisis, 
and  to  consider  an  expansion  of  the  EUSAIR  Action  Plan  with  a  view  to  including 
integration of migrants in the labour market. 

35 

 
 
 
 
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 201572, 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 prepared a Communication and an Action Plan on the EU Strategy 
for the Alpine Region (EUSALP), which was adopted by the Commission in July 2015. On 
27 November 2015 the Strategy was endorsed by the Council73 and on 28 June 2016 by the 
European Council. 

The EUSALP covers seven countries:  

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

  2 non EU countries: Liechtenstein and Switzerland, 

of  which  48  Regions  are  involved  in  the  process74,  and  is  home  for  more  than  80  million 
people. 

RESULTS 

After only two years of implementation, the work of the EUSALP Action Groups (AGs) has 
entered in a phase of continuity and routine. Notwithstanding some technical issues common 
to  all  strategies,  a  step  forward  in  the  field  of  multilevel  governance  could  be  achieved  in 
different terms. 

EUSALP  Presidencies  (Bavaria  in  2017  and  Tyrol  in  2018)  have  played  an  active  role  in 
setting policy orientations for their presidency. 

Bavaria  in  2017,  under  the  motto  "EU  Alpine  Strategy-  joint  action  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Region", determined and prioritised thematic focuses of all actions together with the Alpine 
Region partners. The EUSALP General Assembly agreed, in Rottach-Egern in February 2017, 
on  a  series  of  focus  topics  such  as  the  Master  Plan  bioeconomy  in  the  Alpine  Region, 
supporting  public  services  with  a  three-dimension  landscape  model  of  the  entire  Region, 
addressing the needs and ideas of the young generation for a good future of Alpine farming, 
or the energetic optimisation of buildings. 

The Tyrol Presidency adopted a work programme in 2018 aiming at "shaping future together- 
in the interest of the Alps!". They focussed efforts on dual education, on sustainable modes of 

72 Conclusions of the European Council of 19-20 December 2013, §50    
73 Council Conclusions on the EU Strategy for the Alpine Region, 27 November 2015 and the European Council, 
28 June 2016.   
74  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).   

36 

 
 
                                                           
transport  by,  for  instance,  combining  passenger  information  systems  for  public  transport  in 
the  form  of  a  EUSALP-wide  travel  information  platform,  or  on  further  development  of 
integrated natural hazard management to establish risk governance in the Alpine Region. 

Projects 

Several  projects  have  already  been  selected,  mainly  under  the  Interreg  Alpine  Space 
transnational programme, which funding is essential, but by far not sufficient for the success 
of the Strategy if other programmes do not provide a proportionate support to its objectives. 
Almost 80 ESI Funds programmes concern the territory of the Alpine macro-region and could 
therefore be mobilised to support priorities and projects of the Strategy. 

Among projects already selected, it is worth mentioning the following ones:  

Innovation  
“AlpLinkBioEco75”  works  to  develop  a  circular  bio-based  economic  strategy  including  a 
roadmap and advice to assess, select and create innovative value chains for the Alpine Space 
wood, agriculture, food/pharma and chemistry sectors. 
Through  a  smart  village  approach,  “SmartVillages76”  brings  together  policy  makers, 
businesses, academia and civil society and fosters innovation through ICT based participatory 
tools to keep villages attractive to work and live in. 
“CirculAlps77” aims at developing innovation to foster sustainability and circular economy in 
Alpine forestry value chain. 

Economic development 
In 2017, together with the Bavarian partners, the “Mount Erasmus78” network was launched, 
that  promotes  common  activities  of  agricultural  schools  in  the  Alpine  region.  In  2018  the 
topic of youngsters and of dual education is exploited with the Tyrolean Presidency. In 2017 
too,  the  ‘First  Forum  on  Dual  Education79’  in  the  Alpine  Space  took  place  and  it  created  a 
good  basis  for  an  active  collaboration  of  stakeholders.  The  2nd  such  Forum  took  place  in 
November 201880.  
“PlurAlps81”  offers  transnational  solutions  for  the  integration  of  migrants  in  Alpine 
municipalities. It includes pilot projects and a social planning tool to assess the demographics 
and needs of migrants and enhance the performance of municipalities. 
“HEALPS82” concerns Alpine Health Tourism and aims  at  positioning  the Alpine  region  as 
globally attractive health promoting place. 

Energy and low-carbon economy 
“Greencycle83”  promotes  cooperation,  mutual 

learning,  shared  capacity-building  and 

75 http://www.alpine-space.eu/projects/alplinkbioeco/en/home 
76 https://www.alpine-region.eu/projects/smart-villages  
77 https://www.alpine-region.eu/projects/circulalps  
78https://www.alpine-region.eu/projects/mounterasmus  
79 https://www.alpine-region.eu/events/1st-forum-dual-education-alpine-region  
80 https://www.alpine-region.eu/news/2nd-forum-dual-education-alpine-region-program  
81 http://www.alpine-space.eu/projects/pluralps/en/home  
82 https://www.alpine-region.eu/projects/healps-alpine-health-tourism-%E2%80%93-positioning-alpine-region-
globally-attractive-health  

37 

 
 
                                                           
exchange of experiences among Alpine public administrations to foster the implementation of 
the concept of circular economy and achieve a reduction in carbon emissions. 
“SMART  ALTITUDE84”  helps  overcome  differences 
territorial  governance  and 
infrastructure  management  among  winter  tourism  destinations.  The  goal  is  to  develop  a 
shared, transnational approach to clean energy policy implementation in mountain areas. 
“GRETA85” develops a shared knowledge base for the transfer and adoption of near surface 
geothermal energy systems in the Alpine area. It will deliver tools to support decision making 
and encourage appropriate policymaking. 

in 

Environment 
“RockTheAlps86” focuses on forests as a protection element against rock fall and fosters their 
use in risk management and prevention policies. The project will provide the first Alps-wide 
harmonised rock fall risk and protection forests map. 
“GreenRisk4ALPs87”:  although  their  effectiveness  is  recognised,  forests  and  ecosystem 
services have been seldom integrated in risk mitigation strategies. GreenRisk4ALPs (GR4A) 
develops ecosystem-based concepts to support risk governance. 
“HyMoCARES88”  fosters  the  conservation  of  Alpine  rivers  and  related  ecosystems  by 
providing innovative basin planning and management tools based on the ecosystem services 
approach, while ensuring integration of local and basin levels. 

Governance 
“GaYA89” fosters the involvement of young people in regional governance and develops new 
approaches  for  decision-makers.  Building  on  local  experiences,  the  project  will  produce  a 
participation toolkit and policy recommendations. 
“AlpGov90”: its main objective is to support effective and efficient EUSALP implementation 
in a systematic transnational approach. It is meant to  design and test appropriate governance 
structures  and  mechanisms,  mainly  at  the  level  of  Action  Groups  (AGs),  and  to  create 
synergies  with  the  other  EUSALP  implementing  bodies:  General  Assembly  and  Executive 
Board and other institutional actors. 

Governance 
As  described  in  the  COWI91  study,  the  building  of  the  governance  process  in  MRS  goes 
through three steps of development. As EUSALP was adopted only three years ago, the first 
two phases are still undergoing consolidation. 

83 http://www.alpine-space.eu/projects/greencycle/en/about  
84 https://www.mountainresearch.at/index.php/en/ongoing-projects/47-man-and-environment-settlements/602-
smart-altitude-en  
85 http://www.alpine-space.eu/projects/greta/en/home  
86 http://www.alpine-space.eu/projects/rockthealps/en/home  
87 http://www.alpine-space.eu/projects/greenrisk4alps/en/home  
88 http://www.alpine-space.eu/projects/hymocares/en/home  
89 http://www.alpine-space.eu/projects/gaya/en/home  
90 http://www.alpine-space.eu/projects/alpgov/en/home  
91 COWI study: ‘Macro-regional strategies and their links with cohesion policy’ – November 2017: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/cooperate/macro_region_strategy/pdf/mrs_links_cohesion_policy.pdf 

38 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Phase I: early set-up of the MRS governance system, individual capacity building 

EUSALP official launch took  place in  Brdo in  January 2016 and its implementation  started 
immediately  after,  thanks  to  the  high  level  of  political  and  economic  cooperation  already 
existing in the Region.  

During the first year of implementation, the governance structures and the rules of procedure 
of the implementing bodies were agreed. All the Coordinators of the 9 AGs were appointed 
and first meetings resulted in an agreement on further working methods and the setting up of a 
work  programme  identifying  thematic  topics  to  be  followed  by  each  AG,  in  line  with 
EUSALP Action Plan. A Board of Action Groups Leaders was also established to ensure the 
permanent  exchange  of  knowledge  and  experiences  among  the  nine  AGs.  This  very  quick 
start of the implementation has raised many expectations among stakeholders. 

Immediately after the adoption of the work programme of each Action Group, practical work 
has  started.    All  AGs  meet  regularly  (several  times  a  year),  as  well  as  the  Executive  Board 
under the rotating presidency put in place (Bavaria in 2017 and Tyrol in 2018). However it is 
important to stress that outputs, results and impacts have a time dimension, as highlighted in 
"COWI study".  

According to participation of states and regions in the Action Groups, progress has been made 
and,  as  a  general  trend,  the  number  of  participating  representatives  and  stakeholders  was 
increasing  in  this  reporting  period  (all  AGs  achieved  the  necessary  quorum),  demonstrating 
that  EUSALP  gains  more  and  more  attraction.  Nevertheless,  it  remains  a  challenge  to 
mobilise AG members with the necessary decision making capacity and technical competence 
and  there  is  still  potential  to  better  involve,  in  particular,  representatives  from  the  national 
level and from some countries/regions and territories. AGs would welcome if the Executive 
Board  (EB)  would  continue  encouraging  states  and  regions  to  ensure  an  appropriate 
representation in AGs and to encourage relevant stakeholders to also do so. 

Despite some delays - which can be mainly explained by the recent set up of the project – the 
governance  project  AlpGov  under  the  Interreg  Alpine  Space  programme  is  on  track. 
Deliverables are already made available, or are in preparation according to the project plan.  

However,  AlpGov  project  partners  see  the  need  for  amendments  and  decided  to  address  a 
request for change to the Alpine Space programme. It is planned to add a new communication 
activity  aiming  at  more  practical  communication  work  so  as  to  enhance  visibility  of  the 
EUSALP, and to extend the project duration until end of 2019 so as to create synergies with 
the EUSALP presidency terms. Nevertheless, the AlpGov project should not exhaust its full 
budget.  As  an  estimation,  the  total  budget  consumption  should  remain  in  a  range  between 
EUR 3 and 3.5 million.  

AGs are fully aware that they have to draw more attention to political aspects, e. g. by means 
of  political  conferences  and  joint  declarations  helping  to  change  political  mind-set.  First 
initiatives  in  that  respect  were  started  (Green  Infrastructure  Conference,  Forest  summit 
Protection-Forest-Climate,  Mobility  Conference)  and  are  expected  to  be  continued  or  even 
intensified  in  the  future  (e.g.  on  smart  villages,  energy,  etc.).  AG  leaders  acknowledge  that 
this is indispensable for getting higher political ownership, thus leading to better participation 
in the AGs. 

The cooperation with  the Alpine Convention should  improve, thanks to a joint  workshop in 
October 2017 where joint fields of activities were identified. Further exchanges between the 
two  bodies  format  should  be  continued  on  a  regular  basis.  Furthermore,  some  of  the  AGs 
agreed on better share of responsibilities. 

39 

 
 
The  governance  structures  within  the  AGs  are  better  settled  now,  even  though  the 
composition  varies,  e.g.  in  terms  of  numbers  of  group  members,  setting  up  of  sub  groups, 
participation of stakeholders. AG leaders have got a clearer picture on their role and what is 
expected from them from outside partners. 

Phase  II:  MRS  understood  by  external  stakeholders  and  starting  to  operate,  institutional 
capacity built 
The 1st EUSALP annual forum took place in Munich on the 23th and 24th November 2017. A 
Citizen's dialogue also took place in parallel. The 2nd annual forum took place on the 20th and 
21st of November 2018 in Innsbruck, Tyrol, with the political will of involving more directly 
and more concretely youth into the implementation of the Strategy. 

The first EUSALP Conference of Environmental Ministers held on 2 October 2017 in Munich 
gave  an  example  of  the  added  value  of  macro-regional  approach.  The  political  landmarks 
were  set  to  make  the  Alpine  region  a  model  for  implementing  the  EU  Green  Infrastructure 
(GI)  Strategy.  27  Alpine  states  and  regions  adopted  the  political  declaration  “Alpine  Green 
Infrastructure  –  Joining  forces  for  nature,  people  and  the  economy92”  in  the  presence  of 
representatives  from  the  European  Commission,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Alpine 
Convention. 
In  cooperation  with  the  “LOS_DAMA!93”  project,  funded  by  the  Interreg  Alpine  Space 
programme,  at  the  margins  of  the  conference,  Mayors  of  Alpine  cities  (Munich,  Vienna, 
Torino, Trento, and Grenoble) initiated a network on deploying Green Infrastructure in Alpine 
urban areas by signing a Memorandum of Understanding. This network gives a first concrete 
example  for  implementation  activities  on  municipality  level  and  a  strong  signal  of  the 
inclusive  political  framework  that  the  EUSALP  could  provide  when  explicitly  involving 
Alpine cities into the scope of activities. 

To  enhance  shared  Alpine  governance,  the  AG4  carried  out  a  study  to  explore  existing 
governance  mechanisms  and  strategic  potentials  in  the  field  of  mobility  within  the  Alpine 
Region.  The  study,  developed  by  the  University  of  Innsbruck  –  ICER  (Innsbruck  Center  of 
European  Research)  was  finalized  and  published  in  December  2017.  This  kind  of  initiative 
could be usefully extended to all AGs. 

Phase III (maturity of the strategy which delivers tangible actions and results) 

The Strategy has not reached this phase yet, even though several projects have already been 
selected. They are still at an early stage of implementation and have not delivered results yet 
(examples of those projects are presented in the previous section). 

Cross-sectoral coordination and cooperation 

As  mentioned  above,  the  establishment  of  a  Board  of  Action  Groups  Leaders  ensuring  the 
permanent  exchange  of  knowledge  and  experiences  among  the  nine  AGs,  has  greatly 
facilitated a common approach and a better coordination. 

Concerning  cross  sectoral  cooperation  and  with  a  view  to  setting  up  more  implementation 
activities,  the  Alpine  Region  Preparatory  Action  Fund94  (ARPAF)  proved  to  be  extremely 
helpful. For some AGs it served as a boost for developing implementation activity, establish 
horizontal cooperation and making EUSALP work more visible.  

92 https://www.alpine-region.eu/sites/default/files/uploads/inline/956/eusalp_joint_declaration_green_infrastructure_final_en.pdf 
93 http://www.alpine-space.eu/projects/los_dama/en/home 
94 Co-financed by the European Parliament 

40 

 
 
                                                           
The  AlpGov  project  supported  by  the  Interreg  Alpine  Space  programme  also  helps  in  this 
respect by coordinating activities of different AGs.  

By way of example, the work of AG 7 is closely connected to other EUSALP Action Groups. 
Besides a joint workshop with AG 8 during the 1st EUSALP annual forum (November 2017), 
(on the role of forests in natural hazards management and Green Infrastructure in the context 
of  Community  Led  Local  Development),  the  ARPAF  project  “TRANSALP95”  is  jointly 
implemented with AGs 2 and 3. The TRANSALP project addresses the strategic potential of 
medical  and  aromatic  plants  and  therefore  exemplarily  stands  for  the  potential  of  bio-based 
products  for  maintaining  Green  Infrastructure  (GI)  elements  and  fostering  green  economy 
business models / value chains for GI.  

In AG3, the hope is to arrive soon at a point of common understanding where the education 
can  be  connected  to  the  work  of  every  action  group  and  cross-sectorial  projects  can  be 
established.  

The  Alpine  Space  programme  has  invited  the  EUSALP  Action  Group  leaders  (AGL)  to 
elaborate a specific action aiming to help the coordination of their work, to be funded by the 
AlpGov project. 

Coordination with other MRS 

Exchanges  with  counterparts  from  other  MRS  are  taking  place  in  meetings  promoted  by 
Interact.  Such  meetings  have  already  taken  place  in  different  policy  areas  (transport, 
environment and risk prevention, governance, etc.) 

AG  7  on  ecological  connectivity  has  developed  close  cooperation  with  the  EUSAIR  (e.g. 
Mediterranean Coast and EU MRS Week 2016 and 2017) and has initiated cooperation with 
the  EUSDR.  A  joint  workshop  of  all  4  MRS  is  under  preparation  with  the  support  of  the 
Interact  aiming  at  exploring  synergies  and  strengthening  coherence  on  themes  of  Green 
Infrastructure  and  related  governance  and  financing  mechanisms  at  EU  level.  Finally,  the 
issue of Green Infrastructure will be brought to the attention of the next ENCORE-Conference 
of regional Environmental ministers of Europe. 

Funding 

Alpine Space programme remains by  far the main contributor to  the Strategy. EUR 94,340, 
000 have been allocated, after three calls, to 49 projects contributing to the objectives of the 
Strategy. 

Very few other programmes have so far considered the EUSALP priorities in the selection of 
their projects. 

Monitoring 

As part of the AlpGov project, one activity concerns the set up of a common target system as 
basis  for  further  activities.  In  2017,  a  draft  proposal  for  a  target  system  based  on  the 
objectives of (1) reduction of environmental impacts of transport and (2) secure accessibility 
and  connectivity  of  sustainable  transport  systems,  was  presented  and  discussed  with  AGs.. 
The  development  of  a  EUSALP  wide  target  system  stands  in  close  relation  with  the 
identification  of  relevant  criteria  for  the  systematic  assessment  of  individual  projects  and 
should be finalized together with the project assessment methodology by mid-2019. 

95 https://picc.center/field-of-research/projects/Pages/TRANSALP-%E2%80%93-Phytopharma-in-the-Alpine-Region.aspx 

41 

 
 
                                                           
A study launched by the Commission and carried out by Politecnico di Milano96 also offers 
different contextualised pieces of information which can help AGLs and the Executive Board 
members to orient their decisions and guide their actions. 

Communication 

AG 1 has two missions related to communication.  The first, as part of AlpGov project, is to 
build a communication strategy  and the tools supporting it. So far, AG 1 has developed the 
EUSALP website97, but the communication strategy as such still needs to be agreed. 

Another  mission  of  AG1  is  to  facilitate  knowledge.  In  this  respect,  the  “Platform  of 
Knowledge  (POK)” is  meant  to  enable the creation of new networks and processes through 
the  many  tools  it  makes  available,  such  as  the  eLearning  area,  designed  to  improve  the 
development of the capacity building of research institutes, networks and infrastructures in the 
Alpine Region. The virtual meeting room, in turn, will allow EUSALP members to participate 
in meetings and online inter-groups, thus optimising time and money. Furthermore, thanks to 
the Antenna Network, EUSALP members can disseminate learning content (training courses, 
workshops, seminars) throughout the EUSALP area and beyond, in order to reach an audience 
as  large  as  possible.  The  PoK  provides  users  with  visualization  tools,  such  as  EUSALP  3D 
and 2D maps, the Data Explorer and Graphic Generator, and Urban Sensing Reports. These 
tools allow different types of users to explore content related to different EUSALP sectors as, 
in  the  case  of  AG1,  strategic  R&I  sectors,  universities,  research  centres,  clusters,  etc.  The 
possibility  to  view  open  data  already  available  at  EU,  national  and  regional  level  facilitates 
and promotes collaboration with different actors. 

CHALLENGES 

Governance 

Even  though  the  EUSALP  is  gaining  more  and  more  traction  -  and  all  AGs  achieve  the 
necessary  quorum  in  their  meetings  -  it  remains  a  challenge  to  mobilise  AG  members  and 
provide  them  with  the  necessary  decision  making  capacity  and  technical  competence. 
Representatives from the national level and from some countries/regions and territories should 
be  better  involved.  AGs  call  for  continuous  action  of  states  and  regions  to  ensure  an 
appropriate representation in their works. 

It is also very important that the Board of Directors regularly takes stock of the achievements 
of  the  Strategy,  examines  the  work  of  the  Action  Groups,  assesses  whether  the  actions  and 
projects shall contribute to the included in the Strategy and, finally, gives Actions Groups the 
orientations they are expecting to continue implementing their tasks.  

In particular, when an Action Group reports a specific issue to the Executive Board, the latter 
should examine it and find an appropriate reply to it. 

The key issue in terms of governance is well summarised in the Politecnico di Milano study:  

"EUSALP  presents  an  actual  economic  strength  and  a  potential  for  future  growth  and 
modernization comparable with the Northern area of  the large capitals of  Europe (London, 
Paris, Brussels, Berlin). This potential, if supported by a strong political will, could allow the 

96 Economic growth and innovation in EUSALP: local specificities and growth assets for the competitiveness of 
EUSALP - Politecnico Milano 19 June 2017 
97 www.alpine-region.eu 

42 

 
 
                                                           
 
macro-region  to  upgrade its decision-making  power inside the Union, counterbalancing the 
power of the Northern area. 
Beyond  political  will,  which  is  in  the  hands  of  policy-makers,  a  crucial  precondition  for 
achieving  this  result  lies  in  the  psychological  attitudes  of  people  and  communities  of  the 
macro-region.  Enhancing  trust  with  neighbouring  regions  and  countries and  reinforcing  an 
Alpine identity building process should become a priority in the political agenda in the near 
future." 

Funding 

Not  surprisingly,  like  in  any  MRS,  a  better  embedding  of  the  EUSALP  into  other  funding 
programmes remains a challenge. Only few managing authorities of ESI Funds programmes 
seem  to  be  aware  of  the  possibilities  of  mutual  support  that  programmes  and  EUSALP  can 
offer to each other, even though several workshops and meetings have already been organised 
under Bavarian and Tyrolian Presidencies to raise partners' awareness on this critical issue. 

Further substantial efforts must be undertaken to improve the situation in a near future, and in 
particular in the preparation phase of the next programming period. 

Communication 

Communication remains an issue. Even though communication tools were elaborated, there is 
a  need  for  improvement  in  terms  of  technical  setting  and  even  more  in  content  related 
communication  work.  AG  leaders  are  well  aware  that  much  more  communication  work  on 
EUSALP results is required. Particularly, success stories of the Action Groups work shall be 
communicated and ultimate communication work generally needs to be professionalised. 

Possible developments of the Strategy and its Action Plan  

Summarising  all  aspects  mentioned  above,  after  a  phase  of  investing  in  structures  and 
identification of priorities, the AGs entered in a phase of “harvesting” concrete results in the 
year 2017, which was deepened in 2018. Up to now, the Action Plan is still a good basis for 
practical  work  and  there  is  no  need  for  revising  it,  although  in  some  AGs  tendencies  to  go 
beyond  the  Action  Plan  can  be  observed.  Instead,  a  change  of  mind-set  in  terms  of 
implementation, communication, transfer of results and skills development within the AGs on 
the basis of the existing Action Plan is useful and should be further developed. 

THE WAY FORWARD 

Based on the current state of play of the EUSALP, considering the content of the Action Plan, 
the Commission would suggest that AGs and the Executive Board:  

-  Consider  the  balanced  composition  and  stability  of  the  Action  Groups  to  ensure 
efficiency, monitor whether all groups are able to develop and implement projects and 
recommend appropriate changes, where appropriate;  

-  Secure the full implementation of EUSALP governance objective (so called objective 
4) as it is crucial for the success of the Strategy. This objective calls for new solutions 
for  ‘institutional  embedding’  to  avoid  duplication  with  existing  structures  and  to 
ensure appropriate coordination mechanisms across actors and priorities; 

-  Agree  on  the  development  of  a  stakeholder  platform  (as  proposed  in  the  EUSALP 
Action  Plan)  as  it  aims  to  involve  interested  stakeholders,  including  civil  society  at 
large, and strengthen their participation. The state of development of the stakeholder 
platform is still embryonic; 

43 

 
 
-  Work on indicators. There is a general concern that the work of the AGs is at different 
stages,  which  makes  it  challenging  to  synchronise  the  work  on  the  selection  of 
indicators and the development of a joint monitoring system. To do so, they can refer 
to the offer already launched by ESPON in the participatory workshop organised by 
the Commission and moderated by Spatial Foresight in 2016; 

-  Regarding the content of the Strategy, consider the conclusions of the "Politecnico di 

Milano" study:  
“In  most  cases,  policies  to  increase  competitiveness  should  not  focus  on  new 
investments in key resources, but rather on a better governance of the resources that 
are  already  present,  in  the  spirit  of  cooperation  and  synergic  attitude  behind  the 
creation of EUSALP. 
The  explanation  of  the  different  capacity  of  exploiting  abundant  resources  are 
searched for each pattern in the presence of complementary resources, with the idea 
that competitiveness lies on the interaction and synergic mechanisms of tangible and 
intangible resources, according to a ‘balanced development’ perspective. 
For  the  industrial  development  patterns,  soft  social  elements,  like  trust  and 
cooperative  attitude,  are  crucial  for  SMEs,  while  in  the  case  of  large  firms,  both 
high‐ tech and traditional, the presence of a strong capacity to turn knowledge into 
the commercialisation of products prevail in sustaining local competitiveness. 
For  the touristic and agricultural areas, the capacity to  exploit  the key resources is 
strongly dependent on the simultaneous presence of identity feelings, of branding of 
local  products  and  activities,  capacity  to  preserve  landscape  and  quality  of  natural 
resources, all accompanied by a qualified human capital". 

44 

 
 
 
 
Contribution of programmes to macro-regional strategies 

1.  The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 

95 mainstream,  Interreg and ENI-CBC programmes are relevant for the EU Strategy for the 
Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR).  

63 out of 95 programmes provided replies to the checklist: 

  44  mainstream  programmes  covering  5  ESI  Funds  (35  regional  and  9  national 

programmes); 

  16 Interreg programmes (13 cross-border and 3 transnational programmes); 

  3 ENI-CBC programmes. 

Aggregated data is provided in the table below: 

Country 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

Germany 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Sweden 

Interreg TN 

Interreg CBC 

ENI-CBC 

Total 

Number of 
relevant OPs 
4 

Number of replied 
OPs 
0 

Percentage of 
programmes' replied 
0% 

3 

6 

13 

3 

3 

23 

12 

4 

15 

9 

95 

3 

2 

6 

2 

1 

21 

9 

3 

13 

3 

63 

100% 

33% 

46% 

67% 

33% 

91% 

75% 

75% 

87% 

33% 

66% 

Operational  Programmes  committed  to  contribute  can  make  it  in  several  ways.  The  most 
important ways are: 

  organising targeted calls: 5 programmes 

  giving  extra  points/bonus  or  preference  to  a  project/action  with  high  macro-regional 

significance or impact: 13 programmes 

  15  programmes  indicated  that  extra  points  are  to  be  attributed  to  specific  measures 

supporting the EUSBSR 

  6  programmes  in  their  Monitoring  Committee  include  or  plan  in  the  near  future  to 
include representatives of macro-regional strategies (i.e. national coordinators, policy 
area coordinators; flagship leaders) 

34  ESI  Funds  operational  programmes  reported  to  have  already  invested  funds,  which 
contribute to the implementation of the EUSBSR.  

The aggregated financial data per fund is provided in the table below:  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
  
ERDF 

CF 

ESF 

EAFRD 

EMFF 

Other Funds 

673.454.819 

2.411.845.919 

147.755.812 

24.003.400 

0 

0 

Total in M€:  3.257.059.950 

It  is  worth  to  note  that  the  above  table  reports  only  on  reliable  data.  In  fact,  in  some  cases 
mainstream  programme  managing  authorities  considered  that  the  full  amount  of  the 
programme contributes to the objectives of the Strategy. Such cases have not been taken into 
account. 

Compatibility  of  programmes  to  the  EUSBSR  priorities  is  a  very  important  factor  that  may 
indicate where there is still scope for cooperation and where programmes may, in the future, 
contribute to the EUSBSR. 39 programmes have provided information on compatibility with 
and contribution to specific thematic areas of the EUSBSR. The most supported areas are: PA 
‘Innovation’ (31), PA ‘Transport’ (27), PA ‘Culture’ (27), PA ‘Education’ (25), HA ‘Climate’ 
(23) and PA ‘Energy’ (22). 

46 

 
 
 
 
2.  The EU Strategy for the Danube Region 

95  programmes  (ESI  Funds  mainstream,  Interreg  and  IPA  CBC  programmes,  and  IPA  II 
mainstream) are relevant for the EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR).  
39 out of 95 programmes provided updated replies98: 

  24 mainstream programmes  

  15 Interreg programmes (13 CBC programmes and 2 transnational programmes) 

The aggregated data is provided in the table below: 

Country 

Austria 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Czech Republic 

Germany 

Hungary 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Interreg TN 

Interreg CBC 

Total 

IPA-CBC 

IPA mainstream BiH 

IPA mainstream RS - SM floods 

IPA mainstream RS 

IPA mainstream ME 

IPA mainstream multi-country 2014 

IPA mainstream multi-country 2015 

Total 

Grand Total (ESI Funds+IPA II) 

Number of 
relevant OPs 

Number of 
replied OPs 

4 

10 

4 

9 

9 

9 

8 

8 

3 

3 

18 

84 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

11 

95 

1 

3 

2 

6 

3 

3 

1 

4 

1 

2 

13 

39 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

11 

45 

Percentage of 
programmes’ 
replied 
25 % 

30 %  

50 % 

66 % 

33 % 

33 % 

12.5 % 

50 % 

33 % 

66 % 

72.2 % 

46.5 % 

100 % 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

47 % 

Some  Operational  Programmes  committed  to  contribute  to  the  EUSDR  objectives  in  two 
ways  which  do  not  automatically  involve  the  implementation  of  macro  regional  projects  or 
actions, but have the potential to promote it and signal a strong interest to it , notably : 

  14  programmes  opened  the  participation  in  their  Monitoring  Committee  to  EUSDR 

key implementers (9 ESI Funds programmes, 5 Interreg programmes); 

  5  ESI  Funds  and  8  Interreg  programmes  attributed  extra-points  to  EUSDR  relevant 

projects  

98 Due to non-availability of more updated data, in the case of IPA II and IPA CBC programmes data from 2016 
reporting have been used.  

47 

 
 
                                                           
Furthermore, the Monitoring Committees of 3 programmes (Human Resources Development 
in Bulgaria -ESF, Research and Innovation in Slovakia-ERDF and Interreg V-A – Romania-
Hungary)  decided  to  directly  invest  funds  on  EUSDR  objectives  planning  to  open  targeted 
calls for proposals. 

14  ESI  Funds  operational  programmes  reported  to  have  already  invested  funds,  which 
contribute to the implementation of the EUSDR. 

The aggregated financial data per fund is provided in the table below: 

ERDF 

CF 

ESF 

IPA 

ENI 

1,003,418,132 

1,248,367,607 

2,500,000 

218,121,112 

10,000,000 

Other Funds 
(national) 
1,360,220 

Total in M€: 

2,583,767,072 

Reported contribution form EAFRD and EMFF were both 0. 

It  is  worth  to  note  that  the  above  table  reports  only  on  reliable  data.  In  fact,  in  some  cases 
mainstream  programme  managing  authorities  considered  that  the  full  amount  of  the 
programme contributes to the objectives of the Strategy on the basis that policy areas match 
with  the  EUSDR  Pillars.  Such  cases  have  not  been  taken  into  account.  In  some  other 
circumstances managing authorities reported on  projects  in  line with  the  EUSDR  objectives 
but no funds invested, which leads to underestimation of funds invested in the Strategy. There 
is probably, among some OPs, still a lack of understanding on what determines a project with 
macro-regional added value.  

Even though the number of programmes that have already invested directly in the EUSDR is 
relatively  small  (14),  it  is  worth  noting  that  22  programmes  (13  ESI  Funds  and  9  Interreg 
programmes) are planning or open to invest funds in the EUSDR.  

Compatibility  of  programmes  to  the  EUSDR  priorities  is  a  very  important  factor  that  may 
indicate where there is still scope for cooperation and where programmes may, in the future, 
contribute to the EUSDR. In this sense all the 39 ESI Funds (23 mainstream and 16 Interreg) 
Programmes have replied that their priorities are compatibles with at least one of the EUSDR 
Priority Areas as per below: 

  PA 1a  (4 mainstream and 3 Interreg) 

  PA 1b  (6 mainstream and 6 Interreg) 

  PA 2  (10 mainstream and 5 Interreg) 

  PA 3  (3 mainstream and 13 Interreg) 

  PA 4    (7 mainstream and 6 Interreg) 

  PA 5  (6 mainstream and 11 Interreg) 

  PA 6    (6 mainstream and 9 Interreg) 

  PA 7  (14 mainstream and 6 Interreg) 

  PA 8    (8 mainstream and 9 Interreg) 

  PA 9  (12 mainstream and 9 Interreg) 

  PA10 (1 mainstream and 10 Interreg) 

  PA 11  (1 mainstream and 2 Interreg) 

48 

 
 
 
3.  The EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region  

99 ESI Funds programmes and 12 IPA II programmes are relevant for the EU Strategy for the 
Adriatic  and  Ionian  Region  (EUSAIR).  Among  them,  three  Interreg  programmes  -  two 
transnational  (Mediterranean;  Balkan-Mediterranean)  and  one  CBC  (Italy-Austria)  - 
marginally covering the EUSAIR region could be considered relevant and contribute to it. All 
this considered, 111 programmes are relevant for the analysis.  
50 out of 111 programmes have replied to the checklist99: 

  27  country-specific  programmes  covering  ESI  funds  (21  regional  and  5  national 

programmes); 

  11 Interreg programmes (5 cross-border, 3 Transnational, 3 IPA-CBC vith EU MSs); 
  6 IPA National programmes; 
  4 IPA-IPA Cross-border programmes; 
  2 IPA II Multi-country programmes.  

 The aggregated data is provided in the table below: 

EU Member States 

Croatia  

Greece  

Italy 

Slovenia  

IPA-CBC (with EU MSs) 

Interreg CBC 

Interreg TN 

Total 

IPA Countries 

Albania  

Number of 
relevant OPs 
4 

Number of replied 
OPs 
2 

Percentage of 
programmes’ replied 
50% 

23 

57 

3 

4 

5 

3 

9 

15 

1 

3 

5 

3 

39% 

26% 

33% 

75% 

100% 

100% 

99 
Total IPA II 
programmes 
2 

38 
Total programmes 
replied 
2 

38% 
Percentage of 
programmes' replied 
100% 

Bosnia and Herzegovina  

Montenegro  

Serbia 

Multi- country prgms 2014 2015 

Total 

2 

2 

4 

2 

12 

Grand Total (ESI Funds+IPA II) 

111 

2 

2 

4 

2 

12 

50 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

45% 

Some  Operational  Programmes  committed  to  contribute  to  the  EUSAIR  objectives  in  two 
ways  which  do  not  automatically  involve  the  implementation  of  macro-regional  projects  or 
actions, but have the potential to promote it and signal a strong interest to it , notably : 

-  12  programmes  opened  the  participation  in  their  Monitoring  Committee  to  EUSAIR 
key implementers (7 ESI Funds programmes, 4 IPA II National and 1 IPA CBC); 

99 Due to non-availability of more updated data, in the case of IPA II programmes data from 2016 reporting have 
been used.  

49 

 
 
 
                                                           
-  13 ESI Funds and 3 IPA-CBC programmes attributed extra-points to EUSAIR labelled 

projects; 

Furthermore, the Monitoring Committees of two programmes (Interreg V-B - Adriatic-Ionian 
and  Interreg  V-A  -  Italy-Croatia)  decided  to  directly  invest  funds  on  EUSAIR  objectives 
planning to open targeted calls for proposals. 

4  ESI  Funds  operational  programmes  reported  to  have  already  invested  funds,  which 
contribute to the implementation of the EUSAIR. 

The aggregated financial data per fund is provided in the table below: 

ERDF 

CF 

ESF 

EAFRD 

EMFF 

IPA II 

Other Funds 

45.384.144 

280.619.922,32 

0 

0 

0 

7.146.110 

0 

Total in M €:  333.150.176,32 

It  is  worth  to  note  that  the  above  table  reports  only  on  reliable  data.  In  fact,  in  some  cases 
mainstream  programme  managing  authorities  considered  that  the  full  amount  of  the 
programme contributes to the objectives of the Strategy on the basis that policy areas match 
with  the  EUSAIR  Pillars.  Such  cases  have  not  been  taken  into  account.  In  some  other 
circumstances managing authorities reported on projects in line with the EUSAIR objectives 
but no fund invested, which leads to underestimation of funds invested in the Strategy. There 
is probably, among some OPs, still a lack of understanding on what determines a project with 
macro-regional added value.  

Even though the number of programmes that have already invested directly in the EUSAIR is 
rather  small  (only  4),  it  is  worth  noting  that  a  relatively  big  number  of  programmes  (8  ESI 
Funds Regional and one national programmes, 1 Interreg Transnational and 3 Interreg cross-
border  programmes)  is  planning  to  invest  funds  in  the  EUSAIR  and  that  4  programmes  are 
considering the possibility to do so in the future.  

This  is  certainly  a  positive  development  for  the  future  of  the  Strategy  with  the  potential  to 
effectively boost its implementation.  

Compatibility  of  programmes  to  the  EUSAIR  priorities  is  a  very  important  factor  that  may 
indicate where there is still scope for cooperation and where programmes may, in the future, 
contribute to the EUSAIR. In this sense 34 out of 38 ESI Funds programmes have replied that 
their priorities are compatibles with the following EUSAIR Pillars: 

-  Blue Growth (25); 

-  Connecting the region (22) 

-  Environmental quality (29); 

-  Sustainable tourism (34) 

Also  EUSAIR  cross-cutting  issues  have  been  often  mentioned  as  compatible  with  the 
programmes,  the  most  supported  being  in  the  following  order  “Strengthening  R&D, 
innovation”, “SMEs development”, “Capacity building”.  

50 

 
 
 
 
4.  The EU Strategy for the Alpine Region 

Following a very strict  geographical approach (which means to include all programmes that 
touch the EU Strategy for the Alpine Region (EUSALP) perimeter) 89 programmes can be 
identified  that  are  relevant  for  the  EUSALP.  This  concerns  country-specific  as  well  as 
Interreg programmes. However, from a functional point of view only 78 programmes are 
de  facto  relevant  for  the  EUSALP.  This  means  to  exclude  programmes  like  e.g.  the 
transnational  ADRION  programme  that  primarily  focuses  on  the  EUSAIR  or  cross-border 
cooperation programmes like Interreg V-A - Slovenia-Hungary. 

5 out of these 78 programmes provided replies to the checklist.  

  2 country-specific programmes (1 regional and 1 national programmes); 

  3 Interreg programmes. 

More detailed (aggregated) information is provided in the table below. 

Country 

Austria 

France 

Germany 

Italy 

Slovenia 

Interreg TN 

Interreg CBC 

Total 

Number of 
relevant OPs 
4 

Number of replied 
OPs 
0 

Percentage of 
programmes' replied 
0 

11 

9 

38 

3 

3 

10 

78 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

2 

5 

0 

11% 

0 

33% 

33% 

20% 

6% 

  The transnational Interreg Alpine Space Programme is strongly moving in the direction of 
the EUSALP. The programme has invited the EUSALP Action Group leaders (AGL) to 
elaborate a specific project which helps to ease and coordinate their work and is funded by 
the programme: AlpGov project, which gets 3.2 million euro from ERDF. The AlpGovs’ 
main  objective  is  to  support  effective  and  efficient  EUSALP  implementation  in  a 
systematic  transnational  approach  through  designing  and  testing  appropriate  governance 
structures and mechanisms mainly on the level of Action Groups (AGs), at the same time 
to create synergies with  the other EUSALP implementing bodies General Assembly and 
Executive Board and further institutional actors in alpine policy. 

  Moreover, the programme establishes links between projects and EUSALP AGL (e.g. via 
asking lead partners of approved projects to get in touch with AGL, Informing about AGL 
and  EUSALP  contribution  of  approved  projects  in  regular  newsletters,  nominating 
representatives  of  Joint  Secretariat  for  each  EUSALP  action  group,  asking  project 
applicants to consider if and how the project could contribute to EUSALP and nominating 
representatives of managing authorities for EUSALP Executive Board. The Alpine Space 
programme does not foresee that EUSALP national coordinators or other EUSALP bodies 
send representative to the programme committee, but in some countries the same persons 
act  as  EUSALP  national  coordinator  and  Interreg  Alpine  Space  Programme  committee 
member and thus another link is established). 

51 

 
 
  Only two programmes (the Interreg Alpine Space TN Programme and the Slovenia 2014-
2020  Operational  Programme)  include  key  implementers  of  the  Strategy  in  their 
Monitoring Committee. 

  Only one programme (Italy-Austria CBC) has attributed extra points to specific measures 

supporting the EUSALP. 

  The four programmes which have replied reported that they have mobilised 381,400,246 € 
of  ERDF  and  822,164,484  €  of  cohesion  fond  (from  Slovenian  programme)  for  macro-
regional projects, that is 1,203,564,730 € altogether. 

  In  addition  to  this  amount,  94,340,000  €  must  be  added  from  Alpine  Space  programme 
which  has  selected,  after  three  calls,  49  projects  contributing  to  the  objectives  of  the 
Strategy. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexes: Maps of the different macro-regional strategies 

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

53 

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

54 

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

55 

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

56 

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

57