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  COM(2019) 21 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the implementation of EU macro-regional strategies {SWD(2019) 6 final}  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE 
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE 
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

on the implementation of EU macro-regional strategies 

1. Introduction 

Since  the  European  Council  endorsed  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  (EUSBSR)  in 
2009, three further EU macro-regional strategies (MRS) have been developed: the EU Strategy 
for  the  Danube  Region  (EUSDR)  in  2011,  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  Region 
(EUSAIR) in 2014 and the EU Strategy for the Alpine Region (EUSALP) in 2016. 

On  16  December  2016,  the  Commission  adopted  the  first  report  on  the  implementation  of 
MRS1  which  now  involve  19  EU  and  8  non-EU  countries.  These  MRS  have  become  an 
integral  part  of  the  EU  policy  framework;  they  offer  strong  potential  and  contribute  in  a 
unique and innovative way to cooperation within the EU and with neighbouring countries. 

Subsequently,  the  Council2,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions3  and  the  European  Parliament4 
also  recognised  the  importance  of  the  MRS  as  a  unique  integrated  framework  to  address 
common  challenges  and  as  a  relevant  instrument  for  the  optimal  use  of  existing  financial 
resources, especially in the globalisation context. 

However,  these  institutions  also  went  beyond  some  Commission  recommendations5  and 
pointed out the need to improve certain key aspects in the implementation of the MRS by: 

  strengthening the political commitment at national level; 
 
 

improving governance mechanisms; and 
improving access to funding for MRS priorities and projects. 

They made some specific recommendations on the content for the current Report, calling for; 

  a stronger focus on processes which may impact policies; 
  an  analysis  of  the  consistency  between  EU  and  national  policies  and  funding 

schemes; 

  a deeper discussion on indicators and results of the MRS’ core policies.   

The  untapped  potential  and  the  persisting  challenges  of  the  MRS  are  also  confirmed  in  an 
independent  study6 mandated by the Commission, and in  some works  carried out  under the 
Interact programme7. 

1 COM(2016) 805 final. 
2 8461/17 Council conclusions of 25 April 2017. 
3 COTER-VI/029 opinion adopted on 1 December 2017. 
4 European Parliament resolution of 16 January 2018. 
5 COM(2013) 468 final, on the added value of macro-regional strategies; COM(2014) 284 final, on the 
governance of macro-regional strategies; COM(2016) 805 final, on the implementation of macro-regional 
strategies. 
6 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 
7 Interact programme library: http://www.interact-eu.net/library  
http://www.interact-eu.net/search/node/macroregional%20strategies 

1 

 
 
                                                           
The draft proposal presented on 2 May 2018 by the Commission on the multiannual financial 
framework  for  2021-2027,  followed  on  29 May  2018  by  a  draft  legislative  package  for  the 
future cohesion  policy8, opened a period of negotiation, likely to  both  influence and clarify 
the intentions of the countries involved regarding the future of MRS.  

Since  the  Commission’s  first  Report  on  the  implementation  of  the  MRS  in  2016,  the 
favourable development of the economic environment in the EU and in the Western Balkans9 
has created a more positive setting for implementing the MRS.  

The purpose of the current  Report is  two-fold. Firstly, it assesses the implementation  of the 
four  MRS  in  this  encouraging  economic  context  which  may  have  helped  countries  improve 
their  long-term  strategic  cooperation  approach.  Secondly,  it  considers  possible  development 
of the MRS in light of the post-2020 draft regulations. 

The Report is complemented by a Staff Working Document (SWD) which gives more details 
on  the  state  of  play  for  each  MRS.  Both  documents  are  based  on  contributions  from  MRS 
stakeholders, EU institutions, Member States’ representatives, and experts. 

2. Results 

2.1. Cross-cutting issues 

Policy making and planning 

The  MRS  are  political  platforms  which  bring  added  value  to  the  cooperation  aspect  of 
cohesion policy and provide an opportunity for multi-sectoral, multi-country and multi-level 
governance.  Several  initiatives  have  been  taken  at  macro-regional  level,  helping  to  change 
mind-sets 
summit 
‘Protection.Forest.Climate’11;  Mobility  Conference  in  the  Alps12)  and  are  expected  to 
continue.  Macro-regional  and  sea-basin  developments  helped  to  strengthen  the  territorial 
approach  and  European  territorial  cooperation  as  a  cross-cutting  aspect  of  cohesion  policy, 
and to increase attention to “functional areas”. 

Infrastructure  Conference10;  Forest 

(e.g.  EUSALP:  Green 

Participation of non-EU countries in the EUSDR, the EUSAIR and the EUSALP takes place 
on an equal footing with EU Member States. For instance, as of 1 June 2018, Montenegro is 
holding the rotating presidency of the EUSAIR.  

The participation of Western Balkan countries in the EUSDR and the EUSAIR significantly 
help  to  foster  their  integration  in  the  EU.  The  request  made  to  the  Council  by  the  four 
EUSAIR EU Member States (Croatia, Greece, Italy, Slovenia) to include the former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia in the strategy is a tangible step in this direction. 

The EUSDR  also  helps  to  promote cooperation between the EU and Moldova and Ukraine, 
which  are  now  fully  integrated  into  the  Danube  transnational  programme.  Participation  of 
Ukraine (the regions along the Danube River) and Moldova in the EUSDR-related joint work 

8 Followed, on 14 June 2018, by the draft regulations for future Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA 
III) and Neighbourhood Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI), relevant  for non-EU 
countries participating in the MRS. 
9  For  more  details,  see  European  Commission:  Summer  2018  Interim  Economic  Forecast,  12  July  2018  and 
World Bank: Western Balkans Regular Economic Report (N° 12), Fall 2017. 
10 https://www.alpine-region.eu/news/first-eusalp-environmental-ministers-conference-alpine-green-infrastructure-
2  
11 https://www.alpine-region.eu/events/forest-summit-protectionforestclimate  
12 https://www.alpine-region.eu/events/3rd-eusalp-ag4-mobility-conference  

2 

 
 
                                                           
has  intensified  significantly  in  2016-2018,  with  benefits  for  the  implementation  of  their 
Association Agreements with the EU. 

Although  not  being  members  of  the  EUSBSR,  Belarus,  Iceland,  Norway  and  Russia  also 
participate  in  certain  macro-regional  projects  in  the  Baltic  Sea  region,  e.g.  via  the  Interreg 
cross-border and transnational cooperation programmes in the region13. With reference to the 
Interreg Baltic Sea transnational programme, the signing of the financing agreement between 
the  EU  and  Russia  in  early  2018  allows  now  Russian  partners  to  be  full  partners  in  the 
projects, thus increasing cooperation opportunities. 

Administrative capacity 

The  Interact  programme  continues  to  promote  the  macro-regional  concept,  by  means  of 
building  or  consolidating  networks  between  key  implementers14  of  the  strategies  (e.g.  in 
governance, transport, environment or climate change areas), and by developing cooperation 
methods  and  tools  to  embed  MRS  into  European  Structural  and  Investment  (ESI)  Funds15. 
Moreover,  the  Commission,  together  with  the  Interact  programme,  has  set  up  a  platform  to 
facilitate  the  exchange  of  experiences  on  implementing  the  MRS  and  embedding  them  into 
the ESI Funds.  

The EUSAIR Facility Point is supporting the strategy’s key implementers in carrying out their 
tasks. 

The new Danube Strategy Point (DSP) has been up and running again since early September 
2018, after a period of interruption. 

Governance 

Some new political initiatives have been taken since the 2016 Report. 

Bulgaria,  which  has  been  chairing  the  EUSDR  throughout  2018,  has  brought  a  proactive 
approach to cooperation within the strategy by assigning responsibilities for the EUSDR and 
the ESI Funds to the same ministry. 

The  EUSAIR  annual  forum  regularly  hosts  a  meeting  of  both  foreign  affairs  ministers  and 
ministers responsible for EU funds from the eight participating countries, where a declaration 
is adopted. 

In the EUSDR, civil society has been actively involved in meetings of certain steering groups 
of Priority Areas as well as in events and annual fora. 

In  cooperation  with  the  ‘LOS_DAMA!’16  project  funded  by  the  Alpine  Space  programme, 
the mayors of Alpine cities (Munich, Vienna, Torino, Trento, and Grenoble) launched, on the 
margins  of  the  first  EUSALP  Conference  of  Environmental  Ministers  in  October  2017,  a 
network  on  deploying  green  infrastructure  in  Alpine  urban  areas.  This  network  is  the  first 
specific step taken in implementing the EUSALP at municipality level. 

Monitoring 

New monitoring tools are being developed with the support of the ESPON programme17. 

13 E.g. Interreg Baltic Sea Region transnational programme: https://www.interreg-baltic.eu/home.html  
14 National Coordinators, Priority Area Coordinators, Pillar Coordinators, Objective Coordinators, Action 
Group Leaders, Steering/Action Group Members,….   
15 Interact library:  http://www.interact-eu.net/search/node/macroregional%20strategies 
16 http://www.alpine-space.eu/projects/los_dama/en/home  
17 https://www.espon.eu/  

3 

 
 
                                                           
They consist of territorial monitoring systems, tailor-made for each of the four macro-regions, 
which  monitor  the  situation  on  regional  development  using  predefined  territorial  indicators. 
The  monitoring  system  is  meant  to  capture  the  achievements  of  policy  objectives.  It  will 
provide an understanding of territorial structures and trends within the macro-region. 

Access to funding 

Some  good  practices  from  current  ESI  Funds  programmes  include:  targeted  calls,  bonus 
points  to  projects  of  macro-regional  relevance,  direct  support  to  strategy  projects,  and  the 
participation of MRS representatives in programme monitoring committees. 

In February 2017, the Commission organised a study-visit for Romanian managing authorities 
of  ESI  Funds  operational  programmes,  who  learned  about  the  practical  implications  of  the 
EUSDR  and  about  developing  ideas  on  mobilising  EU  funds.  This  initiative  could  be 
extended to other participating countries. 

Based on the information collected in the 2017 annual implementation reports of ESI Funds 
programmes, seven MRS targeted calls for proposals were launched by programmes: two in 
the  Baltic  region,  three  in  the  Danube  region  and  two  in  the  Adriatic-Ionian  region.  The 
number  of  programmes  which  invested  EU  funds  in  the  MRS  amount  to  29  in  the  Baltic 
region,  14 in  the Danube region,  4 in  the Adriatic-Ionian  region,  4 in  the Alps region.  This 
shows that the inclusion rate of MRS priorities in EU programmes is  directly  related to  the 
age of the strategies. 

On measuring the amounts of ESI Funds support mobilised for implementing macro-regional 
projects,  these  figures  are  presented  in  detail  by  strategy  in  the  accompanying  SWD. 
However, the figures provided by programme authorities are not always fully comparable and 
should be used with caution. For example, some authorities believe that the full budget of a 
programme supports a certain strategy’s objective since it concerns the same policy area (e.g. 
environment),  even  though  the  projects  funded  do  not  necessarily  have  a  macro-regional 
impact.  Therefore,  in  the  SWD  it  has  been  decided  to  only  take  into  account  amounts  that 
support individual projects and not the whole budget of a programme (except for transnational 
programmes corresponding to a certain MRS). 

Communication 

All MRS have strengthened their communication activities since 2016. 

Slovenian  authorities,  together  with  the  Commission,  used  the  ‘macro-regional  week’18, 
organised every year in their country, to create a single forum across all MRS on media and 
communication,  focusing  in  particular  on  common  content,  the  participative  process  and 
innovative tools. 

The development of communication strategies for the EUSAIR and the EUSALP is ongoing. 
Also  the  revamping  of  the  EUSDR’s  communication  strategy  continues.  In  the  EUSBSR, 
communication is producing concrete outcomes like the ‘Let’s Communicate’19 project. 

Further  efforts  are  needed  to  improve  internal  and  external  communication.  These  should 
focus  on  defining  common  messages  in  the  national  language(s),  thus  strengthening 
communication at national and regional levels. Communication also needs to be more focused 
and targeted, as well as constant. 

18 https://www.adriatic-ionian.eu/2018/06/11/save-the-date-mediterranean-coast-and-macro-regional-strategies-
week-sep-2018-slovenia/  
19 http://www.centrumbalticum.org/en/projects/lets_communicate! 

4 

 
 
                                                           
Cooperation across strategies and between stakeholders 

Cooperation with other MRS may result in added value and should be explored further. Some 
cooperation,  especially  between  EUSBSR  and  EUSDR,  has  already  taken  place,  while 
EUSAIR partners are considering collaboration with other MRS to build on their experience 
(e.g. with the EUSDR on mobility and transport organisations or with the EUSALP on green 
corridors and green infrastructure projects). 

Within  the  EUSALP,  the  Alpine  Region  Preparatory  Action  Fund20  (ARPAF)  has  boosted 
the  implementation  of  the  strategy  and  cooperation  across  the  board.  A  Board  of  Action 
Groups  Leaders  has  been  established  to  ensure  that  knowledge  and  experiences  are 
permanently exchanged among the groups. 

2.2. Thematic priorities 

This section presents concrete achievements by the four MRS on selected thematic priorities. 
More details are to be found in the SWD.  

The EUSBSR has continued to consolidate EU law and has also helped to shape policy and 
development (e.g. in energy, navigation, environment and climate change). 

Under  Hungarian  Presidency  in  2017,  the  EUSDR  annual  forum  brought  together 
stakeholders  from  the  Danube  region  in  the  fields  of  energy,  transport  and  environment.  A 
joint  statement  was  issued  by  the  14  participating  countries21.  The  2018  EUSDR  forum  in 
Sofia focused on economic growth by tourism and culture. 

In  the  EUSAIR,  major  opportunities  for  cooperation  have  been  identified  (for  blue  growth, 
transport and energy network, the environment and tourism) which can boost growth and job 
creation. 

For  the  EUSALP,  subgroups  working  on  specific  topics  (e.g.  wood,  health  tourism,  water 
management) have been set up. 

Environment and climate change 

Preserving environmental resources is a common public good and a priority that all four MRS 
share. In this respect, the MRS are important tools to address various matters (e.g. pollution, 
flood protection, climate change and biodiversity) and support the implementation of relevant 
EU legislation. 

While  the  Commission  adopted  the  first  ever  Europe-wide  strategy  on  plastics  in  January 
2018,  significant  work  in  tackling  plastic  marine  litter  has  already  been  carried  out  in  the 
EUSBSR  (e.g.  the  BLASTIC  project22).  The  conclusions  from  the  HELCOM23  ministerial 
meeting  in  March  2018  acknowledge  that  projects  of  common  interest  under  the  EUSBSR 
have helped to implement the Baltic Sea action plan. 

The  ministerial  ‘Ioannina  Declaration’  of  May  2017  emphasises  how  important  the  Blue 
Economy  is  for  sustainable  development  in  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  region,  including    for 
combating marine pollution. 

20 Preparatory action decided by the Commission at the initiative of the European Parliament. 
21 http://www.danube-forum-budapest.eu/system/danube-forum-
budapest/files/Declaration_of_the_6th_EUSDR_Annual_Forum.pdf?1508355644 
22 https://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/news-room/highlights-blog/item/30-for-a-litter-free-baltic-sea 
23 HELCOM: ‘Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission - Helsinki Commission’, 
http://www.helcom.fi/about-us 

5 

 
 
                                                           
A  joint  declaration  of  Alpine  states  and  regions  on  Alpine  green  infrastructure  (October 
2017)24 stated that a number of specific measures would be carried out to make the Alpine 
region a model for green infrastructure. 

The  joint  statement  of  the  ministers  in  charge  of  the  EUSDR,  adopted  in  October  2017, 
stresses the importance of clean and connected mobility and environmentally friendly energy 
solutions  in  further  developing  the  Danube  region.  The  first  integrated  Tisza  River  basin 
management plan is being prepared through the JOINTISZA project25, and a civil protection 
mechanism was launched to tackle pollution in the Tisza River from the Solotvyno salt mine 
in Ukraine.  

Research/innovation and economic development 

Improving economic prosperity of the macro-regions is also a core objective of all four MRS. 

In the EUSBSR, a network of European Regional Development Funds Managing Authorities 
was established to develop proposals on transnational collaboration to help regions implement 
smart  specialisation  strategies  focusing  on  clean  technologies.  Two  pilot  projects  will  be 
pursued  under  the  ‘Cleaner  Growth’26  initiative:  ‘Jointly  Entering  New  Markets’  and 
‘Commercialising Forest-Based Protein — Verification and Improvement of Protein Quality’. 

The ‘Baltic Sea Pharma platform’27 also provides a regional cooperation platform to reduce 
pharmaceutical  residues  in  the  Baltic  Sea.  Based  on  a  cluster  of  transnational  projects  (e.g. 
advanced waste water treatment, waste management, and procurement criteria), the platform 
will  help  develop  regional  and  European  policy  on  the  issue  of  pharmaceuticals  in  the 
environment. 

In  the  Danube  region,  a  centre  to  implement  dual  vocational  training28  in  the  construction 
industry, based on public/private partnership, was set  up in  Chisinau (Moldova). The Smart 
Specialisation  Strategy  Platform29  supports  the  development  of  innovation  strategies  in  a 
pilot project covering Serbia, Montenegro, Moldova and Ukraine. 

For the EUSAIR, the EU-China tourism year and the European year of cultural heritage 2018 
are  helping  to  develop  sustainable  tourism.  The  Interreg  programme  for  the  Adriatic  and 
Ionian Region (ADRION)  supports the ‘ADRION 5 senses’30 project which aims to build a 
common brand name for the region, and promote it in world markets. 

In  the  EUSALP,  projects  like  ‘CirculAlps31’  (promoting  innovation,  sustainability  and  the 
circular  economy  in  forestry  value  chains  across  the  Alpine  region)  or  AlpLinkBioECO32 
(Linking bio-based industry value chains across the Alpine region) have been launched. 

24 https://www.alpine-
region.eu/sites/default/files/uploads/inline/956/eusalp_joint_declaration_green_infrastructure_final_en.pdf 
25 http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/jointisza  
26 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  
27 https://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/news-room/highlights-blog/item/40-baltic-pharma-platform  
28 Combining vocational education, provided by schools, with practical training provided by companies. 
29 http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/s3-platform  
30 https://keep.eu/keep/project-ext/44652/ADRION+5+SENSES?ss=a785c5b10443932ecb3b4eef3ac00d06&espon=  
31 https://www.alpine-region.eu/projects/circulalps  
32 http://www.alpine-space.eu/projects/alplinkbioeco/en/home  

6 

 
 
                                                           
Connectivity 

Interesting connectivity activities have been implemented under all MRS.  

In the EUSBSR, the ‘Baltic  Link’ project  helps  to  implement  the TEN-T Motorways  of the 
Sea, and was supported by the TEN-T programme and the Polish Cohesion Fund. It addresses 
a missing link in freight transport between Sweden to Poland and beyond. 

In  the  EUSDR,  within  the  FAIRway33  project,  new  surveying  vessels  have  been  put  into 
operation.  In  particular,  dredging  activities  have  begun  on  the  section  of  the  Danube  River 
that form the border between Bulgaria and Romania. For the first time an overview of short-
term  strategic  projects  on  land  transport  in  the  Danube  region  was  carried  out,  with  the 
support of the European Investment Bank. 

Efficient and sustainable transport and energy networks are a precondition for the economic 
and social development of the Adriatic-Ionian macro-region. In the EUSAIR, an initial list of 
projects concerning transport and energy networks with distinct macro-regional added value 
has been drawn up. 

In the EUSALP, a project  on logistic strategies to boost the modal shift  of freight  transport 
from road to rail by optimising logistic processes (Alpine Spider) has been developed. 

3. Challenges 

Administrative capacity 

The  COWI  study34  highlights  the  persistence  of  some  challenges  and  lists  the  barriers  to 
successfully implementing the MRS which have a negative impact on cooperation:  

institutional and staff fluctuations; 
resource limitations; 

 
 
  disparities in economic, institutional and administrative capacity; 
  weak implementation chains between decision makers and key implementers; 
 
 

insufficient representation and commitment from all participating countries; and 
lack of common reference frameworks.   

However, the study also identifies certain drivers that can help to implement the MRS: 

  pre-existing cooperation structures; 
  existence of leaders; 
  ubiquity of thematic issues across countries; 
 
 

implementation of the EU law;  
requirement for concrete transnational measures, etc. 

Furthermore, the study presents an MRS development model: 

  phase  I  (set-up  of  a  MRS  governance  system,  individual  capacity  building  of  MRS 

key implementers); 

  phase  II  (MRS  is  understood  by  external  stakeholders  and  starts  to  operate, 

institutional capacity built); and 

  phase III (maturity of the strategy which delivers tangible measures and results). 

33 http://www.fairwaydanube.eu/eusdr/  
34 See footnote 6. 

7 

 
 
                                                           
These three phases can provide a framework for developing a monitoring system which will 
help maintain political support. 

Governance 

An  effective  governance  system  requires  a  balance  between  three  equally  important  levels: 
ministers, national coordinators, and thematic coordinators. 

In  order  to  raise  their  political  profile,  the  MRS  would  benefit  from  political  visibility 
provided by ministerial  meetings  and a ministerial  declaration  back-to-back with  the annual 
fora, as is the case with the EUSAIR.  

The possibility of hosting ministerial meetings at the EUSBSR annual fora was discussed at 
the annual forum in Tallinn in June 2018. 

The main challenge for the EUSDR is the decrease of political momentum at national level, 
which has resulted in a low level of participation in the steering groups of some priority areas. 
As  the  strategy  is  a  long-term  process,  it  is  vital  that  capacity  and  resources  be  continually 
provided  to  implement  the  strategy  and  strengthen  national  coordination  mechanisms. 
Moreover, it has been widely recognised that the absence, between the summer of 2017 and 
the  autumn  of  2018,  of  a  common  body  fully  dedicated  to  support  the  EUSDR  governance 
(the  Danube  Strategy  Point)  hampered  the  smooth  development  and  implementation  of  the 
strategy.  The  new  Strategy  Point,  jointly  hosted  by  Austria  and  Romania,  is  now  up  and 
running. 

In the EUSAIR,  governance aspects  still dominate discussions at  meetings of its Governing 
Board. The  gap between political  commitment, as expressed in  ministerial  declarations, and 
actual follow-up at both administrative and implementation level, has still not been bridged. 
Ownership  of  the  strategy  by  the  participating  countries  needs  to  be  considerably 
strengthened. 

Even  though  the  EUSALP  is  gaining  more  and  more  traction,  it  remains  a  challenge  to 
motivate  members  of  action  groups  (AGs)  and  provide  them  with  the  necessary  decision 
making capacity and technical competence. AGs keep calling on states and regions to make 
sure  they  are  suitably  represented  in  the  AGs  meetings,  and  they  provide  for  better 
coordination  within  the  Executive  Board  so  as  to  ensure  effective  strategic  direction  of 
measures and adequate political support. 

The  concept  of  multi-stakeholder  governance  is  largely  supported  in  all  MRS.  However, 
greater participation on the part of civil society could strengthen the bottom-up dimension of 
the strategies. The large participation of the private sector in the EUSAIR fora (e.g. business-
to-business sessions) has been much appreciated and could be replicated in other strategies if 
appropriate. 

Policy programming 

In the two oldest MRS, the revision of the action plans launched in 2018 coincides favourably 
with the programming exercise of the EU funds 2021-2027. This opportunity must be seized 
and coordinated efforts must be made to maximise the added value of these processes, which 
include giving the MRS greater strategic focus. 

In the EUSBSR, the high number of priorities is a concern. Partners should use the revision of 
the action plan as an opportunity to check whether all priorities still have the macro-regional 
relevance to justify their inclusion in the strategy. 

8 

 
 
In  the  EUSDR,  the  lack  of  political  ownership  needs  to  be  addressed  in  the  revision  of  the 
action  plan  in  2018-2019.  The  Commissioner  responsible  for  Regional  Policy  reminded 
EUSDR  coordinators  about  this  in  a  joint  meeting  in  June  2018.  Some  priority  areas  (e.g. 
inland transport or tourism) have yet to produce concrete projects. The allocation of priority 
areas  should  take  into  account  that  certain  countries  without  any  coordination  role  wish  to 
acquire a priority area. The issue of administrative capacity should also be tackled. It requires 
an  appropriate  response  at  national  and  regional  level,  mainly  in  the  Instrument  for  Pre-
accession Assistance (IPA) and European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) countries. 

Partner  states  in  the  EUSAIR  differ  in  their  views  on  cooperation  priorities.  So  far,  they 
tended to focus on projects with a narrow, national scope, instead of viewing the MRS as a 
framework  for  policy  change  that  generates  specific  processes,  interregional  networks,  and 
collaborative  platforms.  A  different  approach  would  help  these  states  to  build  and  plan 
measures that are better balanced from  a geographical point of view, thus having a stronger 
macro-regional  added  value.  In  more  general  terms,  there  is  a  need  to  reconcile  EUSAIR 
priorities with national, regional, and sectoral policies as well as with strategy documents and 
processes (e.g. Berlin process, Western Balkan strategy, etc.). 

There is currently no need to revise the EUSALP action plan, although in some AGs initial 
implementation, 
actions  outside 
communication,  transfer  of  results  and  skills  development  within  the  AGs  based  on  the 
existing action plan are needed and will be further developed in the upcoming months. 

the  action  plan  have  been 

taken.  Instead,  better 

Funding 

Bridging the gap between the MRS and funding opportunities is likely to remain a challenge 
for a while. 

The  Interreg  programmes  —  despite  their  limited  amounts  of  funding  —  have  played  a 
significant  role  in  supporting  the  strategies’  implementation.  However,  the  bulk  of  the  EU 
funds, as well as national and other sources of funding, are not easily available to support the 
strategies’ projects. This may explain why some countries lack political commitment and why 
participants lack capacity. 

The dialogue between authorities of mainstream EU programmes and MRS key implementers 
should  be  further  promoted.  Ministries  in  charge  of  coordination  of  EU  funds  and  MRS  in 
participating countries have a key role to play in this. 

The preparation phase of the post-2020 programming offers a unique opportunity to plan and 
organise  the  consistent  use  of  EU  funds  to  support  MRS  objectives.  Coordination  between 
authorities  of  EU  funding  programmes  and  MRS  key  implementers  should  take  place  both 
within and among countries involved in a MRS. Countries’ decisions and concrete actions in 
this respect would demonstrate their interest and political commitment towards the MRS. 

Communication 

The EUSAIR’s visibility still suffers due to a lack of communication, which could be partly 
overcome if the planned stakeholder platform was to be set up. This would also improve the 
participation and awareness of subnational stakeholders who currently have a limited role in 
the macro-regional processes.  

EUSALP communication also remains an issue. Even though the communication tools have 
been  developed,  there  is  a  need  to  improve  the  technical  setting  and,  in  particular,  content 
related  communication  work.  A  focused  communication  strategy  based  on  agreed  policy 
messages is urgently needed. 

9 

 
 
4. The way forward 

In its proposals on EU cohesion policy regulations for the post-2020 period, the Commission 
emphasises  how  important  cooperation  is  as  a  cross-cutting  feature  of  cohesion  policy,  and 
invites Member States and regions to better embed this feature into the next phase of national 
and  regional  policy  planning  and  programming.  This  gives  a  strong  and  positive  signal  to 
those already involved in the MRS, and invites them to think ahead how and for which core 
priorities the programmes and MRS could be mutually supportive. 

This would address the issue highlighted by the COWI study which states that ‘coordination 
with ESIF and EU programmes places high demands on all parties involved; and to date this 
coordination  has  not  been  satisfactorily  achieved.  There  is  thus  significant  scope  for 
improvement in the post-2020 period ’. 

In this context, and considering the potential of the MRS, the Commission urges the countries 
concerned to immediately launch the following actions: 

1.  Thematic  coordinators  of  the  strategies  should  assess  the  situation  of  each  policy  area 
against  the  ‘three-phase  development’  model,  presented  in  the  COWI  study,  to  identify 
which drivers could be better used, and which barriers must be overcome, if need be. They 
could then make recommendations to their national coordinators on resolving the problems 
identified, where appropriate. 

2. Key implementers in each MRS should continue to improve their governance mechanisms, 
with  the  commitment  and  support  of  line  ministers.  They  should  look  for  synergies  and 
complementarities  with  organisations  that  already  operate  in  the  macro-region  and  they 
should  enable  regional  and  local  stakeholders  to  contribute  to  the  MRS  (e.g.  via  a 
stakeholder platform). They should also continue to try to better monitor the progress of the 
different thematic areas, and strengthen the capacity of the actors involved in implementing 
the MRS. 

3. Concerning the EUSBSR and the EUSDR, thematic and national coordinators should use 
the  revision  of  their  respective  action  plans  as  an  opportunity  to  select  the  most  relevant 
core priorities that have the highest EU added value, and that are worth mobilising EU and 
national funds. 

4. In order to benefit from the new legislative framework which will strengthen links between 
the  mainstream  programmes,  cooperation  and  the  MRS,  the  following  activities  should  be 
envisaged in the programming process: 

  At  the  level  of  each  MRS:  EU  programme  authorities  in  the  participating  countries 
should  closely  coordinate  among  themselves  from  the  early  stages  of  the  2021-2027 
programming exercise. Specifically, for each MRS, national authorities responsible for 
EU funds should jointly agree  — in  cooperation with  MRS national  coordinators  — 
on main macro-regional priorities, measures, projects and governance mechanisms to 
be included in their respective partnership agreements (EU Member States) and multi-
annual programming (framework) documents (non-EU countries)35. 

  At  the  level  of  each  country  participating  in  a  MRS:  the  priorities,  measures  and 
projects  agreed  and  included  in  the  partnership  agreements  or  multi-annual 
programming  (framework)  documents  should  then  be  developed  in  the  relevant  EU 

35 The proposal for such early coordination among EU programme authorities within a MRS was firstly put 
forward by the EUSAIR ministers in their ‘Catania Declaration’ adopted at the ministerial meeting held on 24 
May 2018: https://www.adriatic-ionian.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/catania_declaration_approved.pdf 

10 

 
 
                                                           
programmes36  in  a  coordinated  manner  with  the  other  participating  countries.  To 
achieve  this,  MRS  thematic  and  national  coordinators  should  seek  to  build  a  closer 
relationship  and  cooperation  with  the  managing  authorities  of  the  relevant  EU 
programmes  (ESI  Funds  and/or  IPA,  as  appropriate)  at  national,  regional  and 
cooperation level. They should initiate a dialogue, jointly identify future relevant areas 
of  cooperation  and  ensure  that  key  implementers  of  the  MRS  participate  in  and 
contribute to the preparation of the 2021-2027 programmes. 

5.  During  the  implementation  phase,  the  priorities,  measures  and  projects  agreed  by  EU 
programme authorities as being relevant to the MRS, should be executed in a coordinated 
and synchronised way across the MRS countries. To achieve this, specific funds may need 
to be allocated upfront by the EU programmes in question. Over and above these specific 
measures and projects, programmes could also develop and apply specific project selection 
criteria  to  encourage  the  creation  of  projects  that  support  the  priorities  of  an  MRS  (e.g. 
budget earmarking, specific calls for macro-regional projects, allocation of extra points to 
projects contributing to macro-regional targets and actions, etc.).  

5. Conclusions 

Partners  involved  in  the  MRS  are  now  facing  a  moment  of  truth:  the  preparation  for 
programmes  over  the  2021-2027  period  provides  a  unique  opportunity  for  them  to 
demonstrate  and  strengthen  their  commitment  to  the  priorities  of  the  MRS,  notably  by 
embedding them in the EU programmes’ priorities, thanks to the facilities provided under the 
new proposed regulations. 

The  MRS  have  gained  political  visibility  and  generated  very  high  expectations.  However, 
without joint  political  impetus  at  national and regional  level, the  commitment of players on 
the ground, while very valuable, will not be enough to ensure the MRS survive. 

The  will  to  cooperate  and  to  jointly  work  towards  common  goals,  and  carry  out  activities 
together within the macro-regions,  must come from  the participating countries and partners, 
who are invited to make the MRS their common and central political agenda. 

The current period of discussions and negotiations about  the future financial and legislative 
framework  and  its  supporting  programmes  provides  a  unique  opportunity,  that  cannot  be 
missed,  for  participating  countries  and  partners  to  confirm  their  shared  commitment  to  the 
jointly  agreed  priorities  of  the  MRS.  This  would  optimise  the  added  value  of  the  MRS  and 
enable them to reach their full potential. 

36 For non-EU countries, ‘programmes’ should also be understood as ‘action plan’. 

11 

 
 
 
                                                           
Appendix: Map of macro-regional strategies 

12