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: 2020-09-23
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, European territorial cooperation, economic and social cohesion, regional cooperation, regional development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 23.9.2020  SWD(2020) 186 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(2020) 578 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

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

EUROPEAN UNION MACRO-REGIONAL STRATEGIES ........................................... 5 

REPORT  ON  THE 
STRATEGY FOR THE BALTIC SEA REGION .............................................................. 7 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION 

REPORT  ON  THE 
STRATEGY FOR THE DANUBE REGION ................................................................... 24 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION 

REPORT  ON  THE 
STRATEGY FOR THE ADRIATIC AND IONIAN REGION ....................................... 43 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION 

REPORT  ON  THE 
STRATEGY FOR THE ALPINE REGION ..................................................................... 62 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION 

CONTRIBUTION OF PROGRAMMES TO MACRO-REGIONAL STRATEGIES ..... 83 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 

The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region ..................................................... 83 
The EU Strategy for the Danube Region......................................................... 86 
The EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region ...................................... 89 
The EU Strategy for the Alpine Region .......................................................... 91 

ANNEXES: MAPS OF THE MACRO-REGIONAL STRATEGIES .............................. 93 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Abbreviations 

Adriatic and Ionian Initiative 

Action Group 

Action Group leader 

Alpine Region Preparatory Action Fund 

Board of Action Group leaders 

Joint Baltic Sea Research and Development Programme 

Baltic Sea Region 

Baltic Sea Action Plan 

Cross-border cooperation 

Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe 

Cohesion Fund 

Directorate General 

Danube Strategy Point 

AII 

AG 

AGL 

ARPAF 

BAGL 

BONUS 

BSR 

BSAP 

CBC 

CPMR 

CF 

DG 

DSP 

EAFRD 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

EB 

EMFF 

ENI 

EAFRD 

ERDF 

Executive Board 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

European Neighbourhood Instrument 

European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development 

European Regional Development Fund 

ESI Funds 

European Structural and Investment Funds 

ESF 

ETC 

EU  

EUSAIR 

EUSALP 

EUSBSR 

EUSDR 

FP 

GA 

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 

General Assembly 

Governing Board 

Horizontal action 

HAC(s) 

Horizontal action coordinator(s) 

2 

 
 
 
 
HELCOM 

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission − Helsinki Commission 

ICPDR 

International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River 

IMO 

IPA 

JRC 

LNG 

MA 

MRS 

MSP 

NC(s) 

NDICI 

NGO 

OP(s) 

PA 

PAC(s) 

PC 

SMEs 

SG 

TEN-T 

TO 

TSG 

International Maritime Organisation 

Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance 

Joint Research Centre 

Liquefied Natural Gas 

Managing authority 

Macro-regional strategy (-ies) 

Maritime Spatial Planning 

National coordinator(s) 

Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument 

Non-Governmental Organisation 

Operational programme(s) 

Policy/Priority area 

Policy/Priority area coordinators 

Pillar coordinators 

Small and medium-sized enterprises 

Steering Group 

Trans-European Transport Network 

Thematic objective 

Thematic Steering Group 

3 

 
 
 
 
Introduction 

This document comes in support of the third 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 (‘MRS’): 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). The report covers the period from mid-2018 to mid-2020. 

It aims at providing more detailed information concerning the state of implementation of each 
MRS and future expectations. The document is  based inter alia on contributions  from  MRS 
national and thematic coordinators (MRS ‘key implementers’) and experts. 

The differences 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  and  strategic 
approach to its development. 

Increasing  interdependence  between  countries,  the  growing  role  of  sub-national  authorities, 
and  borderless, 
territorially-relevant  challenges  such  as  climate  change,  ecological 
degradation, natural and man-made hazards, call for cooperative frameworks whereby groups 
of countries belonging to a wider geographical space can work together to address common 
challenges and opportunities.  

Wanting to provide an effective and collective response to issues better handled by working 
together, a macro-regional approach arose in the Baltic Sea region with discussions launched 
in the European Parliament in 2006. This 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)  

The MRS are accompanied by an action plan that should be regularly updated in light of new, 
emerging needs and changing contexts.  

The 4 MRS cover 19 EU Member States and 9 non-EU countries. Some EU Member States 
(such as Germany and Slovenia) are involved in 3 MRS, and some EU Member States (such 
as Croatia, Italy and Austria) are in 2.  

An MRS is a policy framework which allows EU and non-EU countries located in a defined 
geographical  area  to  jointly  address  challenges  and  opportunities  they  have  in  common  by 
setting a set of shared, long-term objectives to meet the needs of the macro-region. By doing 
this, they benefit from stronger cooperation, making their policies more efficient than if they 
had addressed the issues in isolation.   

The MRS are an important innovation in territorial cooperation and cohesion. However, they 
differ 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 and 
open-ended frameworks.  

The  MRS  are  initiated  and  requested  by  the  relevant  EU  Member  States  via  the  European 
Council. The strategies cover a number of policy/thematic areas that have been jointly agreed 
by  the  participating  countries  and  which  reflect  their  strong  political  commitment  towards 
joint achievement of common objectives. Following the European Council request, the MRS 
(Communication and accompanying action plan) are drafted by the European Commission in 
partnership with the participating countries. Therefore, their implementation relies heavily on 
the commitment and ambition of the participating countries that lead the process. The process 
is as important as the result: it must be inclusive and bottom up to ensure ownership. 

5 

 
 
In 2017, an independent study by COWI1, mandated by the Commission, presented a three-
phase MRS development model over time:  

•  Phase  1:  setting  up  of  the  MRS  (governance  system)  –  the  focus  is  on  internal 

stakeholders – the results are internal;  

•  Phase 2: capacity developing – the MRS is understood by external stakeholders and starts 

to operate – the focus moves more towards external stakeholders; 

•  Phase 3: capacity developed – the strategy is mature and delivers tangible measures and 

results – the focus is on external performance. 

The assessment made in this study, showed that the four MRS were between Phase 1-2. Since 
then,  the  four  strategies  have  developed  –  especially  the  more  recent  MRS  (EUSAIR  and 
EUSALP) which have caught up with the older MRS (EUSBSR and EUSDR).  

 

In  2019,  the  OECD  Synthesis  report2  assessed  the  EUSAIR  as  being  between  Phase  1 
and 2; currently it is close to Phase 2. In the last 2 years, the Thematic Steering Groups 
have  improved  their  cooperation  and  their  awareness  of  their  role  as  the  link  between 
stakeholders  and  the  governance  structures  in  the  EUSAIR.  The  connection  with  the 
coordination  level  is  provided  by  the  by  pillar  coordinators,  while  the  link  with 
stakeholders has improved as a result of several initiatives and platforms.  

  The  EUSALP  is  the  most  recent  MRS,  but  it  builds  on  a  strong  existing  regional 
cooperation.  For  this  reason,  its  progress  into  Phase  2  happened  faster  than  in  other 
MRS.  The  Action  Groups  have  been  set  up  and  are  functioning  (although  not  all 
participating  countries  have  representatives  in  all  Action  Groups)  and  drive  processes 
such  as  setting  up  platforms  and  initiatives.  The  issue  of  delineating  responsibilities 
between  coordination  and  implementation  levels  indicate  a  need  to  clarify  governance 
structures.  

  For the EUSBSR, the oldest of the strategies, many of the thematic areas are well into 
Phase  3,  while  a  few  remain  in  Phase  2.  A  broad  thematic  spread  and  a  lack  of 
participation in steering groups and involvement at national level have an impact on the 
more external effects of the MRS. Interestingly, a few policy areas may have gone back 
to  Phase  1  due  to  reorganisation  or  a  change  in  thematic  coordinators.  This  leads  to  a 
renewed need to develop the necessary capacity in implementing the MRS. 

 

In the EUSDR, many priority areas are well into Phase 3, and have been there for some 
time. Other priority areas move around Phase 2 due to their broad thematic mandates, a 
lack  of  clear  strategic  framework  and  fluctuating  (even  decreasing)  participation  by 
national representatives (with unclear or no mandates) in the steering groups. 

1   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 
2   Multi-level Governance and Cross-Sector Practices Supporting EUSAIR  (https://www.adriatic-ionian.eu/wp-

content/uploads/2019/07/OECD-EUSAIR-Synthesis-Report_FINAL.pdf ) 

6 

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

The EUSBSR was the first macro-regional strategy in 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  Dimension3  urged  the  European  Commission  to  come  up  with  a 
proposal for an EU Baltic Sea Strategy. The EUSBSR 10-year anniversary was celebrated in 
2019. 

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

The EUSBSR brings together eight EU Member States (Estonia, Denmark, Finland, Germany 
(Berlin;  Brandenburg;  Hamburg;  Mecklenburg-Vorpommern;  Schleswig-Holstein),  Latvia, 
Lithuania,  Poland  and  Sweden)  representing  80  million  inhabitants.  The  Strategy  welcomes 
cooperation  with  non-EU  countries  from  the  region,  namely  Belarus,  Iceland,  Norway  and 
Russia, in actions and projects of common interest. 

The  EUSBSR’s  three  main  objectives  are;  Save  the  sea,  Connect  the  region,  and  Increase 
prosperity. 

  Save the sea objective is related to the poor state of the sea which threatens the quality 
of  life  of  the  inhabitants  living  around  it.  The  overall  aim  is  to  achieve  good 
environmental  status  for  the  sea.  The  policy  areas  (PA)  under  this  objective  are:  PA 
‘Nutri(ent)’, PA ‘Hazards’, PA ‘Bioeconomy’, PA ‘Ship’ and PA ‘Safe’.  

  Connect  the  Region  is  focussing  on  internal  and  external  transport,  accessibility, 
efficiency and security of energy markets and also with connecting the people in the 
region. The policy areas related to this objective are: PA Transport and PA Energy. 

 

Increase  Prosperity  includes  actions  to  promote  entrepreneurship,  innovation,  trade 
and  digitally  driven  growth.  This  will  improve  business  opportunities  and  make  the 
internal  market  work better on the  ground. Policy  areas under this objective are:  PA 
Secure, PA Tourism, PA Culture, PA Innovation, PA Health and PA Education.  

In  addition  to  policy  areas  listed  above,  there  are  four  horizontal  actions  (HA).  Horizontal 
action by its nature is an action having an impact on more than one or all policy areas within 
the Strategy. The horizontal actions are: HA Spatial Planning, HA Neighbours, HA Capacity 
and HA Climate. 

RESULTS 

Governance and administrative Capacity 

General  

The  EUSBSR’s  governance  structure  is  important  to  the  successful  implementation  of  its 
actions and the achievements of its objectives, targets and overall goals.  

The  participating  countries  have  the  main  responsibility  for  implementing  the  EUSBSR, 
which requires a continuous political commitment by the countries. Each country nominates a 

3   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   

7 

 
 
                                                           
national coordinator (NC) who represents their government in the national coordinators group 
(NCG).  The  ‘policy  area  focal  points’  serve  as  a  liaison  at  national  level  for  all  matters 
regarding each policy area (PA)/horizontal action (HA) in the Baltic Sea region countries. The 
policy  area  coordinators  (PAC)  and  horizontal  action  coordinators  (HAC)  facilitate 
involvement of, and cooperation with, relevant stakeholders from the entire macro-region.  

The  European  Commission  plays  a  leading  role  in  the  strategic  coordination  of  the  key 
delivery stages of the EUSBSR.  

The  EUSBSR’s  governance  structure  has  been  in  place  for  a  decade  and  is  currently  being 
examined  as  part  of  the  extensive  revision  of  the  EUSBSR  action  plan  that  began  in 
December 2018. The main principles set out in the EUSBSR Communication (COM (2009) 
248) remain valid, including the overall principles of EUSBSR governance and the Strategy’s 
three  main  objectives.  However,  detailed  governance  issues  are  also  being  assessed  with  a 
view to simplifying and streamlining where needed. The action plan is considered a ‘rolling 
document’,  which  means  that  the  Baltic  Sea  region  countries  should  continuously  assess  its 
relevance and whether it needs adjustment. 

The main aim of revising the EUSBSR action plan is to carry out a strategic review in order to 
develop  more  focused  and  streamlined  policy  areas  and  to  strengthen  coordination.  This 
should also  facilitate the inclusion of the EUSBSR’s priorities in  the next generation of EU 
funding  programmes,  known  as  ‘embedding’.  This  revision  has  also  been  important  in 
improving  monitoring  and  reporting  on  results  for  the  coming  period  and  in  assessing  the 
Baltic Sea region´s contribution to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. 

The transnational cooperation programme for the Baltic Sea region (Interreg BSR) is strongly 
linked  to  the  EUSBSR  thematically,  geographically,  and  in  terms  of  support  for  its 
governance. The Interreg BSR is a key partner in implementing the EUSBSR objectives, and 
Interreg  BSR-funded  projects/activities  have  an  important  role  in  this  respect.  In  terms  of 
EUSBSR governance, the Interreg BSR provides financial support for PACs, HACs, and the 
organisation of the EUSBSR annual forum. The collaboration between the programme and the 
EUSBSR is enhanced by inviting the Interreg BSR Managing Authority / Joint Secretariat in 
the NC meetings, when relevant. The future support of the Interreg BSR to the EUSBSR will 
need to be specified during the Interreg BSR programming process 2021-2027. 

Political level 

The EUSBSR provides  a unique platform for cooperation and coordination for its  eight  EU 
Member States and, to some extent, also for the non-EU countries in the region. The EUSBSR 
has  been  successful  in  generating  structures,  projects  and  networks  to  tackle  common 
challenges  faced by the  region.  There is  a consensus  among the Baltic Sea countries on the 
value added by the Strategy and the need to continue and improve this collaboration between 
countries in the future. In particular, many of the emerging new challenges – such as COVID-
19,  demographic  changes  and  migration  (of  non-EU  nationals)  –  are  becoming  more  urgent 
and need to be addressed in a coordinated way across country borders.  

On a rotating basis, the EUSBSR Chair is taken by the NC of a EUSBSR country for a 1-year 
period  (beginning  of  July  –  end  of  June).  This  rotation  follows  the  order  agreed  by  the  NC 
group  and  included  in  their  rules  of  procedure.  The  Chair  proactively  coordinates  the  NCs, 
works  with  the  European  Commission,  and  strives  to  facilitate  decision-making  and 
cooperation. 

Since  2010  an  annual  forum  has  been  organised  to  communicate  the  Strategy’s  work  and 
results, stimulate policy discussion, and provide stakeholders with a networking opportunity. 

8 

 
 
The annual fora take place in one of the eight EUSBSR country and aim to attract key policy 
makers, stakeholders and active partners of the Strategy from local, regional, national and EU 
level.  The order of hosting the annual  forum  is  based on an agreed sequence set  out   in the 
rules of procedure for the NC group. 

The recent annual fora have brought together close to 1 000 participants from governments, 
international  organisations,  NGOs,  universities,  local  and  regional  administrations,  business 
and media. The EUSBSR’s 10th annual forum, entitled ‘Circular and sharing economy as an 
answer to demographic changes and environmental challenges in the Baltic Sea region’, was 
organised in Gdańsk, Poland in June 2019. The 2020 annual forum was planned to be held in 
Turku in June, but the COVID-19 crises has affected the timing and format of the event. The 
aim of the Turku forum was to facilitate stronger dialogue among stakeholders from different 
countries  and  sectors  by  forming  innovative  groupings  to  address  the  Strategy’s  three  main 
objectives. 

Coordination level  

National  coordinators  should  facilitate  the  overall  coordination  of  and  political  support  for 
EUSBSR implementation in their country. This includes consulting with national institutions, 
facilitating  the  involvement  of  relevant  stakeholders,  and  encouraging  dialogue  between 
financial  instruments  on  the  alignment  of  resources.  Stakeholders  find  that  the  national 
coordinators group mainly monitor the progress of the EUSBSR and ensure that updates etc. 
are  carried  out.  The  NC  group  also  approves  ‘flagship’  project  and  processes  implementing 
the EUSBSR. 

Implementation level 

Most policy areas in the Strategy cover a wide range of policies and are interlinked with and 
interdependent on the other policy areas. Typically, one EUSBSR country coordinates one of 
the  policy  area  or  horizontal  action,  and  nominates  the  PAC/HAC.  The  assignment  of  the 
PAC/HAC  varies  between  countries,  with  some  PAC/HACs  being  national  institutions  and 
others pan-Baltic institutions.  

The PAC/HACs are usually supported by a co-PAC/HAC and in some cases there are more 
than  two.  The  PACs/HACs  are  supported  by  steering  groups,  which  mainly  consist  of 
representatives from the EUSBSR countries (‘focal points’). 

The  PACs  and  HACs  are  responsible  for  implementing  the  action  plan  in  their  respective 
areas.  One  of  their  tasks  is  to  facilitate  the  involvement  by  and  cooperation  of  relevant 
stakeholders  from  the  entire  macro-region.  This  requires  working  closely  with  a  variety  of 
stakeholders regarding the policy area on: topics, updates to policy area indicators and targets, 
policy  discussions,  visibility,  alignment  of  funding,  monitoring  and  reporting  on  progress 
within the policy area.  

The  document  on  ‘Roles  and  responsibilities  of  the  implementing  stakeholders  of  the 
EUSBSR  and  a  flagship  project  concept’  does  not  specifically  mention  the  roles  and 
responsibilities of the steering groups4. Nevertheless, a guideline was developed that that each 
PA/HA  should  have  a  steering  group  chaired  by  the  PAC/HAC.  Steering  groups  have  a 
number of functions that vary from PA/HA to PA/HA. Some have a broad range of functions 
and focus on policy implementation and dialogue; others are primarily a forum for discussing 
financing etc. Steering groups identify and decide on actions pertaining to implementing the 
policy area and cooperate with other PAs and HAs.  

4   https://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/action-plan?task=document.viewdoc&id=2 

9 

 
 
                                                           
The projects and processes implementing the EUSBSR are called ‘flagships’. They serve as 
pilot  examples for desired change. A  flagship  is  frequently the result of  a policy discussion 
within a PA or HA. It fleshes out the ambition of a PA or HA in a specified field. It may, for 
example, develop key solutions, new methodologies or practises, or be a network looking at 
new forms of cooperation.  

The  Interreg  BSR  Programme  supports  the  EUSBSR’s  basic  coordination  work.  A  total 
amount of EUR 9.43 million ERDF was allocated to supporting PAC/HAC. They use Interreg 
BSR  funding  mainly  for  essential  networking  activities,  such  as  organising  steering 
committees,  meetings  with  civil  society  groups,  local  and  regional  organisations  or  national 
ministries and agencies.  

Civil society 

The  process  of  implementing  and  managing  the  EUSBSR  is  dynamic  and  changeable  and 
therefore  changes  over  time.  Civil  society  organisations  such  as  NGOs  and  private  sector 
organisations  have  always  played  an  important  role  in  the  EUSBSR.  Higher  education  and 
research institutions make up the largest category of project partners in Interreg BSR-funded 
activities in the EUSBSR.  

The policy areas involve civil society in a number of ways. For example, the PA ‘Education’ 
has a network of 1 085 stakeholders, of which an increasing number represent  NGOs. They 
participate in stakeholder seminars in EUSBSR countries and they are members of flagships. 
Some  of  them  actively  contribute  to  developing  policy  briefings,  new  methods  and  new 
structures  in  flagships  and  their  thematic  working  groups.  Flagships  in  the  ‘Nutri’  PA  have 
been active in  involving  civil  society via communication channels  (social media, webpages, 
and newsletters) and meetings (for example in the ‘networking villages’ at the annual fora). 
These ‘networking villages’ are an integral part of the EUSBSR annual fora. They provide a 
place  to  find  information  and  are  where  participants  can  meet  with  EUSBSR  PACs  and 
HACs, as well as other stakeholders.  

The  HA  ‘Capacity’  organises  a  yearly  Participation  Day,  back-to-back  with  the  EUSBSR 
annual fora. This is an opportunity for local and regional actors and public and civil society to 
present project proposals and other ideas for cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. The PACs 
provide feedback and advice on getting involved in implementing the Strategy. 

The  Baltic  Sea  Youth  Camp  was  organised  in  conjunction  with  the  10th  annual  forum  in 
Gdańsk  in  2019.  The  event  was  aimed  at  young  people  aged  between  18  and  29  from  11 
Baltic  countries  and  Iceland.  The  goal  of  the  meeting  was  to  strengthen  dialogue  and 
solidarity  between  young  people  across  the  region,  through  seminars  and  workshops  in  the 
areas of culture, sport, politics, technology, art, human rights and economy. 

Multi-level governance 

EUSBSR  has  a  multi-level  governance  system  with  different  roles  and  responsibilities.  The 
EUSBSR’s  approach  is  that  implementation  should  be  carried  out  by  national,  regional  and 
local  authorities,  intergovernmental  and  non-governmental  bodies  in  close  cooperation  with 
the  European  Commission.  Other  stakeholders  can  be  involved  at  many  levels  of  the 
EUSBSR  —  including  at  the  steering  level  and  at  the  'operational  level.  To  ensure  overall 
coordination and support for EUSBSR implementation in each country, strategic approaches 
must be aligned across relevant stakeholders.  

Pan-Baltic  organisations  operating  at  the  macro-regional  level,  such  as  the  Council  of  the 
Baltic  Sea  States  (CBSS),  Baltic  Marine  Environment  Protection  Commission  –  Helsinki 

10 

 
 
Commission  (HELCOM)5,  or  Vision  and  Strategies  around  the  Baltic  Sea  (VASAB),  also 
participate  in  implementing  the  Strategy.  For  example,  the  joint  HELCOM-UNESCO-
EUSBSR  status  report  on  pharmaceuticals  in  the  aquatic  environment  represents  an 
information basis to develop measures to reduce pharmaceuticals in the Baltic Sea through the 
EUSBSR  regional  cooperation  platform  which  was  established  by  PA  ‘Hazards’.  The  Pan-
Baltic  organisations,  in  addition,  carry  out  the  function  as  PACs  and  especially  HACs.  The 
involvement  of  the  many  Baltic  Sea  region  organisation  is  generally  regarded  as  a  strength 
and reflects the extensive cooperation in the region since the beginning of the 1990s.  

The role of the regional and municipal stakeholders in the Baltic Sea region varies. In general, 
many regional and municipal actors are interested in transnational cooperation, with many of 
them  already  active  in  cooperation  across  the  region.  Participation  beyond  immediate 
participation as a partner in a flagship could be further encouraged. 

Policy and thematic priorities 

Achievements 

The  EUSBSR  is  a  successful  initiative  that  has  brought  significant  results  in  diverse  areas 
such as innovation, safety and pollution prevention of maritime transportation, preparedness 
for  maritime  emergencies  or  reduction  of  plastic  and  air  pollution  in  the  Baltic  Sea.  The 
EUSBSR  has  also  contributed  to  shaping  and  developing  policy  on  energy,  navigation, 
environment and climate change.  

The  EUSBSR  action  plan  sets  a  number  of  goals,  both  ‘hard’  specific  ones  for  which 
evaluation is easier, and ‘soft’ or more vague goals, which are often more difficult to assess. 
The  Strategy’s  implementation  also  brings  side  benefits,  unintentional  gains  that  should  be 
viewed as an added value of the EUSBSR.  

In the past 2 years, the implementation of actions under the EUSBSR has continued to support 
and further encourage the implementation of relevant EU legislation and policies, in particular 
relating to  the environment.  Tackling environmental issues in the Baltic Sea basin  is  one of 
the most successful areas of cooperation within the EUSBSR, especially in terms of creating 
synergy between different policy settings and implementing platforms.  

The  EUSBSR  also  facilitates  cooperation  between  sectors,  such  as  in  relation  to  the 
environment and agriculture. The Strategy’s stakeholders confirm that more cooperation has 
developed  in  water  projects,  as  the  EUSBSR  provides  an  opportunity  to  focus  more  on 
tangible solutions and to target objectives specific to the Baltic Sea region.  

Of  105  cooperation  projects  co-financed  by  the  Interreg  BSR  to  date,  60  projects  were 
labelled  as  ‘flagship  project  of  the  EUSBSR’.  The  total  budget  of  those  flagship  projects 
amounts  to  EUR   181.9 million,  of  which  ERDF  funding  was  EUR   135.8  million.  The  PA 
‘Innovation’ received funding for six flagships, including on smart specialisation, blue growth 
or  product  innovations  for  senior  citizens.  The  PA  ‘Transport’  had  four  finalised  flagships. 
These  projects  advanced  transport  corridors  in  the  region,  including  inland  waterways  and 
multimodal  transport.  In  the  PA  ‘Bioeconomy’,  the  three  flagships  contributed  to  recycling 
manure and water management in forests. Flagships were also finalised in the PAs ‘Culture’, 
‘Education’, ‘Energy’, ‘Hazard’, ‘Nutri’, ‘Safe’, ‘Secure’ and ‘Ship’  and  in  the HA ‘Spatial 
Planning’. 

5   https://helcom.fi/  

11 

 
 
                                                           
Project examples 

1. ‘Save the sea’ objective 
NutriTrade6  (https://nutritradebaltic.eu/)  developed  innovative  methods  to  extract  nutrients 
from the Baltic Sea. The aim was to create fast, effective and economically efficient measures 
through  different  pilots  tested  on  land,  sea  and  online.  The  project  created  a  crowdfunding 
platform ‘Nutribute’ to support or launch a campaign for saving the sea. 
DAIMON7 flagship project: In March 2020 an amendment to the Helcom Baltic Sea Action 
Plan  was  produced,  aiming  to  integrate  data  about  and  management  of  munition  dumping 
grounds in the Baltic with important input from the DAIMON flagship project.  

2. ‘Increase prosperity’ objective 
The HAZARD8 project developed and tested ways of mitigating the effects of emergencies 
in  major  seaports  in  region.  It  addressed  challenges  related  to  exposing  a  large  number  of 
people to accidents such as leakages of hazardous materials, fires on passenger ships at ports, 
oil  spills  in  port  areas  and  explosions  of  gases  or  chemicals.  HAZARD  is  also  part  of  the 
Interreg platform ResQU2, a flagship of the PA ‘Secure’, to promote the dissemination and 
impact of the project’s results. 
The  BSR  S3  Ecosystem  platform9  aligns  smart  specialisation  initiatives  to  better  direct 
investments across the Baltic Sea region. By sharing best practices, it activates research and 
academic  communities,  industry  and  public  sector  organisations  to  strengthen  the  regional 
innovation ecosystem. The platform builds on the experiences of Interreg Baltic Sea Region’s 
projects  ‘LARS’,  ‘BSR  Stars  S3’,  ‘Smart-up  BSR’  and  ‘GoSmart  BSR’,  and  the  ‘S34 
Growth’, ‘BIOREGIO’, ‘ClusterFy’ and ‘TraCS3’ projects, co-funded by Interreg Europe. 

3. ‘Connect the region’ objective 
The project Scandria®2Act10 followed an initiative of regions, located along the Baltic Sea 
region  stretch  of  the  Scandinavian-Mediterranean  core  network  corridor  to  harmonise 
understanding and actions on different policy levels for the benefit of corridor development. 
One result was the creation of a multi-level governance mechanism, the Scandria®Alliance.  
NSBCoRe – North Sea Baltic Connector of Regions11 – The project aimed to improve the 
accessibility of the Eastern Baltic Sea region (EBSR) for freight and passenger transport. The 
project  contributed  to  the  EU  TEN-T  transport  infrastructure  policy,  that  connects  the 
continent between east and west, north and south, by connecting the North Sea Baltic TEN-T 
core network corridor to its catchment area and access routes in EBSR at regional and local 
level. 

6   https://nutritradebaltic.eu/ 
7   https://www.daimonproject.com/  
8   https://projects.interreg-baltic.eu/projects/hazard-25.html  
9   https://projects.interreg-baltic.eu/projects/bsr-s3-ecosystem-214.html  
10  https://projects.interreg-baltic.eu/projects/scandriaR2act-2.html 
11  https://projects.interreg-baltic.eu/projects/nsb-core-19.html  

12 

 
 
                                                           
4. Horizontal objectives 
The  BEA-APP12  project  gathered  experience  from  eight  countries  around  the  Baltic  Sea  to 
help  regional  planning  authorities  accelerate  the  setup  of  windfarms,  solar  parks,  biogas 
plants and the like. 
The  Baltic  Smart  Water  Hub13  connects  water  experts  from  companies,  associations, 
authorities, academia and NGOs. The BSR WATER project platform provides the hub with 
knowledge on managing smart sludge, storm and waste water, manure and energy efficiency. 
BSR  WATER  builds  on  the  Interreg  Baltic  Sea  Region’s  IWAMA,  Manure  Standards, 
Village Waters,  BEST  and Baltic  Blue Growth  projects  as well as  Interreg Central  Baltic’s 
iWater, NutriTrade, Blastic and Waterchain and South Baltic’s RBR projects. 

Policy impact 

The  EUSBSR  has  increased  cooperation  and  networks  across  the  region,  for  example 
HELCOM,  CBSS  and  Northern  Dimension.  The  EUSBSR  also  has  strong  links  with  the 
Nordic cooperation, Arctic cooperation and the Barents Euro–Arctic Council.  

The implementation of the EUSBSR has contributed to the achievement on several EU level, 
including  macro-regional,  national  and  local  policy  goals.  The  EUSBSR  helps  implement 
policies developed by other platforms, such as HELCOM or CBSS. Some good examples are 
the ‘Secure’ and ‘Safe’ PAs, where there is a strong connection between general policy goals 
and  actions  with  clearly  defined  projects  and  solid  results.  For  example,  some  projects  of 
common 
the 
implementation  of  the  Baltic  Sea  Action  Plan  (BSAP)  of  HELCOM,  towards  a  clean  and 
healthy Baltic Sea.  

the  EUSBSR  have  made  substantial  contributions 

interest  under 

to 

PAs/HAs  have  a  variety  of  wider  effects  on  policy  in  the  region,  either  by  feeding  into 
regional or national strategies, supporting decision making at ministerial/agency level, or by 
providing tools and advice that support decision-making processes. Overall, it is assessed that 
all PAs/HAs support project development through their activities. 

Work carried out through the EUSBSR has also helped increase policy dialogues within the 
region  and  implement  new  EU  regulations,  including  the  strategy  on  the  use  of  plastics. 
Project clusters and platforms have been set up to coordinate activities, further communicate 
and  develop  results  following  policy  recommendations.  For  example,  the  ‘Innovation’  PA’s 
projects have had an impact on smart specialisation strategies in Finnish regions. 

Monitoring and Evaluation  

Monitoring 

An  overall  macro-regional  territorial  monitoring  tool  has  been  developed  by  the  ESPON 
programme  to  observe  development  trends  and  patterns  at  the  level  of  the  four  EU  MRS, 
including the EUSBSR, and for the whole of the EU. The ESPON tool focuses on identifying 
development opportunities and territorial challenges. This insight is provided to the MRS in 
order  to  improve  or  re-focus  their  objectives  and  policies,  bringing  together  statistical 
information and policy objectives. 

12  https://www.balticenergyareas.eu/  
13  https://www.balticwaterhub.net/  

13 

 
 
                                                           
Currently,  the  annual  implementation  reports  of  the  performance  of  PAs/HAs  are  the 
EUSBSR’s  main  monitoring  tool.  The  indicators  and  monitoring  framework  used  by  each 
PA/HA  are  found  in  the  action  plan.  It  is  expected  that  the  revised  action  plan  will  further 
develop  indicators  and  targets  for  each  PA,  which  will  enable  improved  monitoring  and 
evaluation. 

Evaluation 

The  EUSBSR  has  delivered  numerous  achievements,  but  these  are  difficult  to  aggregate  in 
order  to  provide  an  overview.  A  2017  study  found  that  although  there  are  clear  differences 
between the policy areas, results had been achieved both in terms of content and process in all 
of  the  policy  areas  analysed.  When  comparing  the  achievements  with  the  objectives  set,  all 
PAs  showed  progress.  However,  the  2017  study  concluded  that  while  technical  cooperation 
has developed, the policy part is still somewhat lagging behind14.  

In addition to the study, various PAs/HAs have carried out evaluations of their specific areas. 
For  example  PA  ‘Health’  carried  out  an  evaluation  in  2018  in  the  framework  of  a  grant 
received. 

Funding  

Funding mobilisation 

Availability  of  funding  has  been  one  of  the  most  discussed  aspects  of  the  EUSBSR. 
Achieving  the  Strategy’s  goals  without  assigned  own  funding  has  always  been  a  challenge. 
One  of  the  Strategy’s  core  principles  is  that  its  implementation  is  based  on  mobilising  and 
bundling existing public and private funding at EU, national, regional and local levels.  

At EU level, the EU Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) are one of the key sources 
of funding. Other EU level instruments (e.g. Horizon 2020, LIFE, and Erasmus+) also support 
projects.  Funds  from  the  European  Investment  Bank  or  other  International  Financial 
Institutions could be used. There are 86 mainstream, Interreg and ENI-CBC programmes are 
relevant for the EUSBSR.   

The  key  funding  mechanism  for  projects  within  the  PAs/Has  to  date  has  been  the  Interreg 
BSR programme and the various cross-border cooperation (Interreg) programmes in the Baltic 
Sea region.  Interreg  BSR has been the key source of funding  for PAs  ‘Nutri’, ‘Innovation’, 
‘Energy’, and HA ‘Neighbours’. The PA ‘Education’ receives funding from the Interreg BSR 
and  South  Baltic  programmes,  from  the  ESF  for  larger  projects,  and  seed  funding  for  other 
activities. The funding sources for HA  ‘Spatial Planning’ are  also  quite diverse and include 
the  Interreg  BSR  and  Central  Baltic  programmes,  other  EU  programmes,  Maritime  and 
Fisheries  fund    programmes,  and  seed  funding  sources.  The  European  Neighbourhood 
Instrument (ENI) is a significant funding source for PA ‘Health’, in addition to Interreg BSR, 
and  the  policy  area  is  relatively  well-funded  regarding  seed  funding  activities.  Other  CBC 
funds – for example the Interreg Central Baltic and South Baltic programmes – are the main 
sources of funding for PAs ‘Hazards’  and ‘Tourism’, respectively. EU programmes such as 
BONUS, the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), and Horizon 2020 are key for the PA ‘Safe’, 
and the PA also  depends on  Interreg BSR for  a  variety of activities. There are a number of 
other PAs that receive funding from these EU programmes. However, EU programmes are not 
limited  to  these.  Erasmus+  provides  support  for  the  PA  ‘Culture’,  and  the  DG  MARE 
supports  the  PA  ‘Spatial  Planning’.  Funding  sources  in  the  ‘other’  category  mainly  include 

14  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 

14 

 
 
                                                           
national-level 
intergovernmental organisations such as the Nordic Council of Ministers.  

institutions,  such 

the  Swedish  Institute  and  Uppsala  University,  or 

The  Interreg  BSR  links  projects  from  different  EU  funding  sources  by  creating  project 
platforms. Project platforms, a funding instrument from Interreg BSR set up in the 2014-2020 
programming  period,  support  EUSBSR  PAs  and  HAs  by  linking  the  results  of  EU-funded 
projects  and  feeding  them  into  policy  development  in  their  thematic  areas.  To  date,  nine 
platforms  have  been  set  up.  All  nine  project  platforms  selected  by  the  Interreg  BSR’s 
Monitoring  Committee  support  the  EUSBSR’s  three  main  objectives.  The  platforms  help 
structure  new  knowledge  for  public  authorities  and  other  target  groups  for  the  EUSBSR, 
bringing together results of different EU-funded projects in one particular field.  

During the reporting period the use of the ‘mainstream’ ESI Funds programmes has remained 
relatively  limited,  and  participants  in  the  EUSBSR  do  not  yet  consider  that  ESI  Funds  
programmes and the EUSBSR are aligned.  

Embedding 

Until  now,  the  main  funding  source  for  the  EUSBSR  has  been  the  territorial  cooperation 
(Interreg) programmes, even though the Interreg programmes have limited financial resources 
and cannot on their own cover all of the Strategy’s needs. Therefore, the use of the national 
and  regional  cohesion  policy  programmes  (known  as  ‘mainstream’  programmes)  to  support 
the  priorities  of  the  MRS  and  cooperation  activities  is  being  facilitated  for  the  2021-2027 
programming  period in  the draft legislation proposed by the Commission.  It  is  important to 
ensure  that  the  MRS  priorities  are  included  in  the  mainstream  cohesion  policy  programmes 
that are already being drafted. This process is known as ‘embedding’. 

In  the  Baltic  Sea  Region,  networks  of  ESI  Funds  programmes’  managing  authorities  have 
been created on a voluntary basis for all funds (ESF, ERDF, EAFRD and EMFF), reflecting 
the  need  and  desire  for  stronger  macro-regional  cooperation  in  the  region,  by  providing 
funding.  

The  first  managing  authorities  network,  created  in  2011,  was  the  ESF  managing  authorities 
network, the ‘Baltic Sea Network - European Social Fund’ (BSN-ESF). An important aim for 
the network was to coordinate activities between national ESF programmes during the 2014-
2020  programming  period  and  to  identify  possible  areas  for  cooperation.  The  BSN-ESF 
network  has  created  a  forum  for  discussion  among  the  countries  and  the  relevant  PAs.  The 
flagship  ‘School to Work’ was also  created as a result of the BSN-ESF network. The BSN-
ESF  has  organised  their  meetings  back-to-back  with  the  thematic  network  on  Youth 
Employment (and Inclusion), which has facilitated carrying out coordinated calls. 

Following the example of the ESF-network in the Baltic Sea region, the EUSBSR NC group 
created an ERDF network of managing authorities in 2016. It aims to facilitate, on a voluntary 
basis,  the  funding  of  transnational  collaboration  by  ERDF  regional/national  programmes  in 
order  to  support  the  EUSBSR’s  activities.  As  a  first  step,  pilot  projects  were  developed, 
focusing  on  innovation  in  clean-tech  to  help  regions  implement  their  smart  specialisation 
strategies. The process is coordinated by the EUSBSR ‘Innovation’ policy area. 

A  programme  has  been  developed  in  the  EUSBSR  for  capacity  building  (by  the  HA 
‘Capacity’)  for  and  with  the  managing  authorities  (ERDF  and  ESF)  in  preparation  for  the 
2021-2027  programming  period.  The  programme  is  designed  to  meet  the  needs  for 
coordination  between  the  ERDF/ESF,  with  their  Baltic  Sea  region  networks  and  the 
PACs/HACs  flagship  leaders.  The  programme  consists  of  three  round  tables  and  five 
modules. 

15 

 
 
Communication  

Recent  years  have  seen  some  progress  on  communicating  about  the  EUSBSR,  in  particular 
with the implementation of the ‘Let's communicate!’ project. , However, challenges remain. 
Various activities have been carried out as part of the project, leading to increased visibility of 
the  Strategy  and  better  internal  and  external  communication.  These  include  —  but  are  not 
limited to — creation of a blog platform on the EUSBSR website, actively using social media 
channels  (for example Twitter @EUSBSR with  over 3200 followers, Facebook with  almost 
2000 followers,  Flickr),  organisation of thematic events  with  various EUSBSR stakeholders 
(including  business  representatives),  producing  a  series  of  promotional  videos  on  the 
EUSBSR, 
(national 
for  EUSBSR 
toolkits 
coordinators, thematic area coordinators and flagship leaders), etc.  

launching  communication 

implementers 

The  ‘Let’s  communicate!’  project  aims  to  maintain  and  further  develop  the  EUSBSR’s 
communications. The project  gathers current  information  about  EUSBSR developments  and 
shares  them  through  its  communication  channels,  promotes  the  use  of  the  EUSBSR  visual 
identity  and  provides  with  communication  support  and  tools  to  EUSBSR  stakeholders.  The 
project  will  also  reach  out  to  new  target  groups  to  attract  new  stakeholders  to  take  part  in 
actions.  

The  Interreg  BSR  Programme  is  co-financing  the    ‘Let’s  communicate!’  project,  providing 
almost  EUR 780 000  between  2016  and  September  2021.  The  lead  partner  is  Centrum 
Balticum.  Beyond  the  PACs/HACs,  institutions  eligible  to  receive  financing  include 
international bodies and national ministries and agencies acting as coordinators. 

The key annual event for the EUSBSR is the annual forum, which has brought together up to 
a  1  000  participants  and  provides  good  opportunities  for  increasing  visibility  and 
communication of the strategy and its results. The Interreg BSR provided the EUSBSR annual 
fora  with  funding  of  nearly  EUR 930 000  between  2016  and  2019.  An  additional 
EUR 255 000  has  already  been  committed  for  the  2020  forum  in  Turku,  Finland,  plus  an 
amount of EUR 255 000 for the 2021 annual forum. 

Cooperation within and across Strategies 

Cooperation within the EUSBSR 

Many  PAs/HAs  have  taken  advantage  of  the  potential  for  cooperation  within  the  EUSBSR, 
working across themes or PAs/HAs. Cooperation can take the form of workshops, seminars, 
and  the  development  of  joint  implementation  strategies  and  joint  development  of  flagship 
projects,  as  well  as  'flagship  processes'.  PAs/HAs  vary  in  their  current  and  planned 
cooperation but, in general, they are well aware of the potential and necessity for inter-PA/HA 
cooperation in terms of sharing ideas, transferring of know-how and sharing resources. A key 
mechanisms  for  doing  this  is  participating  in  the  steering  groups  of  other  PAs/HAs.  For 
example,  the  networks  of  both  ‘Secure’  PA  and  ‘Climate’  HA  have  been  used  as  bases  for 
the  Community  Safety  Action  for  Supporting  Climate  Adaptation  and 
developing 
Development (CASCADE) project15. 

Cross-sectoral/thematic cooperation may be more relevant for some areas than for others, and 
that cross-sectoral cooperation may happen at different levels in the PA/HA. The extent and 
forms of cooperation thus vary depending on the type of initiatives pursued by the PA/HAs. 
The  key  issue  is  still  how  to  ensure  that  the  results  of  this  cooperation  are  used  for  policy 
development/implementation and disseminated to relevant stakeholders.  

15  http://www.bsr-secure.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/CASCADE-INFO.pdf  

16 

 
 
                                                           
Cooperation across MRS 

The cooperation between the EUSBSR and the other three MRS has been further developed to 
increase alignment and maximise mutual benefits, impacts and synergies. This cross-strategy 
cooperation  has  taken  different  forms,  such  as  implementing  joint  projects  and  sharing  best 
practices  and  experience.  Cross-strategy  cooperation  is  facilitated  by  Interact,  a  programme 
that  has  organised  thematic  meetings  among  stakeholders/project  partners  coming  from 
different  macro-regions  (for  example  on  climate  change  and  disaster  risk  prevention  issues, 
transport-related issues, capacity building, etc.).  

The HA ‘Capacity’ works with similar structures in the other three MRS and with the Interact 
programme.  The  collaboration  covers  exchange  of  good  practice 
in  capacity 
building/stakeholder involvement and joint development of measures for capacity building. 

CHALLENGES 

Governance and administrative capacity 

In spite of the high levels  overall of interest  and support for the EUSBSR in  the Baltic Sea 
countries  and  the  wider  region,  high-level  political  commitment  to  EUSBSR  still  remains  a 
challenge.  Some  of  the  reasons  for  this  are  that  the  deliverables  and  results  are  often  not 
tangible or simple to communicate. The need to secure increased political commitment is also 
evident in the lack of national resources made available to finance the EUSBSR governance. 
The EUSBSR is at times perceived too bureaucratic and technical. 

The on-going work to strengthen EUSBSR governance should clarify what is essential for the 
EUSBSR’s  success,  including  stronger  ownership  of  the  Strategy  by  countries.  Areas  that 
require  increased  focus  include  stronger  political  leadership  and  continued  commitment, 
effective  decision  making  and  greater  clarity  in  organising  work.  The  main  goals  are  to 
improve coordination and cooperation to further increase commitment to the EUSBSR and its 
effective  implementation  and  to  build  the  necessary  administrative  capacity  to  ensure  that 
political commitment translates into effective implementation. A renewed focus on the role of 
the  NCs  will  be  important  to  improve  coordination.  The  key  is  to  empower  relevant 
implementers  (PACs/HACs,  steering  groups)  and  increase  ownership  by  the  relevant  line 
ministries at national level. The relationship between the NC group and PACs/HACs needs to 
be clearly delineated. 

The  degree  to  which  the  countries  participate  in  PA/HA  steering  groups  varies.  Some 
PAs/HAs  consider  the  majority  of  countries  to  be  active,  while  others  identify  only  a  few 
active  countries.  The  extent  to  which  other  participants  are  included  also  varies  across 
PAs/HAs  –  some  include  a  broad  range  of  macro-regional  and  EU  stakeholders,  and  Pan-
Baltic organisations, while others include non-EU countries representatives to a lesser degree. 
This makes the management of PA/HA steering groups a challenge for all actors involved. 

The current EUSBSR governance and annual forum support mechanisms are seen as too time 
consuming and putting too much administrative burden on the PACs/HACs and organisers of 
the annual fora. The support mechanisms therefore need to be reconsidered and simplified to 
better utilise existing resources and reducing administrative burden.  

Policy and thematic priorities 

The Strategy’s broad scope remains an issue and this is being addressed in the revision of the 
EUSBSR  action  plan  currently  underway.  A  tighter  focus,  especially  on  the  areas  where 
macro-regional  cooperation  can  bring  clear  added  value,  will  increase  the  Strategy’s 

17 

 
 
effectiveness and impact. This is also in line with the Council Conclusions on the first report 
on the implementation of MRS from April 2017, stressing that a stronger focus on results and 
relevant  priorities  is  likely to  increase overall performance and improve the visibility of the 
MRS. 

The Baltic Sea itself is  the uniting element for the region:  It  serves  as a source of common 
identification  across  the  region  and  constitutes  a  joint  environmental  and economic  asset.  It 
also  highlights  challenges,  e.g.  in  relation  to  environmental  protection  and  transport  routes 
across the sea. The region includes a large amount of coastal areas and islands that are very 
attractive to residents, as well as significant biodiversity that is vulnerable to economic uses 
and  climate  change.  The  Arctic  regions,  in  the  northernmost  part  of  the  region,  present 
specific  challenges  and  opportunities  in  respect  of  their  remoteness,  geography  and  climate 
conditions.   

The  EUSBSR’s  three  overall  objectives  (‘Save  the  sea’,  ‘Connect  the  region’  and  ‘Increase 
prosperity’) and the sub-objectives remain relevant. There is a need to streamline policy areas 
and link these more strongly to the strategic context. In addition, the role of climate change is 
a  core  element  that  affects  all  parts  of  the  Strategy.  Climate  change  and  sustainable 
development should therefore be a key part of all policy areas.  

Many  stakeholders  consider  that  there  is  room  for  even  more  involvement  of  NGOs,  civil 
society and young people in the EUSBSR’s work. For example, in a recent survey of Swedish 
stakeholders,  respondents  cited  a  need  for  increased  public  engagement  and  greater 
involvement from the business community and other societal actors. Respondents noted that 
greater involvement of the private sector is needed to address climate change. 

Monitoring and evaluation 

A general issue with the EUSBSR is that it is difficult to measure, report and communicate its 
achievements. Part of the reason for this is that many of the achievements are very technical 
or administrative and are difficult to relay to the broader public outside the topic or area.  

Monitoring  therefore  remains  an  area  that  needs  further  development  in  the  EUSBSR.  It  is 
difficult to collect information about outputs, progress and results. Many indicator targets are 
broadly formulated, with limited monitoring and milestones used. Reporting by the PAs/HAs 
is  often  focused  on  projects/flagships  and  less  on  policy  impact.  In  addition,  very  few 
PAs/HAs report on their current indicators, which means that these are generally not used for 
measuring  or  monitoring  progress.  PACs/HACs  have  not  been  consistently  successful  in 
measuring  their  performance  with  quantitative  and/or  qualitative  indicators.  This  is  mainly 
due to  the fact  that very few PAs/HAs have, so far, developed a robust strategy  with  goals, 
targets  and  indicators  of  their  action.  Therefore,  it  is  difficult  to  capture  the  full  scope  and 
character of their work, meaning that there is a risk that the many effects and results described 
above go underreported. Further development and monitoring of indicators in the EUSBSR is 
needed. The revised action plan will further develop  indicators and targets  for each PA that 
will in turn enable improved monitoring and evaluation. 

The lack of a robust and clear indicator system for the individual policy areas and horizontal 
actions  also  makes  it  difficult  for  Interreg  BSR  to  judge  how  the  actions  financed  by  the 
programme have contributed to achieving the EUSBSR’s objectives. 

A more strategic approach, particularly with regard to monitoring the impact and added value 
of the PAs/HAs, would benefit from the further development of appropriate indicators, target 
setting and monitoring.  Only a  few PAs/HAs, so far, have developed a  robust strategy  with 

18 

 
 
goals,  targets  and  indicators  for  their  actions.  Most  PAs/HAs  use their  section  of  the  action 
plan as their main 'strategic document'. 

Funding 

Funding for the EUSBSR remains a concern among many of the Strategy's stakeholders. The 
EUSBSR  does  not  have  any  ‘own’  funding  and  is  based  on  effective  and  coordinated 
mobilisation  of  existing 
the  promotion  of  synergies  and 
complementarities.  However,  embedding  the  EUSBSR  priorities  into  relevant  existing 
funding frameworks remains an issue.  

funding  sources,  and 

A study in 2017 (COWI) found that a relatively high percentage of survey participants agree 
that it is difficult to find/obtain funding for specific projects and activities, and that funding 
for the administration and coordination of the Strategy is limited. The survey respondents also 
found that competition for funding in EU programmes is high16.  

Until  now,  the main  source  of  funding  for  the  EUSBSR  has  been  the  Interreg  programmes, 
and in particular the Interreg BSR programme. Funding from the ‘mainstream’ national and 
regional ESI Funds programmes has been fairly limited. However, in light of the magnitude 
of  EUSBSR  actions  needed  to  effectively  deliver  the  Strategy’s  three  main  objectives,  the 
Interreg BSR programme can only be a suitable funding source for governance support and to 
initialise and catalyse smaller pilot projects and processes. Interreg funding is too limited to 
finance the substantial actions or infrastructure investments to bring real change to the region.  

It is therefore vital to ensure that the EUSBSR priorities are included into mainstream national 
and  regional  programmes  under  ESI  Funds  in  the  upcoming  2021-2027  budgetary  period, 
known as ‘embedding’.  

In line with the Council Conclusions on the second report on the implementation of the MRS, 
better integration of the EUSBSR priorities with the relevant EU, regional, national and local 
policy  frameworks  in  the  next  programming  period  2021-2027  is  needed  in  order  to  better 
utilise the potential provided by the Strategy.   

This  process  has  been  facilitated  by  the  draft  cohesion  policy  legislation  proposed  by  the 
Commission.  However,  the  NC  group  and  PACs/HACs  need  to  be  active  in  encouraging 
programme authorities to take the EUSBSR priorities into account from the early stages of the 
drafting process. The existing managing authorities networks can be particularly useful tools 
to identify common EUSBSR actions to be promoted within the next generation of ESI Funds 
programmes. 

Communication 

Communication  is  a  recurring  issue,  and  a  key  weakness,  in  the  reporting  on  EUSBSR 
activities  and  results.  Although  progress  has  been  made  on  communication,  further  work  is 
needed  to  strengthen  it,  especially  at  national  level  and  in  national  languages,  as  most  of 
communication to  date has been done in  English. Additional  work is  needed on using  clear 
and  simple  language  that  is  easy  to  understand,  including  for  those  not  familiar  with  EU 
and/or  MRS  terminology.  Ensuring  transparency  and  ease  of  access  to  information  for 
stakeholders  and  interested  parties  is  an  important  way  of  demonstrating  the  progress  and 
achievements  of  the  EUSBSR.  Better  communication  also  helps  to  encourage  future 
cooperation. 

16  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 

19 

 
 
                                                           
While communication on active flagships is generally good for most PAs/HAs, reporting on 
results of completed flagships needs improvement.  

One  area  to  further  develop  in  terms  of  communication  is  to  improve  the  online 
communication  of  the  PAs/HAs,  as  some  of  these  completely  lack  an  online  presence  and 
many  fall  short  in  promoting  their  activities  and  progress.  While  some webpages  are  up-to-
date and provide useful content, all would benefit from better and continuous communication 
of the achievements of PAs/HAs. Likewise, the webpages would improve transparency if they 
made steering committee minutes and meeting information more readily available.  

Stakeholders  note  that  there  are  limitations  with  the  'Let’s  communicate'  project,  in  part 
because  it  only  involves  a  limited  number  of  partners,  rather  than  all  EUSBSR  countries. 
Stakeholders  have  highlighted  that  it  is  mainly  project  results  that  are  promoted  whereas 
communication  regarding  the  'work'  of  the  PA/HAs  and  policy  development  is  limited. 
Several  countries suggest  that creating a EUSBSR technical  support structure or focal  point 
would  help  coordinate  and  streamline  communication  efforts,  which  would  improve 
communication among PAs and HAs, with countries and stakeholders. 

Cooperation within and across Strategies 

There have been increased exchanges of information and experience between regional actors 
involved  in  the  four  MRS.  The  annual  High  Level  Group17  meeting  and  the  first  Macro-
Regional  Strategies  Week  (organised  by  DG  REGIO  in  February  2020  in  Brussels)  have 
provided useful opportunities for dialogue and exchange of experience and best practices with 
other MRS. Nevertheless, countries and stakeholders indicate that different terminologies and 
structures  in  the  MRS  complicates  exchange.  There  are  also  issues  with    lack  of  financial 
means or other administrative processes in the MRS, preventing improvements to exchanges 
at regional and/or national levels.. 

While  some  interactions  exist  between  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  Region 
(EUSAIR), the WestMED initiative18, and relevant Interreg programmes, it would be useful to 
strengthen  cooperation  and  synergies  between  those  MRS  that  have  a  strong  maritime 
component19. These MRS, such as the EUSAIR and EUSBSR, and sea basin strategies would 
benefit from identifying best practice and knowledge sharing. 

THE WAY FORWARD 

Lessons learnt 

Ten years after it was launched, the EUSBSR is a well-established macro-regional strategy in 
the  EU.  It  is  one  of  the  key  tools  for  promoting  territorial  cooperation.  It  is  a  developing 
framework in terms of substance, finance and management. Improving links with the existing 
funding instruments needs to continue to be able to realise the Strategy’s full potential. The 
EUSBSR’  significance  goes  beyond  meeting  the  objectives  set  10  years  ago.  Its  future 
depends on the extent to which it will be able to adjust to meet the new challenges that Europe 

17  The High Level Group meeting brings together EU 27 Member States, non-EU countries part of the MRS, and 

the EU Institutions. This is an annual meeting to discuss the state of play of MRS and their future.  
18  WestMED Initiative - Initiative for the sustainable development of the blue economy in the Western 

Mediterranean. 

19  For example cooperation with the EUSAIR on the creation of an Emission Control Area for cleaner shipping 
in the Mediterranean Sea, which is under consideration of the contracting parties to the Barcelona Convention 
in view of a formal submission in 2022 for the consideration by the International Maritime Organisation in 
view of the declaration on such a protected area under international maritime transport rules. 

20 

 
 
                                                           
and  the  world  are  facing,  and  on  the  continued  commitment  and  ownership  of  the 
participating country to invest in the Strategy and cooperation with their partner countries. 

Governance  and  administrative  capacity:  The  governance  of  the  EUSBSR  plays  a  strategic 
role in the successful implementation of its actions and the achievement of its objectives. The 
EUSBSR’s  governance  structure  has  been  in  place  for  almost  a  decade  and  feedback  from 
Member  States  and  stakeholders  confirms  that  there  is  a  need  for  improvements.  The  areas 
that  need  further  development  include  stronger  political  leadership  and  commitment,  more 
effective decision making and greater clarity in roles and responsibilities in organising work.  

Stakeholders have highlighted the importance of the role that European Commission plays in 
providing strategic coordination of the Strategy, in partnership with the participating countries 
and  regions.  Nevertheless,  even  though  the  Commission  has  an  important  facilitating  and 
supporting  role,  the  commitment  and  engagement  of  all  relevant  stakeholders  at  national, 
regional and local levels in the participating countries remains vital for the Strategy’s success. 

Policy  and  thematic  priorities:  EUSBSR  creates  a  unique  platform  for  cooperation  and 
coordination for its eight EU Member States and the non-EU countries of the region, and has 
successfully  generated  projects,  and  networks  to  tackle  common  challenges.  There  is  a 
consensus among the Baltic Sea countries that this positive cooperation has to be continued. 
The  Strategy’s  three  overall  objectives:  ‘Save  the  sea’,  ‘Connect  the  region’  and  ‘Increase 
prosperity’  remain  valid.  However,  the  EUSBSR  has  to  adapt  to  and  take  account  of  new 
challenges  –  such  as  the  climate  change,  COVID-19  crises,  demographic  changes  and 
migration  (of  non-EU  nationals)  –    which  are  becoming  more  urgent  and  which  need  to  be 
addressed in a coordinated way across borders. There is also a need to streamline some of the 
current 13 policy areas and  4horizontal actions so that they fit more clearly into the strategic 
context  and  facilitate  the  embedding  of  the  EUSBSR  priorities  and  activities  into  other 
programmes.  

Many EUSBSR stakeholders find that some of the current objectives and sub-objectives have 
limited relevance to implementing the Strategy and say very little about what actually goes on 
in  the  Strategy.  Better  formulation  and  restructuring  may  help  to  create  a  stronger  link 
between the Strategy and its action plan. 

Funding: The Interreg BSR programme remains a key partner for implementing the EUSBSR 
objectives and supporting its governance. The support to EUSBSR governance by the Interreg 
BSR will have to be specified in the cooperation programme 2021-2027.  

In addition, projects and activities funded by the Interreg BSR also need to be aligned with the 
EUSBSR. Even closer collaboration between the EUSBSR and Interreg BSR could be helpful 
during the preparation of the new programming/funding period. 

Main issues 

The MRS do not come with their own funding, hence the aim is to mobilise all relevant EU 
(including  ESI  Funds,  Horizon  Europe,  CEF,  Erasmus+,  EAFRD,  LIFE,  etc.),  national  and 
regional funding sources, to invest in the MRS priorities. No country or region can address the 
major  challenges  in  a  globalised  world  on  its  own,  whether  these  are  climate  change,  the 
COVID crisis,  energy issues, global  competitiveness,  peace and security, fighting terrorism, 
or managing refugee flows. Cooperation between EU Member States, non-EU countries and 
regions  is  vital.  The  projects  to  be  supported  within  the  framework  of  EUSBSR  must  be 
aligned with the relevant action plan and respective policy areas.  

21 

 
 
In  the  2021-2027  period,  the  Commission's  proposals  aims  to  facilitate  and  increase 
cooperation  between  regions  and  countries  within  the  ‘mainstream’  cohesion  policy 
programmes. This means ensuring that actions and investments that have a higher EU added 
value when implemented jointly should be promoted. This can be done through, for example, 
synergies  and  alignment  with  the  priorities  of  the  macro-regional  strategies  and  sea-basin 
strategies/initiatives.  At  the  heart  of  macro-regional  cooperation  is  translating  overarching 
European policies and priorities into bottom-up initiatives by smaller/non-governmental/local 
institutions  that  work  together  macro-regionally  on  finding  joint  solutions  to  shared 
challenges. 

The  EU’s  multi-level  governance  of  the  Strategy’s  implementation  involves  several 
institutional and non-institutional actors, in line with the EU’s regional policy goals..  

The  debate  among  the  Baltic  Sea  region’s  stakeholders  and  experts  confirms  the  increasing 
willingness  to  strengthen  the  key  implementers  of  the  Strategy,  to  make  the  Strategy  more 
coherent, and to simplify its governance mechanism The delays in the revision process for the 
action plan highlighted the lack of technical resources available. The potential for creating a 
technical support structure should be urgently considered. 

Future development  

The  EUSBSR  creates  a  unique  platform  for  cooperation  and  coordination  for  its  eight  EU 
Member  States  and  the  non-EU  countries  in  the  region.  The  Strategy  has  successfully 
generated  projects  and  networks  to  tackle  common  challenges.  No  country  or  region  can 
address  the  major  challenges  in  a  globalised  world  on  its  own,  whether  this  is  COVID-19, 
climate change, or energy and connectivity issues. Cooperation between EU Member States, 
non-EU countries and regions remains indispensable. 

In order to ensure long-term effects and a bigger impact, it is important to build on existing 
capacities and results. There is further potential to identify complementarities and synergies in 
results  and  to  explore  methods  of  combining  different  funding  sources.  The  networks  and 
platforms  are  important  tools  that  maximise  the  benefits  of  cooperation  for  greater 
effectiveness.  ‘Flagships’  are  an  example  of  this  development  and  they  remain  a  feature  of 
implementing the EUSBSR. Project platforms, as developed by Interreg BSR, are another tool 
to  interlink  and  connect  similar  activities  and  results  from  projects  under  different  funds, 
better structure these and communicate results in a coordinated way. 

EUSBSR’s  structure  is  complex  and  difficult  to  understand  for  stakeholders  and  those  not 
closely involved in the Strategy. The revision currently underway of the EUSBSR action plan 
aims  to  streamline  the  implementation  of  the  EUSBSR,  including  by  simplifying  the 
governance  structures  and  ensuring  effective  decision  making  and  distribution  of  tasks  and 
responsibilities. The revision of the EUSBSR action plan is also an effective mechanism for 
taking into account changing needs/priorities. The action plan’s relevance should be reviewed 
more  frequently  and  plan  should  be  regularly  updated  (for  example  linked  to  the 
Commission’s 
the 
implementation process for the EUSBSR, it should be considered whether administrative and 
technical support for the Strategy should be created, such as the Danube Strategy Point in the 
EUSDR. 

the  basis  of  an  appropriate  evaluation.  To 

term)  on 

improve 

The  EU  macro-regional  and  sea  basin  strategies  and  initiatives  provide  a  framework  for 
focusing  cooperation  activities  between  the  participating  countries  and  regions  to  tackle 
commonly  identified  challenges  in  a  particular  functional  area.  The  strategies  do  not  come 
with  their  own  funding,  hence  the  aim  is  to  mobilise  all  relevant  EU,  national  and  regional 

22 

 
 
funding sources, to invest in the MRS priorities. The programming exercise for the 2021-2027 
period  should  be  used  to  further  embed  selected  EUSBSR  priorities  in  mainstream  EU 
funding  programmes  as  cooperation  elements  (in  the  proposed  regulations,  cooperation  is 
introduced as a cross-cutting objective for the cohesion policy).  

Monitoring  and  evaluation  needs  to  be  strengthened  so  as  to  better  link  the  activities  and 
objectives  in  the  EUSBSR  to  overall  development  in  the  region,  but  also  to  better  monitor 
progress in the different policy areas and horizontal actions. This could help stakeholders to 
see  how  the  EUSBSR  can  support  the  region  and  what  the  real  results  of  the  Strategy  are. 
Additional  work  on  communication  is  also  needed  to  increase  the  Strategy’s  visibility  and 
better communicate its results thereby increasing interest in and commitment to the EUSBSR. 
Emphasising  and  clearly  communicating  the  potential  benefits  of  the  EUSBSR  can  help 
strengthen  the  ownership  of  and  commitment  to  the  Strategy  by  participating  countries  and 
stakeholders. 

The EUSBSR, as the other MRS, has already showed that it can play an important role in the 
implementation  of  the  European  Green  Deal  in  the  Baltic  Sea  region.  In  this  regard,  it  is 
important  that  the  actions  developed  in  the  framework  of  the  EUSBSR  continue  to  ensure 
synergies with HELCOM and, as all the other MRS, to be linked with the EU Acquis and its 
implementing  documents  (e.g.  actions  in  the  field  of  energy  and  transport  are  linked  with 
National Energy and Climate Plans and National Air Pollution Control Programs required by 
EU Acquis). 

23 

 
 
 
 
Report on the implementation of the European Union Strategy for the 
Danube Region (EUSDR) 

The  EUDR  is  currently  celebrating  its  10-year  anniversary.  Dating  from  2010  it  was  the 
second macro-regional strategy (MRS) to be launched after the adoption of the EU Strategy 
for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR), and over the years the Strategy has provided stimulus to 
start  new  projects  and  processes  of  macro-regional  relevance.  The  access  to  know-how  and 
best  practices  within  the  macro-region  has  been  of  great  benefit  to  many  actors  at  various 
levels  who  were  looking  for  different  approaches  and  solutions  when  designing  and 
implementing policy. 

Covering  14  countries  that  differ  considerably  in  terms  of  their  development  level  and 
position in  relation  to  the EU, the EUSDR includes nine EU Member States, two candidate 
countries,  one  potential  candidate  country  and  two  neighbouring  countries.  The  EUSDR  is 
organised around four main pillars: 

 

 

 
 

‘Connecting the region’ focuses on improving inland navigation along the Danube and 
promoting culture and tourism.  
‘Protecting the environment’ seeks to restore and maintain water quality, among other 
issues.  
‘Building prosperity’ aims, among other things, to develop the knowledge society.  
‘Strengthening  the  region’  focuses  on  improving  decision-making  capacity  and 
structures in the public and private sector. 

The four pillars are divided into 12 priority areas. 

RESULTS  

Governance and administrative capacity 

General 

The governance structure of the EUSDR consists of the following levels: 

 
 
 
 
 

the national coordinators;  
the presidency;  
the 'Trio presidency' (consisting of the incumbent, past and future presidencies);  
the priority area coordinators;  
the steering groups and their working groups.  

Annual  ministerial  meetings  in  the  EUSDR  are  held  within  the  framework  of  the  annual 
forum that normally takes place in October.  

A major development during the reporting period was the revision of the EUSDR action plan. 
The revision mobilised EUSDR stakeholders on all levels and provided an opportunity to re-
energise political commitment and facilitate convergence between the EUSDR and policies in 
the participating countries and regions. The result is an action plan that is better suited for the 
future,  in  particular  with  respect  to  the  2021-2027  programming  period.  Content-wise,  the 
plan links the Danube macro-regional actions with the new Commission’s priorities, such as 
the Green Deal, sustainable development, digitalisation, migration (of non-EU nationals) and 
demographic  change.  It  also  sets  out  new  measures  to  support  small  and  medium-sized 
enterprises and has specific actions for the tourism sector, which is highly topical given that 
both of these groups have been severely hit by the COVID-19 crisis. 

24 

 
 
Another  key  event  during  the  reporting  period  that  actively  contributed  to  the  Strategy’s 
success  was  the  re-establishment  of  the  Danube  Strategy  Point  (DSP)20.  The  former  DSP 
ceased  its  activities  in  2017,  and  as  a  result,  the  Strategy  lacked  a  coordination  body.  This 
hampered implementation of the Strategy, in particular in coordinating between the different 
priority areas. To address this, during the second half of 2018 the ‘new’ DSP was set up. It is 
run as a single project with two partners, the city of Vienna as Lead Partner, together with the 
Romanian  Ministry  of  Regional  Development  and  Public  Administration.  Key  tasks  for  the 
DSP  include  supporting  EUSDR  stakeholders,  internal  and  external  communication, 
coordination  between  EUSDR  stakeholders  and  financing/funding  instruments,  monitoring 
and  evaluation  and  capacity  building  for  priority  area  coordinators  (PACs)  and  non-EU 
countries.  

In 2019, the Croatian Presidency of the EUSDR took the initiative to draft two documents: a 
paper on EUSDR governance, clarifying the roles of various key actors, and an update of the 
EUSDR rules of procedures. Both of these will be finalised during 2020. 

The level of maturity of the various priority areas differs. While some are still busy building 
their  implementation  machine  (with  a  focus  on  roles  and  responsibilities,  and  ensuring 
institutional  commitments  to  the  macro-regional  work),  others  have  reached  a  level  where 
their key focus is on producing results and outcomes.  

Political level 

The  countries  that  participate  in  the  EUSDR  are  the  Strategy’s  backbone.  Each  year,  the 
EUSDR presidency is handed over to the subsequent country at the annual forum. Within the 
reporting period the Strategy was chaired by  Bulgaria in  2018, by Romania in  2019 and by 
Croatia in 2020. The presidency is assisted by the ‘Trio presidency’ which includes also the 
current presidency and the former and next presidencies. As it was proving difficult to find a 
country  to  voluntarily  take  over  the  presidency  (following  Croatia  in  2021),  the  national 
coordinators decided in the new governance paper to move to a system where the presidencies 
are determined in alphabetical order.  

To support cooperation in the Danube region at political level, annual conferences of Danube 
parliamentarians  take  place  periodically.  These  conferences  are  held  to  keep  national  and 
regional parliaments in the countries along the Danube closely involved with the EUSDR and 
to  support  transparent  decision  making.  The  fifth  conference,  on  4-5  October  2018  in 
Budapest,  focused  on  preventing  climate  change  effects  on  agriculture,  water  management 
and the system of water use. The sixth annual conference was organised in Bucharest on 20-
21  March  2019,  on  the  topic  of  the  Danube  as  a  tourist  brand  and  developing  cooperation 
between the countries in the Danube region by stimulating the development of the knowledge 
society  and  information  technologies.  High-level  political  dialogue  is  also  organised  within 
the  Bled  Strategic  Forum21,  which  is  one  of  the  major  regional  conferences  that  deals  with 
current questions relating to all aspects of society.  

The  EUSDR  annual  forum  provides  an  opportunity  for  the  governments  in  the  EUSDR 
countries  to  express  their  continued  commitment  and  to  give  strategic  direction  to  key 
implementers.  A  ministerial  meeting  is  held  relating  to  each  annual  forum.  The  seventh 
EUSDR annual forum in 2018, took place in Sofia with a focus on developing tourism as a 
precondition  for  economic  growth  and  territorial  cohesion.  A  joint  statement  by  ministers 

20 https://danube-region.eu/contact/danube-strategy-point/ 
21 https://bledstrategicforum.org/ 

25 

 
 
                                                           
responsible  for  tourism  in  the  EUSDR  countries  was  issued22.  The  eighth  EUSDR  annual 
forum on the theme of ‘building cohesion for a shared prosperity in the Danube region’, went 
ahead  in  Bucharest  in  2019.A  Danube  Participation  Day  was  held,  linked  to  this  annual 
forum,  on the theme of ‘Youth  – Participation  – Empowerment’ to  improve engagement by 
the  public  and  civil  society  with  the  Strategy’s  work.  This  addressed  challenges  and 
opportunities for boosting the Danube strategy in light of the changes to the EUSDR action 
plan. The 2020 annual forum is expected to take place in Zagreb in October.  

Additionally, several priority areas are seeking to more closely involve their line ministers to 
gain broader policy support. 

Coordination level 

The national coordinators (NCs) are the focal point at national level and the decision-making 
body for the Strategy. Their primary task is to oversee implementation of the Strategy in their 
countries and ensure that the Strategy is firmly anchored in the national political environment. 
Together, the NCs form the ‘group of NCs’ which meets regularly. 

Each  participating  country  has  to  officially  nominate  a  NC  and  one  or  more  deputies.  The 
NCs  keep  the  current  EUSDR  presidency  and  the  European  Commission  updated  on  an 
continuous basis. 

As the participating countries govern the EUSDR and are the Strategy’s sole owners, the key 
role of NCs, with DSP support upon request, is to coordinate, guide and monitor participation 
in  the  implementation  of  the  EUSDR.  This  includes  engaging  with  all  12  priority  areas 
(including participation in steering group meetings,), and liaising with national line ministries 
and  other  relevant  organisations  to  encourage  them  to  consider  and  implement  EUSDR 
actions in their policy field. 

In  order  to  facilitate  involvement  at  political  level,  all  participating  countries  have  set  up 
mechanisms  at  national  level  to  coordinate  EUSDR  issues.  To  illustrate,  cross-sectoral 
national platforms were set up in several Danube countries — such as Romania, Austria and 
the  relevant  national/regional/local 
Hungary  — 
stakeholders in key development areas and about on-going initiatives. They aim to coordinate 
EUSDR  issues  and  involve  a  wider  range  of  actors,  including  stakeholders  in  charge  of 
cohesion policy operational programmes. 

to  support  continuous  dialogue  by 

Implementation level 

The EUSDR participating countries are responsible for coordinating each priority area. Each 
priority area is managed by at least two Priority area coordinators (PACs), working with their 
steering  group (SG) members. Having an overview of the sector, the PACs’ main role is  to 
identify  key  processes  that  will  achieve  the  Strategy’s  goals  through  different  actions  and 
identifying how to best implement solutions. 

The EUSDR steering groups are the central executive and decision-making bodies at priority 
area  level  for  objectives  and  actions,  formats,  key  areas  of  cooperation,  and  future 
developments.  The  steering  groups  meet,  in  principle,  twice  a  year,  a  requirement  met  by 
most priority areas. However, participation by steering group members at the meetings greatly 
varies  between  priority  areas.  Certain  countries  record  very  high  participation  levels,  while 
others participate more sporadically.  

22  https://danube-region.eu/about/key-documents/  

26 

 
 
                                                           
Some priority areas report that there is continuity in terms of activities developed. Some also 
indicate that the quality of contributions and discussions is very good and that all participants 
are  committed  to  the  work.  Others  however,  have  noted  a  decrease  in  the  level  of 
participation.  In  some  cases,  steering  group  members  have  not  been  empowered  with  the 
necessary  mandate  and  authorisation  to  implement  effective  actions  at  national  level. 
Additionally, in certain cases regular attendance is hampered by limited human resources. In 
particular, it is important to facilitate the participation of steering group members from non-
EU  countries.  Limited  financial  resources  is  one  reason  for  the  low  level  of  participation 
although several priority areas cover travel and accommodation costs.  

As  a  follow-up  to  the  operational  evaluation  of  the  EUSDR,  the  DSP  developed  a  needs 
assessment  regarding  closer  cooperation  in  steering  groups  to  improve  participation  by 
different stakeholder groups from the participating countries.  

Civil society 

Civil society organisations in the Danube region act through platforms based on participatory 
planning, community-building and empowerment. An example of such a platforms is DANET 
- Danube Networkers for Europe23. DANET promotes exchanges and working together in the 
areas of lifelong learning, social participation, dialogue and co-operation between generations 
and cross-cultural dialogue in Europe and particularly in the Danube region. Other examples 
include Transdanube.Pearls24, which focuses on sustainable mobility in tourism by developing 
socially  fair,  economically  viable,  environmentally  friendly  and  health  promoting  mobility 
services  for  visitors  to  the  Danube  region,  and  the  network  of  Danube  Transfer  Centers25, 
which includes partners from across the region.  

Efforts to involve civil society have been made across all EUSDR priority areas. In particular, 
Priority  Area  10  (institutional  capacity  &  cooperation)  focuses  on  the  involvement  of  civil 
society in  public governance. Key outputs include the Agenda  for Participation26 drafted by 
the priority area and the Danube Civil Society Forum27 (DCSF). The DCSF is a member of 
the  steering  group  for  this  priority  area  and  it  also  has  a  working  group,  the  Danube  Local 
Actors  Platform  (D-LAP),  which  consists  of  representatives  from  civil  society,  cities  and 
municipalities. 

In  the  other  priority  areas,  civil  society  has  been  actively  included  in  the  meetings  of  some 
steering groups and in events and annual fora. Some priority areas rely heavily on technical 
input  by  civil  society  organisations,  such  as  environmental  and  nature  protection  within  the 
tasks  forces  in  Priority  Area  6  (biodiversity).  Other  priority  areas,  such  as  Priority  Areas  4 
(water),  5  (environmental  risks)  and  9  (people  &  skills),  focus  on  stakeholder  meetings, 
conferences and events. Priority Area 9 organised several thematic workshops e.g. involving 
teachers with the goal of empowering people with disabilities and young people who are not 
in education or employment. 

Finally,  representatives  of  civil  society  organisations  are  key  partners  in  arranging  and 
implementing  the  National  Participation  Days  and  Danube  Participation  Day,  which  are 

23  http://www.foragenetwork.eu/database/item/702-danet-danube-networkers-for-europe/DANET%20-

%20Danube%20Networkers%20for%20Europe 

24  http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/transdanube-pearls 
25  https://steinbeis-austria.eu/danube-transfer-center 
26  https://www.danube-capacitycooperation.eu/files/255 
27  https://dcsf.danubestrategy.eu/ 

27 

 
 
                                                           
important platforms that bring together public administration representatives and civil society 
organisations and coordinate the implementation of the EUSDR at national/regional level. 

Multi-level governance 

Actors  from  different  administrative  levels  are  involved  in  the  Strategy's  governance 
structure, although to varying degrees. The participating countries have put structures in place 
to encourage multi-level involvement. Priority Area 10 (institutional capacity & cooperation) 
deals  with  institutional  capacity-building  at  local,  regional  and  national  level.  In  order  to 
provide  an  inclusive  platform  to  support  exchanges  and  cooperation  by  local  actors  in  the 
Danube  region,  Priority  Area  10  created  the  Danube  Local  Actors  Platform  (D-LAP) 
mentioned above. 

Actions  have  also  been  taken  at  national  and  regional  level.  In  Austria,  a  coordination 
platform  was  set  up  at  national  level.  It  functions  as  a  platform  for  actors  from  national, 
regional  and  local  levels,  social  and  economic  partners,  and  NGOs.  Community-Led  Local 
Development (CLLD) is a particular format for the inclusion of local stakeholders, conducted 
by  Local  Action  Groups  (LAGs)  based  on  local  integrated  development  strategies.  In 
Bulgaria, conservation  measures  for habitats  and species in  the Natura  2000 network which 
fall within the scope of the EUSDR, are implemented through such CLLD LAGs. 

In Baden-Württemberg, the Minister responsible for policy coordination has been appointed 
special  envoy  for  the  implementation  of  the  EUSDR.  This  special  role  allows  for  cross-
sectoral  coordination  of  Danube  activities  across  all  issues  and  levels  of  government. 
Different  levels  of  government  are  involved  in  implementing  the  EUSDR  in  Baden-
Württemberg, such as the city of Ulm, as well as other smaller municipalities. Other levels of 
government,  e.g. Regierungspräsidium  Stuttgart, have  also  been involved in  partnerships on 
many issues. 

Policy and thematic priorities  

Achievements 

A key added value of the EUSDR is that it brings together new actors across sectors, countries 
and  levels.  Macro-regional  cooperation  stimulates  policy  learning  at  all  levels.  EUSDR  has 
proven  to  be  a  useful  tool  for  focusing  the  attention  of  politicians,  administrations,  cluster 
organisations,  educational  and  cultural  institutions  and  civil  society  organisations    on  the 
Danube region.  

During the reporting period, actions with a distinct macro-regional added value continued to 
be implemented, as shown by the examples provided below (see box).  

Implementing the Strategy also brings ‘side benefits’ and unintentional gains. MRS activities 
very often complement formal policy processes and/or the implementation of tangible projects 
by adding a soft policy element. This is illustrated by the following examples: 

  Promoting actions to put harmonised border control procedures in place for navigation 
while  implementing  the  EU  regulatory  framework  of  border  control  at  the  EU’s 
external  borders  (joint  working  group  for  Priority  Area  1A  -  navigation  and  Priority 
Area 11 - security). 

  Thematic  agenda  setting  and  pilot  initiatives  by  Priority  Area  9  (people  &  skills)  in 
relation to the labour market and education policy, as part of social policy processes 
complementing activities at national and European level. 

28 

 
 
  Priority  Area  1B  (land  transport)  serving  as  a  valuable  format  for  macro-regional 
exchanges on transport issues in the Danube region - complementing existing forms of 
EU and international cooperation on transport and infrastructure policy issues.  

Finally,  there  is  a  specific  added  value  in  involving  non-EU  countries  in  managing  priority 
areas  as  a  way  of  supporting  the  preparations  and  initiatives  the  countries  are  taking  in 
connection with their aspirations to EU membership. 

Project examples: 

Pillar 1 - Connecting the Danube region 

The  key  focus  of  Priority  Area  1A  (navigation)  has  been  on  implementing  the  Fairway 
Rehabilitation  and  Maintenance  Master  Plan  and  rolling  out  harmonised  border  control 
procedures for Danube navigation. At present, more than EUR 70 million have been invested 
through  EU  co-financed  projects  within  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility,  the  ESI  Funds 
national  operational  programmes  and  the  Instrument  for  Pre-accession  Assistance  (IPA) 
between  2014  and  2020.  Key  projects  —  FAIRway  Danube28  and  other  EU  co-financed 
initiatives — constitute a major proportion of the necessary investments. As a result, fairway 
conditions  are  improving  at  several  critical  waterway  sections.  The  DARLINGe  project29 
was  initiated  and  supported  by  Priority  Area  2  (energy),  based  on  an  earlier  study  of  the 
geothermal potential of the region. In this project 15 partners representing geological surveys, 
universities, 
regional  energy  and  development  agencies,  ministries  and 
municipalities,  assisted  by  7  associated  strategic  partners  from  Hungary,  Slovenia,  Croatia, 
Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Serbia  and  Romania  worked  together  to  improve  energy  security 
and efficiency by promoting the sustainable utilization of the existing, however still largely 
untapped deep geothermal resources in the heating sector.  

industry, 

Pillar 2 - Protecting the environment in the Danube region 
The  JOINTISZA  project30  of  Priority  Areas  4  (water)  and  5  (environmental  risks)  was  a 
project  financed  by  the  Interreg  Danube  Transnational  Programme  for  EUR  2.3  million 
between 2017 and 2019. It aimed to improve the status of the waters of the Tisza river basin 
and save its ecosystem for future generations, including the Tisza mayfly. The project was a 
joint  effort  by  the  institutions  of  all  the  five  countries  that  share  the  Tisza  river  basin 
(Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Ukraine) and other stakeholders and sectors. The 
results of the project  were endorsed by ministers from  all the Tisza countries in  September 
2019, signing a memorandum of understanding to ensure the joint implementation of the plan 
produced in the framework of the JOINTISZA project.  

Pillar 3 - Building prosperity in the Danube region 
Priority Area 7 (knowledge society) has been actively working on RIS331 development in the 
Danube  region. These activities have strong support from  the Joint Research Centre (JRC). 
The Serbian co-priority area coordinator (PAC) is a leader of the Serbian RIS3 team and is 
also  a  member  of  the  JRC  Board  of  Governors.  In  2019,  Montenegro  finalised  its  Smart 
Specialization Strategy, while Serbia is in the final phase of finalising its strategy. Bosnia and 

28  http://www.fairwaydanube.eu/ 
29  http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/darlinge 
30  http://www.interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/jointisza 
31  National/Regional Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3). 

29 

 
 
 
                                                           
Herzegovina, Moldova and Ukraine have also started the process of drafting their RIS3. The 
Danube Funding Cooperation Network (DFCN)32 continued to coordinate and synchronise 
national,  bilateral  and  regional  efforts  to  support  multilateral  cooperation  in  research  and 
innovation  in  the  Danube  region.  Achievements  included  starting  to  work  with  the  COST 
Association33  including  organising  a  ‘Cost-Connect’  event  on  sustainable  energy  in  the 
Danube region in October 2018 in Belgrade, and opening a second call to support multilateral 
scientific cooperation in the Danube region. 

Pillar 4 - Strengthening the Danube region 

Work  carried  out  by  Priority  Area  10  (institutional  cooperation)  has  mobilised  NGOs, 
individuals and volunteers to engage directly with their neighbours across borders. This has 
generated several interesting projects. An example is Tastes of Danube – Bread Connects34, 
run by DANET. The idea is  to  have people experience bread as a form  of cultural  heritage 
that  they  all  share  and  that  unites  them  in  their  diversity.  In  2018,  the  European  Economic 
and Social Committee (EESC) awarded its civil society award (first prize) to the project.  

Policy impact 

The  Strategy  has  been  important  in  mobilising  political  capital  within  the  region  and 
institutionalising networks of stakeholders on many levels, which would not have materialised 
otherwise.  It  has  helped  to  encourage  better  policy  dialogue,  greater  visibility  of  and 
engagement  from  actors  and  has  been  instrumental  in  supporting  better  cooperation  and 
information  exchange.  In  addition,  it  has  helped  develop  innovative  funding  solutions  and 
rejuvenate the role of existing regional initiatives along the Danube River. Furthermore, it has 
contributed to the implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements relevant for the 
EUSDR territory, such as the Danube River Protection Convention35, e.g. in the field of water 
quality, and the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the 
Carpathians (Carpathian Convention)36, e.g. in the field of biodiversity. 

The following examples demonstrate the different types of activities:  

the 

Political commitment to coordinate planning: activities in Priority Area 1A (navigation) have 
brought  about  a  series  of  ministerial  conclusions.  Following 
invitation  from 
Commissioners Elisa Ferreira (Cohesion and Reforms) and Adina Vălean (Transport), on 30 
June 2020 10 transport ministers of Danube riparian countries reconfirmed their commitment 
to implementing the Fairway Rehabilitation and Maintenance Master Plan for the Danube and 
its  navigable  tributaries,  as  adopted  in  December  2014.  In  their  conclusions,  ministers 
announced  the  necessary  national  budgets  and  that  they  would  make  full  use  of  EU  co-
financing  opportunities  to  implement  required  measures.  They  also  welcomed  the  proposed 
harmonised border control forms (arrival and departure reports, crew lists and  passenger lists) 
– the result of the joint working group of EUSDR Priority Area 1A (navigation) and Priority 
Area 11  (security).  They  support the embedding  of national  thematic priorities in  line with 
the ‘Council Conclusions on Inland Waterway Transport of 3 December 2018’ in the ongoing 
national  programming  processes  for  the  ESI  Funds  post  2020,  where  applicable.  They  also 

32  https://knowledgesociety.danube-region.eu/working-groups/wg-3-newly-established-danube-funding-

coordination-network-dfcn/ 

33  https://www.cost.eu/ 
34  https://sharingheritage.de/en/projects/tastes-of-danube-bread-connects/ 
35  https://www.icpdr.org/main/icpdr/danube-river-protection-convention 
36  http://www.carpathianconvention.org/ 

30 

 
 
                                                           
stress  the  need  to  pursue  the  implementation  of  important  flanking  measures,  such  as  the 
reduction  of  administrative  barriers  in  cross-border  Danube  navigation,  the  development  of 
land-side infrastructure (in  particular mooring places) and the further greening of the inland 
fleet in order to reach the ambitious targets of the ‘European Green Deal’. 

They encourage the further digitalisation of border control processes, amongst others with the 
help  of the CEF co-financed RIS COMEX project.  That  project  also  facilitates cross-border 
control procedures and encourage all Danube riparian states to engage in the development of 
digitalised  waterway  infrastructure  and  traffic  management  systems  in  line  with  the  Digital 
Inland Navigation endeavour. 

Hungary, Croatia and Serbia have already started using the so called DAVID forms in their 
border  control  procedures,  replacing  their  national  forms.  Romania,  Bulgaria,  Ukraine  and 
Moldova  –  the  four  other  Danube  riparian  countries  –  intend  to  follow  by  the  end  of  2021. 
Another  policy  topic  discussed  is  the  greening  and  modernisation  of  the  Danube  fleet.  A 
workshop with  stakeholders and policy makers  was organised in  spring  2019, resulting in  a 
consolidated policy recommendation on fleet modernisation.  

Development  of  the  task  force:  Within  the  framework  of  Priority  Area  6  (biodiversity),  the 
Danube Sturgeon Task Force (DSTF)37 has become a recognised player in relation to sturgeon 
conservation  in  the  Danube  region.  As  a  result  of  its  work,  the  WePass38  projects  was 
launched to facilitate fish migration in the Danube river basin. Preparation and planning for a 
ministerial  conference  on  Priority  Area  6  (biodiversity)  related  topics  started  in  2019.  As  a 
result, the Bavarian State Minister for Environment and Consumer Protection has invited all 
Environmental  Ministers  from  the  Danube  countries  and  the  European  Commission’s 
Commissioner  for  the  Environment  to  a  ministerial  conference  to  be  held  in  Munich  in 
October 2020. Starting from the revised EUSDR action plan, the conference will express its 
commitment to the revised targets and activities and draw strategic conclusions on the further 
need  for  action  at  different  levels  (topics,  governance  mechanisms,  funding  requirements). 
The aim is to adopt a joint declaration.  

Policy brief: Priority Area 9 (people & skills) has set up a constant exchange process with all 
of the Danube region countries regarding national developments in the fields of education and 
the labour market. As part of this, the priority area published the ‘Danube Region Monitor – 
People and Skills’ report to demonstrate developments in the countries with respect to labour 
market  and  education.  The  report  includes  detailed  information  and  statistics  on  recent 
developments  in  the  labour  market  and  education  systems  of  the  Danube  region.  It  can  be 
used by the authorities in all of the Danube region countries as a basis for further policy work 
in relation to the labour market and education. 

Monitoring and evaluation 

Monitoring 

Progress on implementing EUSDR actions is monitored through reporting on targets. National 
coordinators (NCs) and priority area coordinators (PACs) have important roles to play in this 
reporting.  At  national  level,  monitoring  is  carried  out  by  the  NCs  through  coordination 
structures set up between the relevant ministries. At the level of the priority areas, the steering 
groups  are  crucial  in  monitoring  the  progress  of  their  areas.  In  addition,  each  PAC  reports 
regularly  on  implementation  of  the  priority  area  to  the  DSP.  In  addition,  as  all  PACs  are 

37  https://dstf.info/about/ 
38  https://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/we-pass 

31 

 
 
                                                           
funded  as  projects  under  the  Interreg  Danube  Transnational  Programme  (DTP),  each  PAC 
also  reports  its  activities  according  to  the  rules  for  reporting  under  this  programme. 
Monitoring  at  project  level  is  done  at  the  level  of  each  priority  area  but  also  by  the 
programmes under which the projects are funded. 

Monitoring and reporting of progress and achievements by priority area activities has been the 
subject of discussion since 2014. In 2016 the former DSP introduced a plan for a monitoring 
system  that  did  not  become  operational.  The  EUSDR  NCs  decided  in  September  2017  in 
Budapest that the current DSP should be tasked with preparing a new monitoring system. 

In addition, specific initiatives were taken by several priority areas. To illustrate, Priority Area 
1A (navigation) carried out a gap analysis during the autumn of 2018. The aim was to identify 
themes  and geographic locations for additional project  initiatives, in  the light  of targets  that 
had been set.  In 2019, Priority Area 6 (biodiversity) commissioned a study on opportunities 
and proposals for a revised roadmap. The study provides further recommendations on how to 
improve and generate a tool that can serve as the basis for improving the governance of the 
priority area. It also provides proposals and guidance on how to implement more output-based 
and added value actions to reach the EUSDR goals in future. 

Alongside  EUSDR  monitoring,  cooperation  with  initiatives  that  generate  evidence  of 
territorial dynamics and trends will remain beneficial and may ease the (re-definition of future 
focuses (e.g. the ESPON Macro-Regional and Territorial Monitoring Tool (EMTM) that will 
be prepared during 2020). 

Evaluation 

As a first step, in June 2019 the DSP commissioned an operational evaluation with a focus on 
EUSDR governance, communication and stakeholder involvement. This evaluation provided 
valuable input for the revision of the action plan. An impact evaluation is planned for 2021. 
No systematic evaluation of the priority areas has been carried out at Strategy level to date.  

Funding  

Funding mobilisation 

The  Interreg  Danube  Transnational  Programme  (DTP)  continues  to  be  the  most  utilised 
source of funding  for implementing projects  under the  EUSDR  action  plan. Over the  years, 
integration  and  alignment  of  the  EUSDR  with  the  DTP  has  greatly  helped  in  conceiving, 
developing and co-financing EUSDR projects. In this respect, it is worth mentioning that DTP 
not only contributes to implementing the Strategy but also funds the DSP and all PACs.  

However,  as  the  budget  of  the  DTP  is  rather  small  and  is  therefore  limited  to 
projects/activities with a relatively small budget, additional funds are needed to finance larger 
projects/activities. Important additional sources are other Interreg programmes in the region, 
including  ERDF,  IPA  and  ENI  cross-border  cooperation  programmes.  Furthermore,  the 
Interreg  Central  Europe  transnational  programme  provided  financial  support  to  several 
projects under Priority Area 4 in the field of water management.  

Although  there  is  still  room  for  improvement,  funding  has  also  been  secured  from 
‘mainstream’ (i.e. regional and national) ESI Funds programmes. To illustrate, the 2014-2020 
Bulgarian  operational  programme  ‘Environment’  contributes  to  the  achievement  of  the 
objectives  in  the  priority  areas  under  Pillar  2  (Protecting  the  environment  in  the  Danube 
region) of the EUSDR, while the Hungarian ‘Environment and Energy Efficiency’ operational 
programme contributes more than EUR 2.5 billion to implementing Priority Areas 2 (energy), 
4 (water), 5 (environmental risks) and 6 (biodiversity).  

32 

 
 
Several  ESIF  programmes  allocate  extra  points  in  the  selection  process  to  projects  that 
support  the  EUSDR.  The  Romanian  ‘Large  Infrastructure  Programme  ERDF/CF’  allocated 
extra  points  to  biodiversity  and  energy  projects  with  a  macro-regional  dimension.  The 
monitoring  committees  for  three  programmes  (‘Human  Resources  Development  in  Bulgaria 
(ESF)’,  ‘Research  and  Innovation  in  Slovakia  (ERDF)’,  and  ‘Interreg  V-A  –  Romania-
Hungary’) allocate funds to EUSDR objectives through targeted calls for proposals. 

EUSDR  projects  have  also  been  co-financed  by  other  EU  funding  instruments,  such  as  the 
Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), Erasmus, LIFE, COSME and Horizon 2020. The CEF has 
been  of  particular  importance  to  projects  in  Priority  Areas  1A  (navigation)  and  1B  (land-
transport).  COSME  funded  several  projects  in  Priority  Area  3  (tourism  &  culture)39,  while 
Horizon  2020  supported  projects  in  Priority  Areas  4  (water),  5  (environmental  risks)  and  7 
(knowledge  society),  notably  the  DAREnet  project40  (to  strengthen  flood  resilience  in  the 
Danube region). Erasmus funding was also explored by Priority Area 7 (knowledge society). 
As  an  illustration,  the  INVET  project41  in  Slovakia  introduces  elements  of  vocational 
education  and  training,  using  experience  and  best  practice  from  Germany  and  Austria.  The 
project LIFE Sterlet42 supports the conservation of sturgeons. 

A    number  of  other  initiatives  have  also  been  taken  in  order  to  facilitate  the  funding  of 
projects. The Danube Project Support Toolkit is a first step towards setting up and improving 
funding  instruments  relevant  to  the  Danube  region.  EuroAccess  Macro-Regions  already 
provides practical guidance on funding, including an overview of all financing possibilities in 
the Danube region and the other MRS. 

Finally,  in  addition  to  looking  for  new  funding,  on-going  projects  such  as  LIFE  Integrated 
Projects  (e.g.  for  clean  air  in  Hungary,  Slovakia  and  Bulgaria)  could  also  provide  useful 
building  blocks  for  closer  cooperation  and  exchange  of  best  practice  on  shared  problems  in 
the EUSDR area. 

Embedding 

As discussed above, the DTP alone cannot cover, by far, all requests for funding to implement 
the  revised  action  plan.  That  is  why,  it  is  necessary  to  embed  the  Strategy  in  other  funding 
programmes.  In  November  2019,  on  the  initiative  of  the  Croatian  EUSDR  Presidency,  the 
EUSDR embedding task force was set up with the aim of facilitating access to other financial 
sources,  notably  ESI  Funds  mainstream  national  and  regional  programmes.  The  focus  is  on 
facilitating  the  embedding  of  the  Strategy’s  priorities  in  mainstream  programmes  of  the 
upcoming 2021-2027 programming period. The revised EUSDR action plan provides a good 
starting point for the exercise.  

To date, two meetings of the task force have been held (Vienna, January 2020 and Brussels, 
February 2020). The revised action plan contains 85 actions. As a first step, it was agreed to 
shortlist 2-3 strategic topics per priority area for embedding.  To help streamline the process 
and to  coordinate the next  steps by key stakeholders in  the process  (e.g.  PACs  and NCs), a 
‘Guidance paper for embedding the EUSDR into EU programmes’ was provided, along with a 
tool to support stakeholders in identifying strategic topics. These identified strategic topics are 

39  http://danubecc.org/dcc-projects/supporting-the-promotion-and-development-of-transnational-thematic-

tourism-products-linked-to-cultural-and-creative-industries-sditoroman/ 
http://danubecc.org/europe-invites-danube-connects-joint-marketing-campaign-on-chinese-market/ 

40  https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/740750 
41  https://www.project-invet.eu/about/ 
42  http://life-sterlet.boku.ac.at/index.php/home.html 

33 

 
 
                                                           
 
considered as fundable topics for the tentative second DTP Seed Money Facility call. The aim 
is  to  raise awareness  at  national  level  (e.g. by organising thematic events) in  the authorities 
responsible for the ESI, IPA and NDICI funds and to increase coordination with them.  

The  EUSDR  countries  are  at  different  stages  in  the  embedding  process  and  start  from 
different  levels.  However,  everyone  agrees  that  the  ambition  should  be  to  strive  for  an 
embedding  that  goes  beyond  the  identification  of  strategic  projects  with  macro-regional 
relevance (project labelling). It is also noted that in addition to the ESI and IPA programmes, 
the previous ENI (now NDICI) programmes need to be taken into account as they are relevant 
for  some  EUSDR  participating  states  and  their  neighbouring  regions.  Most  participating 
countries have initiated some kind of ‘embedding’ structured dialogue between MRS and EU 
programmes authorities. 

At the level of EUSDR priority areas, the picture varies. Priority Area 7 (knowledge society) 
contributed  to  the  preparation  of  the  joint  proposal  by  Priority  Areas  7  –  8  –  9  on  ‘Better 
embedding  of  the  EUSDR’s  Prosperity  pillar  into  suitable  funding  instruments’43.  Priority 
Area 9 (people & skills), working with Priority Area 10 (institutional cooperation), organised 
several network meetings of the ESF managing authorities in the Danube Region. The aim of 
these  meetings  was  to  identify  relevant  policy  areas  and  necessary  factors  for  successful 
transnational  cooperation  in  the  ESF  in  2021-2027  in  the  Danube  region.  During  these 
meetings  a  common  text  module  was  prepared  for  the  2021-2027  operational  programmes 
supporting transnational cooperation. 

Communication 

The  DSP  is  the  coordinating  and  connecting  structure  between  countries  and  key 
implementers  of  the  EUSDR  acting  as  a  communication  hub.  During  the  reporting  period 
important  actions  were  taken  to  improve  EUSDR  communication  with  the  DSP,  as  a  key 
coordinating actor. The results include a success story brochure, a new, interactive promotion 
video, an almost final version of the EUSDR communication strategy and a communication 
guide.  More  specifically,  the  EUSDR  communication  guide  aims  to  support  all  parties 
information  on  EUSDR  effectively.  The  annual  EUSDR 
involved 
communication plan was endorsed and is currently being implemented. EUSDR social media 
platforms  have  become  reliable  sources  of  information  and  are  keeping  a  growing  EUSDR 
online community up-to-date on the Danube strategy. The latest news are shared on Twitter 
(@EUSDR  with  over  1100  followers),  LinkedIn  (over  1000  contacts)  and  Facebook  (over 
3300 followers) on an ongoing basis. 

in  spreading 

Communication activities are also carried out at the level of the priority areas, who run their 
own  websites  through  the  DSP  platform.  The  priority  areas  are  also  active  on  social  media 
and  sometimes  produce  their  own  information  brochures.  They  also  provide  information  on 
their activities to the DSP, as the coordinator of EUSDR communication activities.   

At national level, the NCs have a key role to play in communicating about the Strategy and 
information  is  provided  through  various  means.  Several  national  administrations  run 
dedicated  web  pages  for  the  EUSDR  that  provide  information  on  activities  related  to  the 
Danube  strategy.  In  addition,  some  have  launched  information  campaigns  on  national 
television, carried out open-door events and produced promotional materials.  In Austria, the 
Austrian  Conference  on  Spatial  Planning  (ÖROK)  plays  a  key  role  in  disseminating 
information to interested stakeholders.  

43  https://knowledgesociety.danube-region.eu/joint-proposals-of-the-priority-areas-7-8-9-of-the-eusdr-on-better-

embedding-of-the-eusdrs-prosperity-pillar-into-suitable-funding/  

34 

 
 
                                                           
A key annual communication event is the EUSDR annual forum, usually held in October each 
year. As noted above, the seventh EUSDR annual forum in 2018 took place in Sofia with a 
focus on tourism development as a precondition for economic growth and territorial cohesion. 
The eighth EUSDR annual forum on the theme of ‘Building cohesion for shared prosperity in 
the Danube Region’ went ahead in  Bucharest in 2019 and attracted almost 900 participants. 
The  2020  annual  forum  is  expected  to  take  place  in  Zagreb.  Another  annual  event  is  the 
Danube Region Cooperation Forum held in Galați, Romania.  

In order to further strengthen the stakeholder capacity in the field of communication, the DSP 
organised  a  communication  workshop  in  December  2019  in  Zagreb,  focusing  on  key 
messages and stakeholder involvement..  

Cooperation within and across Strategies 

Cooperation within the EUSDR 

Cooperation  takes  place  between  priority  areas  in  the  same  pillar  and  globally  within  the 
Strategy.  Several  exchange  workshops  and  meetings  were  organised  for  all  Pillar  1  PACs 
(Priority  Areas  1,  2,  3)  to  lay  the  basis  for  cooperation  and  to  harmonise  administrative 
processes. Together with Priority Area 11 (security), Priority Area 1A (navigation) organised 
six  working  group  and  coordination  meetings  on  administrative  processes  in  the  reporting 
period and the two priority areas cooperated on developing harmonised border control forms. 

Priority Areas 4, 5 and 6 organised several joint events, focusing on funding and on thematic 
knowledge  sharing  and  exchange,  A  joint  workshop  with  priority  areas  from  Pillar  3  was 
organised  on  flood  protection  education  in  the  Danube  river  basin.  Priority  Area  4  (water) 
closely cooperates with Priority Area 6 (biodiversity) on migratory fish in the framework of 
the Danube Sturgeon Task Force.  

Furthermore,  Priority  Areas  4,  5  and  6  have  cooperated  with  organizations  relevant  for  the 
EUSDR  territory,  such  as  the  International  Commission  for  the  Protection  of  the  River 
Danube (ICPDR)44 and the Carpathian Convention. For example, the Carpathian Convention 
actively  participates  in  EUSDR  PA6  (biodiversity)  steering  group  meetings  and,  on  6-7 
November  2019,  the  PA  4  (and  the  Hungarian  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Ministry  of 
Interior) organized together with ICPDR a workshop on water and agriculture in Budapest. In 
there, among other topics, the Guidance Document on Sustainable Agriculture in the Danube 
River Basin was introduced.  

The DTP capitalisation strategy is very much appreciated and has been used to identify cross-
cutting topics, for instance by means of a capitalisation workshop. Several joint steering group 
meetings  for  Priority  Areas  7  (knowledge  society),  8  (competitiveness)  and  9  (people  & 
skills) supported thematic exchanges between these priority areas.  

Priority Area 10 (institutional cooperation), in cooperation with EuroVienna, aligned Danube 
Strategic Project Fund projects with all other EUSDR priority areas. 

As  mentioned  above,  the  DSP  is  currently  developing  a  needs  assessment  for  closer 
cooperation between PACs and relevant stakeholders (funding institutions, civil society fora, 
regional/local authorities etc.) 

44  https://www.icpdr.org/main 

35 

 
 
                                                           
Cooperation across MRS  

Several  EUSDR  priority  areas  cooperate  with  other  MRS.  Priority  Area  1B  (land  transport) 
works  with  EUSAIR  (Thematic  Steering  Group  2)  and  EUSALP  (Action  Group  4).  In  the 
field of biodiversity, ecological  connectivity and green infrastructure, EUSDR priority areas 
work with the EUSALP and the EUSAIR. In particular, Priority Area 6 (biodiversity) initiated 
an exchange with the relevant priority area coordinators in the other MRS working with issues 
related to biodiversity to explore ways on how to strengthen synergies and avoid duplication 
of actions and funding and increase the efficiency of limited national capacity. 

Exchanges  of  views  on  implementation  and  links  to  similar  activities  within  the  EUSBSR 
were  produced  during  the  meetings  of  MRS  transport  coordinators  organised  by  Interact. 
Cooperation  is  in  place  with  the  EUSBSR  on  detecting  pharmaceuticals  in  water,  and 
EUSBSR representatives participated in a steering group meeting of Priority Area 2 (energy).  

Finally,  several  members  of  the  EUSDR  steering  committees  are  also  members  of  similar 
groupings  in  other  MRS  which  allows  for  grater  synergy,  connecting  similar  activities  and 
exchange of good practices. 

CHALLENGES 

Governance and administrative capacity 

The main  challenge for  the EUSDR  is  that political  commitment is  still weak  and has been 
losing  momentum  over  time.  This  can  be  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  it  has  been  difficult  to 
encourage participating countries to apply for the presidency of the Strategy. As the Strategy 
is  a  long-term  process,  it  is  vital  that  capacity  and  resources  continue  to  be  provided  to 
implement the Strategy and strengthen national coordination mechanisms.  

Implementation  of  the  Strategy  is  hindered  by  a  lack  of  formalised  cooperation  between 
EUSDR stakeholders (NCs, PACs, SG members) and the programme (managing) authorities 
of  national/regional  EU  funding  programmes.  Horizontal  exchange  among  priority  areas  is 
still limited and the work of SG often appears limited to the sectorial theme. 

In addition, the issue of administrative capacity of PACs and SG members is still a challenge 
that requires an appropriate response at national and regional level – mainly, but not only in 
the candidate and neighbourhood countries. As highlighted by Montenegro, it is necessary to 
ensure  the  continuity  and  stability  of  national  structures  implementing  this  complex  EU 
policy:  ‘We  need  MRS  experts,  who  will  help  us  to  boost  up  the  implementation  of  the 
Strategy and programme. For the IPA countries, MRS represents in a way also the possibility 
to know more about the EU and the way is functioning’.  

The position of individual PACs remains rather difficult, as in many cases they have neither 
the funds nor the political and administrative support and backing to implement a broad set of 
targets.  In  addition,  steering  group  members  that  should  be  mandated  and  able  to  take 
strategic  decisions,  often  lack  the  necessary  project  development  and  implementation  skills. 
Furthermore, project  experts do not always have  overarching strategies in mind, but  mainly 
focus  on  the  interests  of  their  organisation  or  individual  project.  Steering  group  meetings 
become  fora  for  distributing  information  instead  of  platforms  for  real  debate  and  policy 
development.  On  top  of  this,  there  is  a  lack  of  continuity  of  staff,  in  particular  at  steering 
group level, which hampers the work.  

The situation could be illustrated by the following examples: 

36 

 
 
The challenge for Priority Area 8 (competitiveness) is to ensure the continuous involvement 
and participation of competent representatives from the relevant key ministries and business 
organisations.  Stronger  coordination  of  the  complex  structure  of  decision-makers,  business 
supporters  and  other  stakeholders  has  to  be  ensured  as  their  input  and  identification  with 
Priority  Area  8  targets  is  an  important  success  factor.  In  addition,  staff  turn-over  entail  a 
certain  change  of  working  culture  and  influence  the  whole  process.  In  2019,  the  PACs  for 
Priority  Area  8  tried  to  contact  the  NCs  to  receive  new  nominations  for  the  SG  without 
success.  

Priority Area 6 (biodiversity) reports that although the SG works well, it remains unclear why 
certain  participating  countries  do  not  send  representatives  to  the  meetings,  even  though 
funding  for  travel  and  accommodation  costs  is  available  from  the  SG  budget.  The  main 
challenge is to encourage those countries that regularly do not participate in the meetings and 
do not reply to e-mails from the PACs to take a more active role.  

Representation of the EUSDR countries in the Priority Area 7 (knowledge society) SG is not 
at  a  satisfactory  level.  Since  PACs  do  not  have  the  proper  means  to  motivate  SG  members 
into more actively contributing to the priority area, stimulating activities at national level may 
have the required effect. 

In  addition,  several  stakeholders  stress  that  guidance  and  support  by  the  European 
Commission  remains  critical  to  ensuring  stability  and  continuation  in  the  whole  process. 
Some  argue  that  the  need  for  active  support  by  the  European  Commission  is  particularly 
crucial for the Danube region. In comparison to other macro-regional strategies, the EUSDR 
has a far more diverse partnership (e.g. many non-EU countries and high disparities in terms 
of prosperity  and development). PACs  reported that  while representatives from  DG REGIO 
would occasionally contribute to and follow discussions at SG meetings, some line-DGs did 
not participate at all, and it was very difficult to get speakers from the European Commission 
at events.  

There  is  also  still  room  for  improvement  in  involving  civil  society  in  some  priority  areas. 
Although its involvement is one of the EU’s core principles and is widely supported in official 
statements,  there  is  still  a  certain  reluctance  to  initiate  participatory  governance.  The 
structured involvement of and support for civil society in the EUSDR governance structures 
and respective supporting instruments at a broad level is still a challenge.  

Policy and thematic priorities 

There  is  still  room  to  improve  policy  coherence.  The  Strategy’s  objectives  do  not  translate 
into the work of SG and their work does not generate enough tangible projects/activities and 
outputs. In addition, there is a lack of continuity in the political priorities of each presidency. 
Some stakeholders argue that there is a need for a more strategic vision for implementing the 
Strategy.  They  also  call  for  the  application  of  a  strategic  approach  through  strategic 
projects/initiatives,  which  could  help  to  increase  the  EUSDR’s  effectiveness  and  visibility. 
Future  development  plans  should  be  better  highlighted  in  the  thematic  work.  Imaginative 
projects like ESPON territorial visons could provide helpful input. 

Monitoring and evaluation 

Following  the  2016update  of  EUSDR  targets,  the  revision  of  the  EUSDR  action  plan  has 
revived the discussion about a monitoring and evaluation system for the Strategy. As part of 
this, identifying indicators and baselines in the course of revising of the action plan has been a 
challenge.  Indicators  should  be  impact  orientated.  However,  it  is  often  not  possible  to 
establish  causal  links  between  potential  indicators  and  EUSDR  activities.  Hence,  the 

37 

 
 
challenge  lies  in  striking  a  meaningful  balance.  However,  during  the  revision  of  the  action 
plan, some priority areas were not able to provide any indicators or measurable targets at all.  

Another issue is the current reporting system in place, which has been criticised by PACs for 
increasing administrative workload while not being sufficiently systematic.  

Funding 

Quite  a  lot  of  concern  has  been  expressed  regarding  the  lack  of  financial  resources  and 
commitment  and  a  gap  in  alignment  of  funds.  The  need  to  reduce  the  gap  between  the 
Strategy’s needs and funding opportunities is underlined, as the DTP’s budget — despite the 
growing number of projects and initiatives being financed — is considered by far too small to 
support  the  Strategy’s  objectives.  Difficulties  in  securing  funding  from  mainstream 
national/regional programmes have been particularly highlighted.  

Although the EUSDR is mentioned in many of the national/regional operational programmes 
for  the  2014-2020  period  and  EUSDR  aspects  are  present  in  some  calls,  there  is  no  clear 
pattern  to  the  correlation.  Some  programmes  do  not  refer  at  all  to  the  MRS.  Looking 
specifically at the project selection process, all projects are subject to competition based calls 
and criteria. In this process, whether a project contributes to implementing an MRS is rarely 
recognised  as  a  positive  selection  criterion.  Consultations  have  been  carried  out  between 
national  coordinators  and  managing  authorities  on  how  to  better  embed  the  EUSDR  in  ESI 
Funds  programmes.  However,  no  substantial  results  were  reached  and  further  efforts  were 
postponed  until  the  first  drafts  of  programming  documents  for  2021-2027  are  available. 
Candidate  countries  regard  the  lack  of  funds  as  the  main  challenge  in  implementing  the 
Strategy.  

Currently,  priority  areas  are  working  with  their  national  coordinators  (who  take  part  in 
programming task force meetings) on embedding their priorities. However, some stakeholders 
note the limited influences of national coordinators on the embedding process as they do not 
always have the capacity to participate in and follow all mainstream operational programmes, 
CBC  and  transnational  cooperation  programmes.  Moreover,  cooperation  between  priority 
areas  and  NCs  tend  to  follow  national  lines.  Limited  information  is  available  in  relation  to 
how PACs ensure that the embedding is taken forward by SG members. Some priority areas 
note  that  no  structured  dialogue  takes  place  in  the  steering  group.  Others  note  that  the 
embedding process highlights the need for further capacity building in relation to EU funding 
and the added value of the MRS, specifically focused on ministries and other stakeholders.  

Embedding into EU centrally managed programmes remains for many a particular challenge. 
A  generally  expressed  view  is  that  funds  directly  managed  by  the  Commission  (such  as 
Horizon 2020, COSME, Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), LIFE, Erasmus+ and Europe for 
Citizens)  could  be  better  utilised,  and  more  could  be  done  in  order  to  inform  people  about 
their  existence.  However,  it  is  worth  noting  that  calls  within  such  programmes  are  highly 
competitive.  This  is  why  some  stakeholders  call  on  the  Commission  to  promote  the 
participation  of  the  MRS  in  directly  managed  EU  funding  programmes,  in  particular  by 
formulating  specific  calls  and  actions  in  a  way  which  allows  for  applications  from  macro-
regional strategies (positive discrimination).  

Communication 

With  the  establishment  of  the  new  DSP  in  2018,  the  Strategy  now  has  a  dedicated  body  in 
charge  of  communication  activities  for  the  whole  EUSDR.  It  is  expected  that  this  will  be 
beneficial in developing the EUSDR.  

38 

 
 
No overall coordination  difficulties in  implementing  a coherent  approach to  communication 
has been signalled by NCs or PACs. However, there are cases where internal communication 
from the priority area to steering group members regarding meetings, events, workshops etc. 
have been less than optimal.  

There is  also a need for a consolidated effort to  ensure all websites for the EUSDR priority 
areas are kept up-to-date, as currently the frequency of updates varies.   

In  addition,  there  is  still  a  perception  that  the  broad  public  receive  very  little  information 
about  macro-regional  cooperation  in  general.  Many  public  authorities  also  have  very  little 
information  about  macro-regional  cooperation.  Better  communication  with  potential 
beneficiaries  would  strengthen  the  alignment  of  the  needs  for  territorial  cohesion  with  the 
goals of the EUSDR.  

Cooperation within and across Strategies  

Although overall cooperation within the Strategy works relatively well, there is still a need for 
more interaction between different themes and disciplines. More cross-cutting work between 
steering groups seems necessary, and in particular the political level should provide guidance 
on how to achieve this objective.  

There are many topics where an exchange across strategies could be fruitful, e.g. governance, 
communication  or  administrative  support  structure.  However,  some  stakeholders  argue  that 
the usefulness of ‘cross-cutting cooperation among macro-regional strategies’ is limited to an 
expert-level exchange on the practicalities and structures of governance of the MRS.  

THE WAY FORWARD 

Lessons learnt  

Three  important  lessons  follow  from  the  experience  gained  in  implementing  the  EUSDR  to 
date: 

  The need to have appropriate governance mechanisms in place: As explained above, 
PACs play an essential role in connecting the policy with the project level. In order to 
be able to carry out their tasks, they need to be supported by dedicated steering group 
members  who  are  empowered  to  take  decisions  in  their  policy  fields.  Finally,  a 
complex task like steering and governing an MRS needs a joint technical support with 
appropriate resources for this task. The work of the DSP proved to be very helpful in 
this respect.  

  The need to  further align national  strategies with the EUSDR: National and regional 
strategies,  policy  initiatives  and  programmes  should  be  aligned  with  the  EUSDR  in 
order to create stronger synergies. The EUSDR should act as ‘umbrella’ for all  other 
strategic documents in the region, while also continuing to tap into relevant strategies 
of macro-regional relevance, like the updated ICPDR strategy on adaptation to climate 
change45. 

  The need to concentrate activities strategically. In the context of financial restraints, it 
is  crucial  to  better  target  and  focus  the  limited  available  resources.  That  is  why  the 
concept  of  embedding  needs  to  be  taken  further  at  all  levels.  The  EUSDR  may 
continue  exploring  the  concept  of  strategic  projects,  aiming  to  better  concentrate  the 

45  https://www.icpdr.org/flowpaper/app/#page=1 

39 

 
 
                                                           
resources  on  priority  activities  in  order  to  show  tangible  results  in  a  reasonable 
timeframe.  

Main issues 

Increasing  political  involvement  in  the  EUSDR  is  perhaps  the  first  issue  that  needs  to  be 
addressed, and the extent to which this is managed will also have an impact on other issues. In 
addition,  the  administrative  capacity  at  all  governance  levels  needs  to  be  increased  and 
steering group members should be further empowered. As PACs have an essential role to play 
in  connecting the  policy and project  levels,  the cross-cutting cooperation  with  other priority 
areas will have to be further developed. Participation by civil society organisations also needs 
strengthening. 

One key task is to develop a more strategic vision for implementing the Strategy and to apply 
a strategic approach through strategic projects and initiatives which could help to improve the 
EUSDR’s  effectiveness  and  visibility.  Additionally,  as  the  Strategy’s  objectives  are  not 
integrated enough in the work of steering groups and their work does not generate sufficient 
tangible projects and outputs, policy coherence needs to be increased. More specifically, the 
EUSDR  requires  a  more  coordinated  and  integrated  way  of  working  that  allows  for  the 
implementation of joint projects which will have a significant impact and ensures the delivery 
of  tangible  results.  The  revised  EUSDR  action  plan  provides  a  clearer  strategic  framework, 
helping to link it with the concrete actions. The reporting system in place has been criticised 
by PACs for not being systematic enough, while increasing the administrative workload. The 
system is however now being simplified while initiatives to evaluate the Strategy continue. As 
a step in this process, a new format for monitoring the EUSDR with the aim of improving and 
simplifying  reporting  was  presented  in  February  2020.  Complementary  to  this,  cooperation 
with initiatives that generate evidence of territorial dynamics and trends will remain beneficial 
and  may  ease  the  (re-)definition  of  future  focuses  (e.g.  the  ESPON  Macro-Regional  and 
Territorial  Monitoring  Tool  (EMTM)  to  be  prepared  in  the  course  of  2020;  JRC;  Attractive 
Danube; DTP Territorial Analysis). 

European  funds  and  programmes  including  cross-border  and  transnational  cooperation 
programmes and centralised programmes all need to contribute to implementing the EUSDR. 
For  this  to  happen,  there  needs  to  be  more  cooperation  between  EUSDR  stakeholders  (NC, 
PAC,  SG  members)  and  managing  authorities  of  national/regional  operational  programmes; 
this could take place in the form of networks of managing authorities at EUSDR level, as is 
already  the  case  for  the  ESF.  The  coverage  of  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility  should  be 
extended to projects in the non-EU countries of the EUSDR.  

Although communication activities have been improved, notably by the creation of the new 
DSP,  it  is  still  observed  that  the  general  public  and  many  public  authorities  have  very  little 
information about macro-regional cooperation in general and about the EUSDR in particular. 
Communication  has  to  be  professional  and  targeted,  addressing  all  levels  of  governance. 
Further investing in developing a comprehensible and tangible narrative to illustrate EUSDR 
achievements  in  the  region  is  also  a  way  to  bring  the  Strategy  closer  to  the  territory  (civil 
society, local and regional governments). Better visibility could also help to raise the profile 
of the EUSDR internationally. 

Future development 

As the implementation of the EUSDR has been on-going since 2011, a wealth of experience 
has been gathered to critically reflect on the implementation process, which should be drawn 
upon.  Several  pressing  challenges  facing  the  Danube  region  are  of  a  cross-cutting  nature. 

40 

 
 
Improving  cross-sector  policy  coordination  to  address  emerging  major  challenges  such  as 
digitalisation or migration (on non-EU nationals) could help to improve the EUSDR’s overall 
performance. This should also be reflected in the ongoing process of embedding the MRS into 
the post-2020 programming process. 

All  governance  levels  have  roles  to  play  in  further  developing  the  Strategy,  including 
networks  of  ESI  Funds  programme  managing  authorities.  Since  2018,  the  EUSDR  ESF 
network  has  supported  transnational  cooperation  and  thematic  coordination  among  ESF 
operational programmes in the Danube Region to contribute to the realisation of projects with 
macro-regional impact and the improvement of capacities at macro-regional level. However, 
these  networks  would  be  necessary  also  for  the  ERDF/CF  and  other  relevant  funding 
programmes,  including  for  the  funding  instruments  that  apply  to  the  non-EU  countries 
covered by the Strategy.   

In addition,  future priority topics should be carefully selected in  order to  secure widespread 
interest  in  all  14  EUSDR  participating  countries  and  help  reduce  the  gaps  between  these 
countries. As a complement to focusing on traditional projects, an option could be that PACs 
emphasise  development  of  processes  to  ensure  exchange  of  knowledge,  coordination  and 
cooperation  between  all  stakeholders  in  the  macro-region,  along  the  lines  of  EU  policies. 
Involving young people through various forms of cooperation provides a strong impetus to the 
Strategy  and  could  help  to  increase  its  visibility.  In  the  context  of  the  wider  European  and 
societal value of EUSDR activities and their tangibility and visibility for a wider public, the 
inclusion of these target groups could prove valuable. 

On a more global level, implementation would be facilitated if EUSDR actors were to further 
raise the understanding of the broader political agenda setting. That is why capacity building 
in terms of how to run the policy cycle and how to boost the EUSDR topics is important. Not 
least, there should be more emphasis on the role of the Strategy as a tool to promote European 
integration  initiatives  coming  from  Brussels  and  national  capitals  to  regions  and  local 
communities, in the interest of people in EU Member States and other participating countries. 

Looking ahead, macro-regional strategies could address European priorities in several ways. 
They are tools to support the European way of life for European people and to develop social 
fairness and prosperity between European regions, not least in order to stop the brain drain in 
many  EUSDR  regions.  The  Strategy  could  help  facilitate  cooperation  and  exchange  of 
information and good practice between those countries that are already fit for the digital age 
or  getting  close,  and  those  that  are  lagging  behind.  Similarly,  macro-regional  strategies  are 
vehicles that could be used to boost a dialogue on strengthening democracy in macro-regions 
at national, regional and local level.  

Last  but  not  least,  the  strategies  could  become  key  actors  in  the  EU  Neighbourhood  policy 
and could be used as frameworks to facilitate enlargement. In particular, the EUSDR should 
continue to support the enlargement policy in the Western Balkans. 

Cross-cutting  issues  among  priority  areas  should  be  strengthened  both  at  policy  and  project 
level, and the results of transnational projects should be better channelled into and adapted by 
CBC and mainstream national/regional ESI Funds programmes.  

It is also essential to align the EUSDR with national strategic and development documents in 
all participating countries, such as policy implementation plans and programmes required by 
EU acquis for Member States and accession countries. The Strategy should act as an umbrella 
for all other strategic documents in the region. 

41 

 
 
Furthermore, better links with policies relevant for regions geographically connected with the 
Danube River, such as the Black Sea, are encouraged. Joint actions in environment, transport 
and energy areas are especially relevant. The connection with a bridging role of the Black Sea 
basin in terms of interconnectivity should be further developed. 

To  conclude,  the  EUSDR  has  proved  able  to  contribute  to  providing  solutions  to  common 
challenges.  But  in  order  for  the  Strategy  to  become  a  game  changer,  greater  political 
ownership  and  visibility  are  needed.  This  is  also  the  case  in  relation  to  new  or  emerging 
policy initiatives and challenges like the European Green Deal or COVID-19. What appears 
clear  is  that  such  challenges  require  coordinated  joint  actions  which  could  be  facilitated 
through the EUSDR framework.  

42 

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

In  October  201446,  the  European  Council  endorsed  the  EUSAIR  on  the  basis  of  the 
Communication  on  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  Region  adopted  by  the 
Commission in June 201447 and its accompanying action plan48. The Strategy incorporates the 
Maritime Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Seas, that was adopted by the Commission in 
November 201249. 

On  the  2  April  2020,  the  Republic  of  North  Macedonia  became  the  ninth  country  to 
participate in the EUSAIR. This followed the country’s request to be included in the EUSAIR 
and  the  Conclusions  of  the  Council  of  the  European  Union  of  9  April  201950,  which 
welcomed and accepted the request and invited the Commission to ‘take the necessary steps 
to  include  North  Macedonia  in  the  EUSAIR’.  On  this  basis,  the  Commission  published  an 
amended Strategy on 2 April 202051 to reflect this development. 

After more than six  years of implementation,  the EUSAIR has  yielded significant  results in 
terms of establishing stable and efficient governing structures, increased regional cooperation 
in  its  priority  sectors,  support  in  the  enlargement  process  of  Western  Balkan  countries  and 
more. Now MRS key implementers, stakeholders and the public expect meaningful progress 
in  putting  in  place  joint  actions  and  projects  that  aim  to  improve  the  attractiveness, 
competitiveness and connectivity of the region. 

RESULTS 

Governance and administrative capacity 

General 

The  EUSAIR  governance  architecture  has  three  interrelated  levels:  (i)  the  political  level 
represented  by  the  ‘Adriatic-Ionian  Council/EUSAIR  ministerial  meeting’52,  (ii)  the 
coordination  level  led  by  the  Governing  Board    (GB)53,  and  (iii)  the  implementation  level 
represented by the four Thematic Steering Groups  (TSGs). 

In the initial phase of implementation, the EUSAIR governance had some difficulties starting 
activities, mainly due to the differences in administrative capacity between EU Member States 
and ‘enlargement’  countries.  After six  years, the governing structures have stepped up their 
ability  to  cooperate.  Enlargement  countries  have  benefited  and  learned  from  working  on  an 

46  Conclusions of the General Affair Council, 29 September 2014 and Conclusions of the European Council, 23-

24 October 2014. 
47  COM(2014) 357 final. 
48  SWD(2014) 190 final. 
49  COM(2012) 713 final. 
50  General Affairs Council, 09/04/2019 
51  With the adoption of the Addendum to the EUSAIR Communication by the Commission - COM(2020) 132 

final. 

52  Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Ministers in charge of EU Funds, with the participation of the European 

Commissioner. The EUSAIR political level merged with the already existing higher political level event of the 
Adriatic and Ionian Initiative (AII). 

53  The standing members of the GB are: national coordinators, pillar coordinators, Commission services, 

European Parliament, Committee of the Regions, Economic and Social Committee, the Adriatic and Ionian 
Initiative Permanent Secretariat, ADRION Managing Authority, EUSAIR Facility Point.  

43 

 
 
                                                           
equal  footing  with  EU  Member  States.  While  the  OECD  Synthesis  report  (published  in 
2019)54  evaluated  the  EUSAIR  as  being  between  phase  1  and  2  of  macro-regional  strategy 
development  according  to  the  COWI  study55  classification,  currently  the  EUSAIR  could  be 
associated  to  phase  2.  Institutions  have  built  their  capacities  to  work  in  a  macro-regional 
framework  and  are  able  to  implement  their  action  plan,  while  stakeholders  gained  better 
understanding  of  the  EUSAIR  and  what  is  expected  from  them.  The  intensive  work  of  the 
institutions  of  the  nine  countries  to  embed  EUSAIR  priorities  in  ESI  and  IPA  funds 
national/regional  ‘mainstream’  programmes56  is  a  clear  sign  of  such  development.  North 
Macedonia’s request to accede the EUSAIR, and the interest of other countries, demonstrates 
that the EUSAIR is seen as an attractive instrument with a potential to enable economic and 
social growth in the region.  

While the Commission (DG REGIO) continues to act as the strategic advisor to the EUSAIR 
governing  bodies,  after  stepping  back  from  co-chairing  the  EUSAIR  (GB)  in  2018, 
subsequent presidencies and participating countries are gradually becoming more confident in 
managing  the  Strategy.  The  organisation  of  the  biannual  technical  meetings  of  national 
coordinators and of pillar coordinators, back-to-back with GB meetings, expresses the will of 
participating countries to take ownership and leadership of governing processes including by 
simplifying  the  decision-making  process.  Also,  the  ‘Trio  presidency’  meetings  (former, 
current and future EUSAIR presidency), established in 2018, with the aim of coordinating and 
giving continuity to each presidency’s action, has been beneficial. 

Political level 

The political level of the EUSAIR is represented both by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and 
the  Ministers/national  authorities  responsible  for  EU  funds,  who  gather  annually  at  the 
‘Adriatic Ionian Council / EUSAIR Ministerial meeting’. This reinforces both the geopolitical 
and funding / implementation dimension of the Strategy.   

The annual forum and the ministerial meeting closing each yearly rotating presidency in May, 
is an opportunity for governments to express their continued commitment and to give strategic 
direction  to  the  Strategy’s  key  implementers.  One  EUSAIR  forum57  took  place  during  the 
reporting period (Budva, 7-9 May 2019) under Montenegrin chairmanship58. The attendance 
of high-level  politicians such as the Prime Minister of Montenegro increased media interest 
and  resulted  in  media  coverage  across  all  EUSAIR  participating  countries.  In  line  with  the 
‘Catania  Declaration’,  ministers  gathering  in  Budva  gave  impetus  to  including  EUSAIR 
priorities  into  mainstream  (national/regional)  2021-2027  ESI  and  IPA  programming 
documents  (‘embedding’).  MRS  key  implementers  were  asked  to  work  closely  with  the 
relevant  programmes  authorities  in  the  macro-region,  to  agree  on  a  selected  number  of 
priorities  and  to  engage  in  coordinated  action  from  planning  to  implementation  of  macro-
regional  projects.  This  resulted  in  further  efforts  by  MRS  key  implementers  who,  even  in  a 

54  OECD (2019), Synthesis Report, Multi-level Governance and Cross-sector practices supporting EUSAIR, 

OECD. 

55  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 

56  In line with the political request established in Article 6 of the ‘Catania Declaration’ adopted at the EUSAIR 

ministerial meeting/ Adriatic and Ionian Council of 24-5-2018 calling on a coordinated planning and 
programming of national/regional ESI and IPA funds for the implementation of EUSAIR actions and projects.  

57  The EUSAIR Forum of Belgrade, under Serbian Presidency, foreseen for May 2020 is postponed due to the 

COVID-19 crisis.  

58  Montenegro has been the first non-EU country to hold the Presidency of a Macro-Regional Strategy.  

44 

 
 
                                                           
lockdown  situation  imposed  by  the  COVID-19  crisis,  finalised  a  list  of  EUSAIR 
flagships/emblematic projects to be included in 2021-2027 programme documents. 

Furthermore, ministers gave instructions to national administration on: 

a)  strengthening the alignment between EUSAIR objectives and the post-2020 Adriatic-
Ionian  Transnational  Cooperation  (ADRION)  programme  also  asking  for  more 
balanced financial support between EU Member States and IPA countries; 

b)  continuing  to  ensure  the  effective  implementation  of  the  Strategy  by  strengthening 
administrative capacity with the support of line ministries at the political level; and 
c)  increasing  efforts  to  deliver  on  the  EUSAIR  Facility  Point  (FP)  strategic  project  to 
facilitate project development, monitoring and evaluation, and the implementation of 
the Stakeholders Platform.  

The  EUSAIR  Forum  closing  the  EUSAIR  Serbian  Presidency  planned  in  May  2020,  was 
postponed due to restrictive measures on large gatherings imposed by the COVID-19 crisis. 
However, a virtual ministerial meeting took place on June 2020 and resulted in the adoption 
of the Belgrade Declaration59 providing further guidance for the EUSAIR. 

North Macedonia’s request to join the EUSAIR is a clear signal of the rising importance and 
deeper  understanding  of  the  Strategy’s  potential.  North  Macedonia  officially  became  a 
participating country in the EUSAIR on 2 April 2020.  Its inclusion will strengthen regional 
cooperation  among  Western  Balkan  countries and will strengthen the political  dimension of 
the  EUSAIR,  as  well  as  its  role  in  facilitating  the  enlargement  process  of  candidate  and 
potential candidate countries. 

Coordination level  

The GB is the main driving force of the EUSAIR governance, acting as the interface between 
the  political  and  the  operational  level.  Under  the  rules  of  procedures,  it  gives  strategic 
guidelines to the TSGs to implement and manage the EUSAIR and its action plan, coordinate 
their work and ensure link between them.  

Last year, the GB’s work, supported by a technical/informal meeting of national coordinators, 
focused on the embedding process, which is currently considered the most important priority 
that  potentially  would  take  cooperation  under  the  EUSAIR  to  a  higher  level,  allowing  the 
implementation of strategic macro-regional projects. 

Implementation level  

The implementation level in the EUSAIR is represented by the TSGs. Each TSG is led by two 
pillar  coordinators60  who  fulfil  an  intermediate  level  role,  connecting  the  coordination  level 
(GB) with TSGs. TSGs have the crucial role of making the Strategy work under each thematic 
area, to  identify key processes, priorities and projects  in  line with  the  EUSAIR’s objectives 
and to help match-making between project proposals and available funds.  

TSGs meetings are held at least twice a year. While meetings were continuously held in the 
last two years, the participation of TSG members has varied according to thematic areas. This 
concerned the representation of individual countries as well as participation over time. Certain 
countries  record  very  high  participation  rates  while  others  are  more  selective  in  their 

59  https://www.adriatic-ionian.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/BELGRADE_DECLARATION.pdf  
60  Now three for Pillar II with the inclusion of North Macedonia coordinating Transport and Energy Networks 

TSGs along with Italy and Serbia.  

45 

 
 
                                                           
participation. While travel and accommodation costs are covered by the EUSAIR FP, regular 
attendance, in some cases, is hampered by limited staff.  

TSGs play a crucial role in the EUSAIR annual forum mainly in relation to the organisation 
of  thematic  sessions  where  they  are  in  charge  of  the  coordination.  TSGs  have  identified 
project  ideas  of  EUSAIR  relevance  and  developed  them  into  project  concepts  or  bankable 
projects  with  the  support  of  the  EUSAIR  FP  for  single-sector  projects  and  the  EUSAIR  FP 
Plus61 for cross-sector ones.  

In the last two years, TSGs have improved their cooperation and awareness of their role as a 
link  between  stakeholders  and  the  EUSAIR  governance.  The  link  with  stakeholders  has 
improved both thanks to the cooperation with the Adriatic and Ionian Initiative (AII) ‘Round 
Tables’62 and to the improved working of the EUSAIR Stakeholder Platform63. 

Cooperation  with  ADRION  has  also  improved  as  well,  to  the  point  that  the  objectives  and 
criteria  of  a  targeted  call  for  proposal  launched  in  2019  have  been  defined  in  collaboration 
with EUSAIR TSG members.  

Civil society 

The EUSAIR annual forum, the final event of each rotating presidency, is primarily dedicated 
to  civil  society  and  stakeholders.  This  is  one  of  the  opportunities  for  civil  society 
organisations to get updated on the implementation of the EUSAIR and to make their voice 
heard  with  EUSAIR  governing  structures.  Civil  society  representatives  attend  sessions,  side 
events,  workshops  and  debates  during  the  annual  forum,  both  as  audience  members  and 
speakers.  Among  other  events,  business-to-business  (B2B)  meetings,  organised  by  the 
Enterprise  Europe  Network  (EEN)  in  cooperation  with  the  European  Commission  (DG 
GROW),  gather  hundreds  of  stakeholders64  to  share  knowledge  and  to  create  business 
opportunities and new partnerships for macro-regional initiatives. More than 100 stakeholders 
participated in bilateral meetings at the EUSAIR Forum in Budva (May 2019).   

The EUSAIR Stakeholder Platform, established under the EUSAIR FP strategic project, is the 
main  tool  for  stakeholder  engagement.  The  platform,  conceived  as  an  online  platform  to 
support communication and interaction between stakeholders, is now operational.  

Together  with  the  Stakeholders  Platform,  the  Round  Tables  of  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian 
Initiative (AII) provide an opportunity for stakeholders to cooperate. Following the thematic 
alignment  of  AII  Round  Tables  to  EUSAIR  TSGs,  these  meetings  have  usually  been  held 
back-to-back  with  TSG  meetings  and  coordinated  by  pillar  coordinators  or  TSGs  members. 
This has made it possible for TSG members to get fresh information on events, activities, and 
projects  taking  place  at  civil  society  level,  and  for  stakeholders  to  be  updated  on  the  latest 
decisions of the EUSAIR governance.  

61  FP Plus is a project financed by the European Commission with the aim to foster capacity building and cross-
pillar cooperation in the EUSAIR, with particular focus on developing cross-pillar project ideas into project 
concepts and bankable projects.  

62  AII Round Tables gather representatives of EUSAIR stakeholders on specific topics in line with the priorities 
of the EUSAIR. Meetings of the Round Tables are normally held back-to-back with TSG meetings in order to 
facilitate the exchange between the two instruments.  

63  The Stakeholders Platform is managed by Region Marche and financed by ADRION as a working package of 

the EUSAIR FP.  

64  Entrepreneurs, Chambers of commerce, NGOs, Commission services, etc.  

46 

 
 
                                                           
The fora of Chambers of Commerce, Universities and Cities in the Adriatic and Ionian region, 
working  under  the  umbrella  of  the  AII,  have  continued  to  play  an  important  role.  Together 
with  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  Euroregion,  they  have  raised  general  awareness  about  the 
EUSAIR’s work with the public and stakeholders. These organisations are very active on the 
ground  and  thanks  to  their  historically  established  partnerships  across  sea  and  land  borders 
they are flexible mechanisms. This makes them able to quickly establish project partnerships 
to  apply  to  calls  for  proposals  relevant  for  the  development  and  implementation  of  macro-
regional  projects.  The  ‘Adriatic  and  Ionian  network  of  Marine  Protected  Areas’ 
(ADRIAPAN) played a similar role with a specific focus on the environmental quality of the 
sea. It may also play a role in the context of upcoming initiatives in the Convention for the 
Protection  of  the  Marine  Environment  and  the  Coastal  Region  of  the  Mediterranean 
(Barcelona Convention)65 and International Maritime Organization (IMO) frameworks.  

These networks and fora have promoted and implemented several projects and initiatives such 
as: 

 

 

 

the AI-NURECC66 initiative, led by the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of 
Europe (CPMR), delivered results in youth action, smart specialisation strategies, and 
training. This led to the establishment of the ‘Adriatic and Ionian Youth Organisations 
Forum’  (AIYOF),  (Tirana,  November  2019),  and  the  establishment  of  the  ‘Adriatic-
Ionian Cultural & Creative Industry Innovation Quest’67; 
the  ‘Adriatic  Ionian  Games  for  Social  Inclusion’  (A.NI.M.US)68,  a  macro-regional 
sporting event for young people focusing on social inclusion; and 
the  SEA-UNITED69  project  financed  under  ERASMUS+,  to  strengthen  university 
cooperation  within  the  Western  Balkans  and  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  region,  and  to 
develop an internationalisation strategy at macro-regional level70.  

Multi-level governance  

Despite  different  approaches,  each  country’s  administration  has  established  an  internal 
cooperation mechanism between the coordination ministries (Ministry of Foreign Affairs and 
authorities  responsible  for  EU  funds)  and  the  relevant  line  ministries.  However,  due  to  the 
centralised  administrative structure of most participating  countries, local  and regional levels 
are  involved  only  to  a  limited  extent.  Only  Italian  regions  are  structurally  included  in  the 
EUSAIR’s governance. In fact, this is the only case of sub-national bodies that contribute to 
policy  design  and  implementation,  particularly  in  sectors  that  fall  under  their  remit  (e.g. 
tourism).  Italian  regions  participate  in  both  the  national  EUSAIR  coordination  system  with 

65  https://www.unenvironment.org/unepmap/who-we-are/barcelona-convention-and-protocols  
66  Adriatic Ionian Network of Universities, Regions, Chambers of Commerce and Cities Initiative (AI-

NURECC) is led by the CPMR and implemented with funds of the European Parliament managed by the 
European Commission through a Pilot Project.  

67  A new thematic area on Cultural and Creative Industries within the ‘Thematic Smart Specialisation Platform 

for Industrial Modernisation’ supported by the JRC (the first at MRS level). 

68  Organised by the municipality of Ancona (ITA), and co-financed by the European Union (ERASMUS+). and 

open to participants from the four existing Macro-Regional Strategies. 

69  With the participation of UNIADRION and the Forum of Adriatic and Ionian Chambers of Commerce 

(FAICC). Implementation will start in 2021. 

70  Project funded under the Erasmus+ programme, KA2 – Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good 
practices – Capacity Building in the field of Higher Education – Call for proposals 2020 – EAC/A02/2019, 
with a budget of €989,183.  

47 

 
 
                                                           
central and sectoral administrations (Cabina di Regia), and in the meetings of TSGs, but they 
are  not  involved  at  the  coordination  level.  Other  local  administrations  have  specific 
responsibilities in the EUSAIR FP supporting the EUSAIR governance (Region Marche - IT, 
Municipality of Izola - SI).  

Policy and thematic priorities  

Achievements 

In the last two years, the awareness and visibility of the EUSAIR has increased. Internal and 
external communication efforts, particularly in the occasion of the annual fora have played an 
important role. Awareness has been raised both within national and  regional administrations 
in the whole region and with stakeholders in general.  

All  four  TSGs  have  continued  to  identify  priority  actions  and  projects  having  a  distinct 
macro-regional  value  and  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  the  action  plan,  with  the 
support of the EUSAIR FP and FP Plus. Actions and projects are at a different stages; from 
project ideas to be further developed, to project concepts that have already presented to call 
for proposals, and projects that have already received funding, including under the ADRION 
programme. 

By  way  of  example,  a  project  identified  by  TSG  3  on  preventing  pollution  caused  by  ships 
and  other  maritime  objects,  was  presented  under  the  last  call  for  proposals  for  the  ‘Union 
Civil  Protection  Mechanism’.  This  shows  that  EUSAIR  implementers  are  trying  to  use  all 
relevant funding mechanisms that allow cooperation under EUSAIR objectives in the region. 
If  approved,  the  project  would  also  support  efforts  to  prepare  a  sub-regional  oil  spill 
contingency plan. 

TSG  4  established  productive  cooperation  with  the  Routes4U  programme,  financed  by  the 
Council of Europe and the Commission, that resulted in the development and funding of two 
cultural routes in the EUSAIR71.  

The process  of providing projects with  a EUSAIR label  (labelling process) has  experienced 
mixed success. In some thematic areas (Pillar 2 and 4), it has been widely used, ex ante or ex 
post, to identify projects that contribute to the objectives of the EUSAIR, while in other cases 
the  labelling  system  has  not  been  considered  an  appropriate  tool.  Some  key  implementers 
consider that the guidance approved by the GB on labelling is not binding and that projects 
that  have  been  labelled  do  not  receive  more  prominence  than  others  by  operational 
programmes.  

Project examples: 

Pillar 1 – Blue Growth 
PoWER  (Ports  as  driving  Wheels  of  Entrepreneurial  Realm)72,  financed  by  ADRION, 
supports  the  development  of  ports  into  innovation  hubs  to  exploit  their  untapped  business 
potential to boost collaboration between key actors in the Innovation Supply Chain (ISC).  
BEAT  (Blue  Enhancement  Action  for  Technology  Transfer)73,  financed  by  Interreg  CBC 
Italy-Croatia,  aims at  creating opportunities  for  knowledge transfer between businesses and 
universities in the blue technologies cross-border cluster in the shipbuilding sector. 

71 The ‘Olive Tree route for the EUSAIR’ and the ‘Roman Heritage Route for the EUSAIR’ .  
72  http://www.powerports.eu/  

48 

 
 
                                                           
Pillar 2 – Connecting the region (Transport) 

MULTI-APPRO  (Multidisciplinary  approach  and  solutions  to  development  of  intermodal 
transport in the region)74, financed by ADRION, aims at developing intermodal transport in 
the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  region  focusing  on  providing  solutions  to  bottlenecks,  contributing 
indirectly also to improve air quality.  

COMOBILION  and  COMOBILION+,  financed  by  Interreg  IPA  CBC  Greece-Albania, 
helps  to  improve  connectivity  and  accessibility  between  the  road  transport  networks  of 
southern Albania and northern Greece.  

Pillar 2 – Connecting the region (Energy networks) 

EUSAIR  Power  Exchange  (EIB,  national  and  private  funds).  The  project  cluster  is  under 
development  and  aims  at  creating  an  integrated  wholesale  power  marked  for  the  region  by 
harmonising  transmission  tariffs,  removing  regulatory  barriers,  market-coupling  initiatives 
and promoting the convergence of national wholesale power markets.  
SUPER-LNG  (SUstainability  PERformance  of  LNG-based  maritime  mobility)75,  financed 
by  ADRION.  The  overall  objective  of  the  project  is  to  increase  the  level  of  safety, 
environmental quality and sustainability of LNG maritime transportation in the Adriatic sea, 
with  also  positive  assets  for  air  quality.  It  also  aims  at  providing  a  common  set  of  rules  to 
support  the  implementation  of  technical  systems  for  the  distribution  and  supply  of  LNG  in 
port areas, in line with the Seveso Directive (Directive 2012/18/EU). 

Pillar 3 – Environmental quality 

DINALPCONNECT  (Transboundary  ecological  connectivity  of  Alps  and  Dinaric 
Mountains)76,  financed  by  ADRION,  strengthens  transnational  and  sectoral  cooperation, 
connecting  the  Dinaric  Mountains  with  the  Alps  enabling  the  long  term  protection  of 
biodiversity  to  mitigate  climate  change  and  to  establish  a  network  of  Natura2000  sites  and 
protected areas in the region. 

SEAVIEWS (SEctor Adaptive VIrtual Early Warning System for marine pollution), financed 
by ADRION, aims to develop a transnational repository network that will receive, store and 
analyse data about sea water quality from smart sensors. Individuals will be able to post real 
time  observations  regarding  marine  pollution  using  an  application.  Big  data  analytics  tools 
will  be  used  making  this  an  innovative  virtual  early  warning  system  for  preventing  and 
managing marine pollution.  

Pillar 4 – Sustainable tourism 
DUE MARI (Next generation tourism development)77, financed by Interreg IPA CBC Italy-
Albania-Montenegro, promotes the unique cultural and natural assets of the programme area, 
by  developing  a  joint  web  platform  and  innovative  services  for  new  tourist  routes  while 
promoting lesser-known destinations and typical local products. 

The Rout_Net (Thematic routes and networks), financed by Interreg CBC Greece-Italy, aim 

73  https://www.italy-croatia.eu/web/beat  
74  https://multiappro.adrioninterreg.eu/  
75  https://superlng.adrioninterreg.eu/ 
76  https://keep.eu/projects/23245/  
77  https://keep.eu/projects/22566/  

49 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
to establish a strategy for slow tourism and cultural and historical paths through a structured 
plan of material and immaterial interventions, particularly in terms of cultural routes, in close 
collaboration with municipal administrations, territorial institutions and private organisations.  

Policy impact 

One  of  the  key  goals  of  the  EUSAIR  has  been  to  enable  the  enlargement  process  for  the 
Western  Balkans.  With  the  inclusion  of  North  Macedonia,  the  EUSAIR  becomes  the  MRS 
with  more candidate/potential  candidate countries than EU Member States cooperating with 
each  other.  This  cooperation  on  a  level  playing  field  provides  the  possibility  to  gradually 
access relevant EU policies and/or political platforms. 

The subgroup on Transport of TSG 2 is developing a ‘Master plan for transport in the Adriatic 
and Ionian region’, which aims at making the region more integrated and interconnected with 
the  rest  of  Europe  and  the  Mediterranean,  and  to  support  the  EU  transport  policy  in  the 
EUSAIR. The master plan would ensure free movement of people and goods across the region 
by means of integrated networks using all modes of transport (road, rail, water and air), in line 
with the TEN-T networks in South Eastern Europe. Under this framework, TSG 2 produced 
the EUSAIR Multimodal Transport Model (EMTM) which aims at promoting harmonization 
of EU transport acquis in Western Balkan countries. Strong links have been established with 
the Transport Community Treaty78 in order to reinforce each other’s objectives, focusing on 
supporting the extension of EU transport principles and policies in the enlargement countries. 

The governance of the maritime space is an issue that has been addressed by EUSAIR Pillar 1 
and  Pillar  3  with  the  aim  to  implement  the  Marine  Spatial  Planning  Directive  (MSP)  in  a 
consistent  way  in  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  basin.  A  few  projects,  such  as  ADRIPLAN79, 
SUPREME80  and  PORTODIMARE81  contribute  to  improving  maritime  governance  in  the 
region.  Among  other  things,  they  facilitate  the  adoption  of  national  strategies  on  Integrated 
Coastal  Zone  Management  (ICZM),  in  line  with  the  UNEP/MAP  common  regional 
framework  on  ICZM.  A  new  project  has  been  put  forward  by  Pillar  1  and  Pillar  3  on 
‘Improving  the  governance  of  marine  space,  uses  and  resources  in  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian 
region’.  

78  The Transport Community is an international organisation composed of the EU and the six Western Balkan 

Parties (Republic of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo*, Republic of North Macedonia, Montenegro 
and Republic of Serbia). Its key objective is to extend the EU transport market rules, principles and policies to 
the Western Balkan Parties through a legally binding framework. 

79  ADRiatic Ionian maritime spatial PLANning (ADRIPLAN), funded by the European Commission – DG 

MARE under the theme ‘Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) in the Mediterranean Sea and/or the Black Sea’. 
Budget: €1,250,000; Implementation: from 2013 to 2015.  

80  The Supporting maritime spatial Planning in the Eastern Mediterranean (SUPREME) supported the 

implementation of Maritime Spatial Planning in the Adriatic, Ionian, Aegean and Levantine Seas and 
launched and carry out cross-border MSP cooperation initiatives. Budget: €1,999,996 (co-funded by the 
EMFF); Implementation: from 2016 to 2018.  

81  PORTODIMARE aims to create a common platform (Geoportal) for data and information related to coastal 

and marine areas of the Adriatic-Ionian Region, by integrating existing databases, portals and tools developed 
by previous EU-funded projects. Budget: €1,581,219 (co-funded by ADRION); Implementation: from 2018 to 
2020. 

50 

 
 
                                                           
Monitoring and evaluation 

Monitoring 

In  their  annual  reports  to  the  GB,  the  TSGs  carry  out  progress  assessments  on  the 
implementation  of  the  EUSAIR  action  plan,  which  give  an  overview  of  the  activities, 
achievements, results and challenges encountered during the reporting year.  

A more structural monitoring system by the EUSAIR FP strategic project is planned under the 
working  package  on  ‘building  capacities  for  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  EUSAIR’. 
Currently, EUSAIR FP project partners are in the process of hiring experts that will produce 
‘Annual  monitoring  reports’  (one  report  per  Pillar)  that  will  inform  the  evaluation  of  the 
Strategy.  

In  addition,  the  ESPON  programme  has  given  support  to  monitoring  the  EUSAIR  by 
developing analysis and methodological tools to provide evidence of key development trends 
and contributing to policy objectives.  

Evaluation  

A call for tender to evaluate the EUSAIR has been launched recently by the EUSAIR FP. The 
evaluation  (Synthetic  report)  will  analyse  the  EUSAIR’s  strengths  and  weaknesses,  its 
successes  and  its  failures,  the  effectiveness  of  its  action  plan  as  well  as  the  human  and 
financial  resources  involved.  It  will  also  serve  to  improve  the  monitoring  and  evaluation 
system  by  establishing  baselines,  indicators  and  targets  needed  for  future  monitoring  and 
evaluations purposes.  

Funding 

Funding mobilisation 

The  ADRION  programme  was  devised  in  2014  to  support  the  governance  and  the 
implementation  of  the  EUSAIR.  Therefore  almost  the  totality  of  its  funds  serves  the 
objectives of the EUSAIR. It not only contributes to EUSAIR implementation under the three 
programme’s  priority  axes  that  are  closely  aligned  with  EUSAIR  priorities  (Innovative  and 
Smart  region,  Sustainable  region,  Connected  region),  but  it  also  funds  the  EUSAIR  FP 
strategic project supporting the governance of the Strategy. 

The  objectives  of  other  Interreg  programmes  in  the  region,  particularly  CBC  and  IPA  CBC 
maritime  programmes,  are  broadly  aligned  with  the  EUSAIR.  In  fact,  they  provide  specific 
selection  criteria  for  projects  or  invite  EUSAIR  national  coordinators  to  their  monitoring 
committees. A few projects under the Interreg transnational programmes ‘Mediterranean’ and 
‘Central Europe’ have also contributed to the EUSAIR objectives.  

The main source of available funds are EU Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) and 
the  Instrument  for  Pre-accession  Assistance  (IPA).  The  EUSAIR  was  launched  in  autumn 
2014,  when  2014-2020  ESI  Funds  operational  programmes  had  already  been  prepared. 
Therefore,  support  to  the  EUSAIR  had  not  been  taken  into  account.  Yet,  after  six  years  of 
implementing  the  EUSAIR,  awareness  about  it  has  increased  among  national/regional 
(mainstream) ESI Funds and IPA programmes. The analysis of their contribution to the MRS 
objectives, included in their Annual Implementation Reports (2019) shows that: 

  9 programmes opened their monitoring committees to EUSAIR key implementers; 
  14 ESI Funds programmes attributed extra points to EUSAIR labelled projects; 

51 

 
 
  7  ESI  Funds  programmes  and  one  IPA  II  programme  invested  funds  in  actions 

contributing to the implementation of the EUSAIR.  

This  is  certainly  an  encouraging  sign,  but  the  embedding  process  should  bring  more 
meaningful  results  in  2021-2027.  A  good  method  for  aligning  mainstream  funds  to  the 
EUSAIR has recently been tested by the Italian Region Basilicata. The managing authority of 
the regional ESI Funds programme 2014-2020 launched a call for proposals on Research and 
Innovation  with  a  budget  of  EUR  3.1  million.  This  call  included  dedicated  evaluation  and 
selection criteria giving additional points to proposals contributing to EUSAIR objectives and 
including cooperation with partners from other EU Member States.  

Being dedicated to all EU-27 Member States, EU directly managed funds are more difficult to 
intercept. However, a few good examples of EUSAIR projects have been implemented (e.g. 
SUNBEAM,  A.NI.M.US  and  SEA-UNITED),  all  co-financed  by  Erasmus+.  Furthermore, 
some projects agreed by EUSAIR TSGs and developed into project concepts by the EUSAIR 
FP, are currently under evaluation, while others will be soon presented to calls for proposal 
under EU direct funding programmes (e.g. LIFE).   

Finally,  in  addition  to  looking  for  new  funding,  also  on-going  projects  such  as  LIFE 
Integrated Projects (e.g. for clean air in  Italy/Slovenia) could provide useful building blocks 
for  closer  cooperation  and  exchange  of  best  practice  on  shared  problems  in  the  EUSAIR 
region. 

Embedding  

The process of embedding EUSAIR priorities in the next generation (2021-2027) of ESI and 
IPA  funding  programmes  has  been  central  among  the  EUSAIR  governance  structures 
following  the  request  of  EUSAIR  ministers  (in  the  Catania  Declaration,  24  May  2018). 
Governance  structures  jointly  agreed  on  common  priorities  and  to  identify  macro-regional 
measures and projects to be implemented through coordinated planning and programming of 
national/regional ESI and IPA funds ‘mainstream’ programmes.  

The process has proved to be challenging, yet, TSGs have identified a set of macro-regional 
priorities  that  have  been  further  reviewed  and  agreed  by  national  coordinators.  The  TSGs 
worked further on identifying flagship  /  emblematic projects  to  be included in  ESI and  IPA 
mainstream  programmes  (presented  to  and  approved  by  the  NCs  during  the  GB  meeting  in 
June 2020).  

In  parallel,  all  EUSAIR  participating  countries  have  worked  intensively  with  their  own 
national authorities in charge of planning and programming EU funds, to ensure that EUSAIR 
priorities are taken on board in their post-2020 programming documents. These activities have 
already  yielded  positive  results  in  all  EU  Member  States  where  the  EUSAIR  priorities 
selected by TSGs are discussed in the programming of ESI Funds. A dialogue for embedding 
EUSAIR  priorities  is  also  held  within  IPA  countries,  where  national  EUSAIR  structures 
cooperate  with  National  IPA  Coordinators  (NIPAC)  offices  and  relevant  Commission 
departments.  

A step forward was made with the meeting of EUSAIR key implementers and ESI Funds-IPA 
programme  authorities  held  in  September  2019  in  Slovenia  in  the  context  of  the 
‘Mediterranean Coast  and Macro-Regional Strategies Week’. This  was a  good way to  bring 
together  the  EUSAIR  and  the  mainstream  programmes’  world,  to  promote  the  benefits  of 
cooperation between funding programmes in the framework of the EUSAIR, and to establish 
a dialogue between authorities managing the ERDF and IPA funds and the representatives of 
the EUSAIR governance. 

52 

 
 
Communication 

The  activity  plan  and  the  annual  communication  plan,  both  prepared  by  the  EUSAIR  FP, 
include  all  communication  activities.  Specific  plans  for  TSGs  and  for  the  rotating  EUSAIR 
presidency  (also  for  the  annual  forum)  are  prepared  to  improve  communication  with  media 
and stakeholders. The EUSAIR  FP invested in  capacity building  activities for EUSAIR key 
implementers  and  issued  key  publications  such  as  the  ‘Communication  Manual’  aimed  to 
increase  key  implementers’  knowledge  about  communication  tools  and  techniques  (e.g. 
storytelling, how to approach media). 

Awareness raising, communication activities and the organisation of events at macro-regional 
and national level have been high on the agenda of the EUSAIR FP to boost visibility among 
stakeholders and the public, as well as to increase communication capacities of EUSAIR key 
implementers. The EUSAIR website contains information about the Strategy’s achievements, 
events,  opening  of  calls  for  proposals  and  EU  policy  developments.  A  new  feature  of  the 
EUSAIR  website  is  in  progress  to  include  subpages  in  the  languages  of  each  EUSAIR 
participating  country.  A  newsletter  is  sent  out  at  least  twice  a  year,  reaching  over  4  500 
subscribers.  

The  social  media  accounts  on  Twitter  (@EusairPoint,  almost  1900  followers),  Facebook 
(EUSAIR  FP,  almost  400  likes)  and  YouTube  (EUSAIR  FP,  29  subscribers)  multiply  the 
most relevant messages and activities. The number of followers are on the rise, demonstrating 
stakeholders’ interest in being up-to-date with EUSAIR’s developments.  

The most successful events in terms of media coverage in the EUSAIR are the annual fora. 
The  4th  EUSAIR  annual  forum  (Budva,  6-9  May  2019),  co-organised  by  the  Montenegrin 
Presidency and the European Commission, attracted over 600 participants. A high number of 
journalists attended the forum with the support of the EU MEDIA programme promoting the 
participation  of  international  journalists.  The  EUSAIR  was  brought  closer  to  young  people 
through  a  workshop  for  journalism  students,  organised  by  the  EUSAIR  FP  that  resulted  in 
recommendations  on  how  to  communicate  smartly  on  the  objectives  and  results  of  the 
EUSAIR on social media.  

The  ‘Mediterranean  Coast  and  Macro-Regional  Strategies  Week’  organized  by  Slovenia  on 
18-28  September  2018  and  17-28  September  2019  at  the  Slovenian  coast,  was    another 
important  annual  occasion  to  communicate  about  MRS.  In  2018,  the  initiative  ‘Draw  the 
Coast’  encouraged  over  600  individuals  to  share  their  ideas  and  vision  on  the  future  of  the 
region  by  drawing  on  a  2,24 km  long  paper  roll.  In  2018  and  2019,  the  event  included  a 
session on communication aimed at exchanging experience and streamlining activities among 
all MRS with the support of the Interact programme. 

The  EUSAIR  Stakeholders  Platform,  has  been  developed  to  facilitate  communication, 
partnership  creation  and  exchange  of  project  ideas.  The  Platform  is  important  in  supporting 
the  implementation  of  the  EUSAIR  action  plan,  but  it  is  still  modestly  used.  Its 
communication tools have proved particularly beneficial for the organisation of online official 
meetings of the EUSAIR governance during the lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 
More benefits  for the implementation  of the Strategy will emerge when a higher number of 
stakeholders and implementers will engage with the Platform. In that context, the EUSAIR FP 
has developed an Engagement and a Marketing Plan to increase engagement and attract more 
stakeholders. 

53 

 
 
 
 
Cooperation within and across strategies 

Cooperation within the EUSAIR 

As  a  general  rule,  EUSAIR  actions  and  projects  are  coherent  and  mutually  supportive  and 
they  should  complement  and  reinforce  each  other’s  impact82.  Many  projects  identified  by 
TSGs, particularly on environmental protection, cannot be restricted to one pillar as they are 
by nature cross-cutting.  

Coordination  between  pillars  continues  to  be  ensured  through  the  ‘Technical  meetings  of 
pillar coordinators’ facilitated by the Commission and preceding all GB meetings.  

At the implementation level, the EUSAIR FP Plus facilitates the development of cross-pillar 
project  ideas  and  their  presentation  to  calls  for  proposals  under  Interreg  or  other  funding 
sources. Examples of projects under development by EUSAIR FP Plus are the ‘Water borne 
Adriatic-Ionian  Technological  Platform’ (Pillars  1 and 2) aimed  at  creating a blue economy 
cluster in ship and boat building, logistics, marine robotics, etc., and ADRIONet (Pillars 3 and 
4),  which  will  develop  a  system  of  management  and  control  of  tourist  flows  in  marine 
protected areas. 

Considering  complementarities  between  sectors,  TSGs  engaged  in  joint  events  on  specific 
topics relevant for more than one Pillar. The Joint conference of Pillars 3 and 4 on ‘Evaluation 
and  Preservation  of  Environment  for  Tourism’  was  organised  in  the  context  of  the 
‘Mediterranean  Coast  and  Macro-Regional  Strategies  Week’  on  26-27  September  2019  in 
Slovenia.  The  conference,  aimed  at  developing  sustainable  tourism,  was  organised  in 
cooperation  with  the  Interreg  transnational  programmes  ‘ADRION’  and  ‘Mediterranean’. 
Also,  the  Stakeholder  Platform  aims  at  improving  cooperation  within  the  Strategy, 
particularly between stakeholders and key implementers. 

Cooperation across MRS 

Coordination, cooperation and sharing information with other MRS is essential for coherence 
and  development  of  the  EUSAIR.  This  is  supported  by  Interact  with  the  organisation  of 
thematic  cross-MRS  meetings,  workshops  and  events  (e.g.  on  governance,  communication, 
climate change and disaster risk prevention issues, biodiversity, energy, etc.). 

Bringing in the experience of other MRS is also the role of key implementers from countries 
included in two or more MRS. In June 2019, macro-regional strategy cooperation was brought 
to the highest political level in Europe at the occasion of the Three Seas Initiative Summit and 
the Three Seas Business Forum under the Slovenian Presidency. In this context, the EUSAIR 
FP Plus organised the EU Macro-regional Strategies Breakfast to exchange views on common 
challenges  and  building  links  between  the  EU  MRS  and  the  Three  Seas  Initiative.  The 
EUSAIR  was  actively  involved  in  the  event,  with  the  participation  of  the  coordinators  of 
Pillar 2 and Pillar 3, as well as the Slovenian national coordinator. 

In February 2020, the GB meeting was organised back-to-back with the ‘EU Macro Regional 
Strategies Week’ in Brussels, and in parallel to numerous workshops, meetings and seminars 
of  all  four  MRS.  The  event  aimed  at  improving  coordination  between  MRS  countries,  to 
strengthen  interactions  between  them  and  Brussels  stakeholders83,  and  to  accelerate  the 
embedding process. Almost 700 stakeholders from all four MRS and from Brussels attended 
the event that was assessed by participants as a unique and successful networking occasion.  

82  Broad criterion ‘f’ common to all pillars to guide project pre-screening processes.  
83  European Institutions, embassies, representations, missions in Brussels, regional representations, think tanks, 

etc.  

54 

 
 
                                                           
At bilateral level, Pillar 3 of the EUSAIR cooperates with the EUSALP on the project ’PET 
HAB  ECO  –  Protection  and  enhancement  of  natural  terrestrial  habitats  and  ecosystems’. 
Another strengthened cooperation is planned with the EUSDR on energy networks.  

CHALLENGES 

Governance and administrative capacity 

At  political  level,  commitment  to  the  objectives  of  the  EUSAIR  is  expressed  through  the 
annual  ministerial  declarations  that  indicates  the  way  forward  for  national  administrations, 
EUSAIR  governing  structures  and  stakeholders  in  order  to  maximise  the  impact  of  the 
Strategy.  Yet,  there  is  still  a  gap  between  official  political  commitments  and  the  ability  of 
national administrations to follow up on them.  

The  EUSAIR  FP  provides  practical  contribution  to  the  work  of  EUSAIR’s  governing 
structures  and  supports  them  through  the  implementation  of  the  EUSAIR.  In  particular,  it 
deals with strategic project development, monitoring and evaluation, communication and the 
relations  with  stakeholders.  Bottlenecks  and  delays  are  due  mainly  to  the  complex 
organizational  structure  of  the  FP  project  and  to  the  different  working  methods  between 
EUSAIR governing structures and the FP. 

On the multi-level governance of each country, a study by the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD), provides an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses 
of  the  administrative  arrangements  for  the  implementation  of  the  EUSAIR  action  plan.  The 
study found a variety of different approaches to the internal coordination of relevant sectors 
and levels of government, including ministries of foreign affairs, authorities in charge of EU 
funds,  sectoral  ministries  and  regional  and  local  administrations.  Even  though  such 
mechanisms are established, the study pointed to barriers to the success of the Strategy come 
from difficulties in developing ownership among national and local stakeholders, complexity 
of  governing  structures,  lack  of  clear  mandates  for  key  implementers  and  difficulties  with 
funding mechanisms. 
At  stakeholders’  level,  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  Fora  and  networks84  have  aligned  their 
geography and priorities to the EUSAIR. They are generally very active in contributing to the 
EUSAIR  annual  fora,  participating  in  several  of  the  macro-regional  initiatives  (e.g.  AI-
NURECC  project  and  the  EUSAIR  Stakeholders  Platform)  and  applying  for  EU  calls  to 
finance  actions  in  line  with  EUSAIR  objectives.  Yet,  more  coordination  and  exchange  of 
information between them and the governing structures of the EUSAIR is needed.  

Although  they  are  very  committed,  these  organisations  represent  only  a  part  of  the  Adriatic 
and  Ionian  civil  society.  The  EUSAIR  should  reach  out  more  to  NGOs,  associations,  and 
businesses  that  are  only  occasionally  involved,  for  example  at  B2B  meetings  in  connection 
with the EUSAIR annual fora. 

The  Stakeholder  Platform  under  the  EUSAIR  FP,  could  play  a  significant  role  in  this 
objective.  However,  even  if  its  functionalities  have  been  improved,  it  is  still  far  from 
exploiting  its  full  potential  as  a  tool  to  raise  awareness  among  stakeholders,  facilitate 
communication, share information and to support project development.   

84  AI Forum of Chambers of Commerce, UniAdrion (the network of AI Universities), AI Forum of Cities. 

55 

 
 
                                                           
Policy and thematic priorities  

Efforts  by  key  implementers  and  stakeholders  are  needed  to  increase  EUSAIR’s  impact  on 
policies. A more strategic vision for implementing the Strategy is needed. On the one hand, a 
stronger  political  guidance  is  needed  to  mobilise  relevant  administrative  structures  in  all 
participating  countries.  On  the  other  hand,  wider  participation  of  civil  society  needs  to  be 
sought through extensive consultations for governing structures to get better acquainted with 
the needs at grassroots level.  

Line  Ministers  have  little  involvement  in  implementing  the  EUSAIR,  which  needs  a 
coordinated  approach  to  yield  meaningful  results.  This  has  consequences  at  implementation 
level,  where  a  low  level  of  ownership  and  staff  constraints,  poor  awareness  in  sectoral 
administrations and lack of participation to TSG meetings affect the overall decision-making 
capacity of these bodies and impacts on the desired objectives. 

More  capacity  building  is  needed  for  EUSAIR  key  implementers  to  improve  strategic 
planning  and  to  make  the  EUSAIR  a  place  for  regional  discussion  on  key  challenges  and 
opportunities, and to adapt actions to relevant EU policies. This would not only support the 
development  of  macro-regional  projects,  but  would  also  help  key  implementers  to  focus  on 
processes and increasing cooperation from the political level down to civil society. Proposals 
on  how  to  change  the  EUSAIR  approach  have  been  made  in  the  study  on  implementation 
formats mandated by the EUSAIR FP85. The study argues for the need to go beyond projects 
and move towards a new format of ’collaborative for policy and action’ (similar to flagships 
in the EUSBSR) as more strategic, inclusive, and sustainable format. These formats support 
systemic  solutions  to  macro-regional  challenges  and  have  a  clearer  policy  dimension  and 
facilitate the use of multiple sources of funding for their implementation.   

The difference in administrative capacity and availability of human resources as well as the 
disparities  in  the  internal  organisation  of  the  administration  has  an  impact  on  the  level  of 
involvement of actors in national EUSAIR governing structures. As a consequence, the ability 
to achieve the objectives of the EUSAIR under each pillar and to align to EU policy differs 
from country to country.  

There is  a need to  liaise more with  initiatives at European and international  level,  to  define 
responsibilities, avoid overlapping and looking for complementarities. Some cooperation exist 
between the EUSAIR  and the Barcelona Convention, which is part of the EU  Acquis, and a 
number of relevant multilateral organisations, such as the Energy Community, the Transport 
Community, the Council of Europe, but a more structured coordination and clearer division of 
responsibilities would support the efforts of all organisations concerned.  

Monitoring and evaluation 

Monitoring and evaluation systems have been delayed and still are at the development stage. 
Apart from examples of indicators and targets that exist in the EUSAIR action plan, no list of 
common  indicators  has  been  agreed  and  no  baselines  exists  to  measure  progress  towards 
targets. The EUSAIR FP should be able to develop them by the end of 2020.   

A  first  evaluation  (synthetic  report)  helping  EUSAIR  key  implements  better  understand 
weaknesses  and  strengths  of  the  EUSAIR  should  be  ready  by  the  end  of  2020.  This  could 
kick-off a discussion over a revision of the Strategy that would adapt it to the new challenges 
for the programming period 2021-2027. 

85  The EUSAIR: delivering the macro-regional added value. Implementation formats today and tomorrow. Issue 

Paper, Anastasia Nekrasova, February 2019. 

56 

 
 
                                                           
Funding 

Raising funds for the implementation of genuine macro-regional projects is one of the main 
concerns  of  EUSAIR  key  implementers.  The  MRS  come  with  no  new  funds,  meaning  that 
stakeholders or beneficiaries needs to look at a variety of available EU, international, national 
and  private  funding  instruments  in  order  to  finance  their  activities.  The  EUSAIR  key 
implementers  should  support  and  provide  guidance  on  funding  opportunities.  Emphasis 
should  be  given  to  the  development  of  capacity  to  matching  funds  ,  project  ideas  and 
proposals.  The  Stakeholder  Platforms  could  play  a  role  in  helping  to  identify  funding 
opportunities and connecting EUSAIR governance and stakeholders.  

EUSAIR key implementers and stakeholders/beneficiaries consider the EU funding sources as 
the most important financial tool to implement the Strategy.  However, there is a difference 
between  access  to  EU  funding  between  EU  Member  States  and  non-EU  countries86.  A 
balanced implementation throughout  the Adriatic and  Ionian region  of EUSAIR actions and 
projects  is  a  challenge  due  to  a  lower  of  financial  capacity  in  IPA  countries.  Beside  the 
ongoing  activities  of  embedding  EUSAIR  priorities  into  ESI  and  IPA  Funds  mainstream 
programmes, a discussion regarding the use of EU directly managed funds (HORIZON 2020, 
LIFE,  COSME,  CEF,  ERASMUS+,  etc.),  as  well  as  on  seeking  support  from  International 
Financial Institutions and private funds  should be initiated. This also involves representatives 
of  the  Commission  departments  dealing  with  directly  managed  funds,  the  European 
Investment  Bank    (EIB),  the  Western  Balkans  Investment  Framework  (WBIF)  and  other 
funding and financial instruments relevant to EUSAIR TSGs.  

The EUSAIR has a special focus on cooperation between EU Member States and enlargement 
countries. Bringing enlargement countries closer to EU values and policies is an added value. 
However, it poses practical difficulties in terms of embedding EUSAIR priorities in ESI and 
IPA  funding  programmes.  Different  structures,  regulations,  methodologies,  timing  and 
available amounts have to be addressed. This makes it challenging to devise joint, parallel or 
coordinated actions and projects implementing the EUSAIR action plan. 

The EUSAIR has been the frontrunner in establishing a financial dialogue on embedding as a 
follow up of the Catania Declaration in 2018. Discussions on how to use post-2020 ESI and 
IPA  funds  to  implement  the  EUSAIR  have  started  rather  quickly  at  the  level  of  EUSAIR 
governance (GB and TSGs) with the support of the Commission (DG REGIO and DG NEAR) 
and  internally,  within  the  administration  of  each  country.  Nonetheless,  the  challenges  of 
governance  and  administrative  capacity  mentioned  earlier  (complexity  of  governing 
structures,  lack  of  clear  mandate)  affect  the  speed  of  the  decision-making  process  on  the 
selection of a limited number of emblematic projects and actions to be included in the post-
2020 ESI and IPA funds programming documents. 

Communication 

The  complex  structure  of  the  EUSAIR  makes  it  cumbersome  for  its  governing  bodies  and 
implementers  to  communicate  to  external  stakeholders  in  a  simple  and  direct  way  about 
results  and  the  added  value  of  the  Strategy.  Although  much  has  been  done  this  respect, 
continuous  capacity  building  activities  are  needed.  The  work  of  the  EUSAIR  FP  on  the 

86  Funds  directly  managed  by  the  EU  Commission  such  as  Horizon  2020,  CEF,  LIFE,  COSME,  ERASMUS+ 
only  envisage  a  very  limited  participation  of  third  countries;  there  is  a  huge  difference  in  size  between 
mainstream  ESI  funds  available  for  Member  States  and  IPA  funds  available  for  enlargement  countries;  the 
amount  of  IPA  funds  (€15.7  million)  in  ADRION  programme  is  much  lower  compared  to  ERDF 
(€83.5 million).  

57 

 
 
                                                           
narrative of the EUSAIR mission and vision needs further development in terms of defining 
targeted messages for stakeholders. The strategic workshop for Pillar 2 was a pilot project to 
define pillar specific needs for communication activities. Such initiatives could be replicated 
and bring benefit to the overall communication outcomes of the EUSAIR.  

At national level, the involvement of EUSAIR key implementers in communication activities 
(as outlined in the annual communication plan) differs from country to country, mirroring the 
level of ownership and capacity.  

Communication  across  MRS  is  improving  but  with  varying  levels.  So  far,  the  Interact 
working  groups  on  communication  have  proven  a  good  instrument  for  sharing  experiences 
and cooperating between MRS. However, developing common strategies remains a challenge. 

THE WAY FORWARD 

Lessons learnt  

Having  started  the  discussion  to  embed  EUSAIR  priorities  in  ESI  and  IPA  funding 
programmes at an early stage (already in 2018), awareness over the potential of EUSAIR and 
the necessity to include measures, actions and projects supporting its implementation in post-
2020 programming documents, has risen among national and regional authorities in charge of 
planning and programming. The challenge remains to make sure that those measures, actions 
and projects are coordinated between all EUSAIR participating countries.  

Many countries have implemented projects in line with EUSAIR’s objectives (using ESI, IPA 
or other funds). However, a coordinated approach under the EUSAIR governance framework 
is  often  lacking.  The  labelling  process  (ex-post)  in  Pillar  2  has  proved  to  be  useful  for 
developing  projects  in  the  energy  and  transport  sectors  which  contribute  to  EUSAIR’s 
objectives. However, a more structured cooperation between EUSAIR key implementers and 
the organisations, institutions and businesses supporting those projects could be established in 
order to tie in with EUSAIR’s actions and projects.  

In the current programming period, most priority axis of Interreg programmes (Transnational, 
CBC,  IPA-CBC)  in  the  Adriatic-Ionian  region  are  in  line  with  EUSAIR’s  priorities.  Yet, 
cooperation between them has been limited to sharing experiences and information. By way 
of example, all maritime CBC programmes in the region (Interreg CBC Italy-Croatia, Greece-
Italy and Interreg IPA CBC Italy-Albania-Montenegro) invest in maritime transport, but there 
is no coordination between them that has been established on this topic. In order to make sure 
that  2021-2027  EU  funds  in  the  region  are  used  coherently  and  to  maximise  their  impact, 
cooperation between those programmes is paramount from the planning to the implementation 
phase,  with  a  view  to  engage  in  coordinated  or  parallel  projects  maximising  the  impact  of 
each Interreg programme.  

Attracting  media  attention  is  a  challenge  for  the  Strategy.  So  far,  two  main  aspects  have 
proven  as  a  guarantee  for  media  coverage  of  the  EUSAIR:  (i)  the  attendance  of  high-level 
politicians at events, and (ii) EU funded initiatives.  It is important to showcase the progress 
and achievements of the EUSAIR key implementers in their daily work. Further support from 
external experts shall be sought to improve the promotion of EUSAIR’s work. To overcome 
this  challenge,  the  EUSAIR  FP  cooperated  with  several  media  and  communication  experts, 
which led to positive results. Good communication on national media about the EUSAIR also 
depends  from  the  cooperation  dynamics  between  the  EUSAIR  FP  and  EUSAIR  key 
implementers in each country. 

58 

 
 
Main issues  

A  well-functioning  and  efficient  multi-level  governing  structure  is  the  prerequisite  for 
reaching  the  objectives  set  in  the  EUSAIR  action  plan.  While  EUSAIR  key  implementers, 
with  the  support  of  the  Commission,  have  been  able  to  establish  stable  cooperation  in  the 
framework of its governing structures, there still room for improvement.  

Key  implementers  (both  at  coordination  and  implementation  level)  are  the  EUSAIR 
representatives in  their own countries. One of their tasks is  to involve national  and regional 
administrations  in  the  macro-regional  governance,  to  the  benefit  of  the  multi-sectoral  and 
multi-level  nature  of  the  Strategy.  Something  has  been  done  to  improve  awareness  and 
ownership  of  the  EUSAIR  by  all  countries  concerned,  but  a  more  systematic  approach, 
supported by the political level (also sectoral), is needed to achieve more meaningful results.  

In practice, political support needs to be translated into more stable participation in governing 
structures, particularly in TSGs, where on some occasions it has been impossible to reach the 
quorum needed to take decisions.  

EUSAIR  governing  structures  should  continue  investing  in  capacity  building,  focusing  on 
strengthening the liaison between stakeholders /  beneficiaries and all available funds at  EU, 
international,  national  and  private  level.  Capacity  building  should  aim  at  improving  TSG’s 
ability to navigate through the large number of available funds and to direct proposals coming 
from stakeholders towards the best funding solutions.  

All  EUSAIR key implementers should reach out  more to  stakeholders,  civil  society and the 
public  in  general  by  communicating  on  the  potential  and  added  value  of  the  EUSAIR  and 
consulting  them  more  frequently  on  EUSAIR  issues,  challenges,  priorities,  initiatives,  etc. 
The  Stakeholders  Platform  could  be  a  key  tool  to  build  a  more  open  and  inclusive  macro-
regional strategy. Furthermore, instruments as the ’Communication Manual’ developed by the 
EUSAIR  FP to  harmonise communication activities and techniques across  the macro-region 
should be used more widely by EUSAIR key implementers. 

The EUSAIR FP has proved to be a necessary tool to support EUSAIR governing structures 
in many aspects, such as offering valuable assistance to the EUSAIR presidencies in running 
the complex embedding process. Continuity for the EUSAIR FP’s activities should be ensured 
by simplifying and adding more flexibility to its operations.  

As far as the monitoring and evaluation  processes are concerned, there is an urgent  need to 
develop baselines, indicators and targets necessary to monitor and evaluate the Strategy in the 
future. 

Future development 

So  far,  EUSAIR  key  implementers  have  carried  out  good  work  on  ‘embedding’.  Now  they 
have the responsibility to maintain the momentum. The embedding process will not be over 
once  the  EUSAIR  priorities  and  emblematic  projects/actions  are  included  in  ESI  and  IPA 
funds  2021-2027  programmes,  but  it  will  be  particularly  important  to  follow-up  during  the 
implementation  of  programmes.  EUSAIR  key  implementers  should  establish  efficient  and 
effective  collaboration  mechanisms  with  authorities  managing  ESI  and  IPA  funds 
programmes and look for practical solutions to combine different methodologies for the use of 
these funds in both the EU Member States and in the enlargement countries. 

As a follow-up to the first meeting of the managing authorities, NIPAC offices and EUSAIR 
key  implementers,  held  in  Slovenia  in  September  2019,  establishing  networks  of  managing 
authorities (ERDF, EMFF, ESF) in the macro-region would be essential. This would help to 

59 

 
 
implement  joint,  coordinated  or  complementary/parallel  actions  and  projects  in  line  with 
EUSAIR’s objectives. These networks should involve IPA countries, taking into account the 
differences in timeframe, regulations and methodologies for investing IPA III funds.  

As far as available funds under the IPA III Strategic Framework, priority should be given to 
those  actions  that  contribute  at  once  to  the  EUSAIR’s  objectives  and  to  the    enlargement 
process. 

Particular support should be given to IPA countries to increase their efforts and capability to 
embed  EUSAIR  priorities  into  IPA  III  Strategic  framework.  To  this  aim,  financial  dialogue 
meetings  should  be  organized  regularly  in  each  country  to  improve  cooperation  between 
EUSAIR key implementers (NCs, PCs, TSG members), NIPAC offices, EU local delegations 
and relevant Commission departments (DG REGIO, DG NEAR, other relevant line DGs).  

EUSAIR  key  implementers  should  be  able  to  seize  the  opportunities  in  the  near  future  to 
make  a  quantum  leap  in  implementing  the  EUSAIR.  The  ongoing  preparations  for  the  new 
programming period (2021-2027) for EU funds, the new Commission political priorities, the 
new enlargement methodology, together with the ongoing evaluation of the EUSAIR, are all 
elements to take into account when revising the action plan. 

A  revision  of  the  EUSAIR  action  plan  should  ensure  its  contribution  to  national  and  EU 
policies (for EUSAIR relevant  sectors) and priorities (‘A stronger Europe in  the world’, the 
‘European Green Deal’, ‘an economy that works for people’) and add the flexibility needed to 
allow for prompt reactions to crisis and to keep abreast of changing needs. The need for such 
flexibility became clear in March 2020 with the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis. 

In  the  second  semester  of  2021,  Slovenia  will  hold  the  presidency  of  the  Council  of  the 
European  Union  immediately  after  holding  the  yearly  presidency  of  the  EUSAIR.  The 
Slovenian Parliament proposed to include the MRS in the priorities of the Presidency of the 
Council.  This  is  a  unique  opportunity  to  boost  the  implementation  and  visibility  of  the 
EUSAIR  and  to  launch  a  strategic  discussion  on  the  future  of  the  Strategy  in  line  with  the 
current challenges and to connect it with the enlargement process in a more practical manner. 

Together with advancing in the embedding process, a closer link to the enlargement process 
will be of utmost importance to reaffirm the European perspective in the Western Balkans, in 
line with the new Commission objective of ‘a stronger Europe in the world’. The EUSAIR, as 
a flexible instrument, should adapt its activities to the reform of the enlargement methodology 
(COM (2020) 57 final)87 and should 'go from words to actions' by practically supporting the 
enlargement  process  operationally.  By  allowing  cooperation  on  a  level  playing  field,  the 
EUSAIR  is  the  ideal  instrument  to  open  gradually  EU  policies  (those  related  to  the  four 
EUSAIR  pillars)  to  candidate  and  potential  candidate  countries.  At  political  level,  sharing 
knowledge and cooperating should be established through high-level political initiatives in the 
region such as the EU-Western Balkan Summits and relevant regional cooperation initiatives. 
This  will  reduce  overlaps,  allow  for  better  coordination  and  increase  regional  cooperation 
with the end goal of having a stronger, more positive impact on people living in the region.  

‘Climate change mitigation’, as a horizontal objective of the EUSAIR, contributes across all 
the pillars to achieving the goals of the ‘European Green Deal’.  In the future programming 
period,  commitments  to  reducing  the  carbon  footprint  in  the  region  needs  to  be  boosted, 
particularly  for  the  transport,  energy  and  tourism  sectors.  To  maximise  the  impact  of  the 
European  Green  Deal,  the  entire  Europe,  including  the  Western  Balkans,  should  put 

87  Enhancing the accession process – A credible EU perspective for the Western Balkans – COM(2020) 57 final.  

60 

 
 
                                                           
mitigation of climate change high in their national agendas. Together with the ‘Green Agenda 
for  Western  Balkans’,  which  is  currently  under  preparation,  the  EUSAIR  is  the  ideal 
instrument  to  enable  cooperation  on  joint  actions,  projects  and  processes  supporting 
decarbonisation efforts in the Adriatic and Ionian region.  

Any  revision  of  the  EUSAIR  action  plan  should  embed  the  EU  target  to  make  Europe  a 
climate-neutral  continent  by  2050  and  the  connected  targets  of  a  toxic-free  environment  by 
combating  pollution, enhancing the circularity  of the  economy  and preserving and  restoring 
biodiversity.  It  is  also  essential  to  align  the  EUSAIR  to  national  strategic  and  development 
documents in all participating countries such as policy implementation Plans and Programmes 
required by the EU acquis.  

Macro-regional strategies offer to its constituencies a flexible instrument for cooperation, not 
bound  by  EU  funding  regulations  or  international  financial  instrument  conditions.  In  these 
particularly  unprecedented  times,  participating  countries  should  use  the  EUSAIR  as  an 
appropriate tool to respond to the COVID 19 crisis in cooperation with their neighbours. Any 
future revision of the Strategy should envisage mechanisms that allow swift reactions to crises 
and  sudden  challenges,  be  they  at  regional  level,  as  in  the  case  of  migration  (of  non-EU 
nationals), or at global level, as in the case of the COVID-19 crisis.  

61 

 
 
 
 
Report on the implementation of the European Union Strategy for the 
Alpine Region (EUSALP) 

The  EUSALP  was  endorsed  by  the  Council  on  27  November  2015  and  by  the  European 
Council  on  28 June  2016,  on  the  basis  of  a  Communication  adopted  by  the  Commission  in 
July 2015, and its accompanying action plan. 

The Strategy was developed around the ‘Alpine Region’ seen as a functional area, inhabited 
by about 80 million people (16% of the EU’s population) and covering seven countries (five 
EU  MS  -  Austria,  France,  Germany,  Italy  and  Slovenia  -  and  two  non-EU  countries  - 
Switzerland  and  Liechtenstein)  and  48  regions.  It  builds  upon  a  high  level  of  existing 
cooperation in the region. 

RESULTS 

Governance and administrative capacity 

General  

The EUSALP’s governance structure has three inter-related levels:  

 
 
 

the political level (leadership and ownership), represented in the General Assembly; 
the coordination level, represented by the Executive Board (EB); and 
the implementation level, represented by the nine thematic Action Groups (AGs). 

After  its  initial  years  where  an  effective  governance  structure  and  supporting  instruments 
were  established,  the  first  results  of  actions  with  added  value  at  macro-regional  level  are 
coming  up  and AGs,  in  a  non-homogeneous  way,  are  implementing  the  action  plan  and  its 
objectives. 

Two  major  innovations  in  the  EUSALP  governance  structure,  compared  to  the  three  other 
MRS,  are  (i)  the  presence  of  the  regions  at  all  three  levels  of  governance,  and  (ii)  the 
existence of a specific Strategy’s objective focusing on governance. 

A  suitable  governance  can  determine  the  success  (or  failure)  of  a  MRS.  Accordingly, 
governance-related  issues  are  still  central  in  the  EB  discussions  as  they  are  preventing  the 
Strategy from taking off, or at least, from developing its full potential. In June 2019, a specific 
Task Force on governance was established, to reflect on and make proposals to improve the 
effectiveness of the current EUSALP governance.  

Political level 

The role of the rotating MRS presidency is growing, as the participating countries realise its 
importance  in  driving  the  strategic  direction  of  the  MRS.  In  parallel,  a  ‘Trio  presidency’ 
arrangement  was  established  and  its  role  has  been  increasingly  strengthened.  Moreover,  in 
February  2020,  to  strengthen  political  participation  in  the  strategic  management  of  the 
EUSALP, the General Assembly created a ‘political steering committee’. This committee will 
gather  politicians  and  will  prepare  the  General  Assembly’s  meetings  to  give  them  more 
politically-oriented  content.  Politicians  from  the  Lombardy  and  Bourgogne  Franche-Comte 
regions are already volunteering to pilot this process. 

62 

 
 
During the period covered by this report, two Joint Declarations (Innsbruck 2018 and Milano 
2019)88 were delivered. Under the current French Presidency, a Manifesto ‘Together to shape 
a sustainable and resilient Alpine region’ was produced89. 

The  annual  fora,  the  presidencies  kick-off  events  and  the  EUSALP  General  Assembly 
meetings  are  occasions  for  the  political  level  to  show  their  political  steering,  continued 
commitment and their belief that the EUSALP brings significant added value to cooperation 
in  the  region.  However,  and  contrary  to  the  other  MRS,  so  far  no  dedicated  thematic 
ministerial meetings have been held back-to-back with the EUSALP annual fora. 

The 2018 and 2019 EUSALP fora, respectively  in  Innsbruck (20-21 November 2018, under 
the Tyrolean Presidency) and Milano (27-28 November 2019, under the  Italian Presidency), 
offered  major  opportunities  to  raise  awareness  of  the  Strategy  and  to  increase  its  visibility. 
The  2020  annual  forum,  under  the  French  Presidency,  should  take  place  in  Nice  (10-11 
December). 

The 2018 EUSALP forum focused on giving a stronger voice to young people in the EUSALP 
area as laid down in the political declaration of Innsbruck. As far as the 2019 EUSALP forum 
is concerned, special attention was paid to the green economy, young people and stakeholder 
involvement in the EUSALP process, together with boosting of the Alpine cultural dimension. 
Political declarations put the accent on how the EUSALP can help to build a Europe closer to 
the  people  and  a  'bottom-up'  Europe.  Moreover  robust  links  between  the  EUSALP  and  the 
new Commission priorities have been made. A very strong message on the importance of the 
‘embedding’  (i.e.  aligning  ESI  Funds  2021-2027  programmes  with  the  EUSALP  priorities) 
was adopted in the joint declaration. The Italian Presidency (2019) stressed the need to further 
strengthen the Strategy’s governance and highlighted the need for increased awareness of the 
EUSALP  at  the  political  level.  This  led  to  the  Italian  Prime  Minister  participating  in  the 
EUSALP annual forum in Milano (November 2019). 

Along the same lines, the Minister of Cohesion of Territories as well as the Presidents of the 
three French regions participating in the EUSALP (Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, Provence-Alpes-
Côte  d’Azur,  and  Bourgogne-Franche-Comté)  attended  the  kick-off  event  of  the  French 
Presidency (Lyon, February 2020). 

Coordination level 

The main responsibilities of the EB are to: 

a)  endorse proposals for actions ensuring an effective implementation of the EUSALP; 
b)  endorse  the  selection  criteria,  work  plans  and  actions  proposed  by  the Action  Group 

Leaders (AGLs); and 

c)  collect  of  the  AGs’  reports  and  monitor  implementation  (EUSALP  EB  Rules  of 

Procedure). 

However,  in  the  past  2  years,  the  EB’s  agenda  was  mainly  focused  on  preparing  the  Joint 
Declarations  and  on  the  administrative  and  the  housekeeping  tasks.  Accordingly,  the  EB’s 
core tasks were not executed properly. 

There is unanimity among all participants (at both EB and AG levels) that it is necessary to 
improve the relations between EB and AG. Some of the EB’s roles, at coordination level, are 
to  give  operational  guidance  to  those  operating  at  the  implementation  level  (AG),  report  on 

88 https://www.alpine-region.eu/official-documents-guidelines  
89 https://www.alpine-region.eu/news/eusalp-manifesto  

63 

 
 
                                                           
evaluate 

cross-cutting 
and 
national/regional/thematic level and facilitate major events. 

performance, 

facilitate 

issues, 

coordinate 

at 

a 

to  streamline  and 

In relation to national coordination, several national coordinators highlight that the EUSALP’s 
improve  horizontal  (cross-sectorial)  and  vertical 
structure  helps 
coordination  within  and  between  national  and  regional  administrations  in  each  country.  A 
number  of  participating  countries  have  established  internal  coordination  systems  involving 
ministries  of  foreign  affairs,  authorities  in  charge  of  EU  Funds,  sectoral  ministries  and 
regional/local administrations. 

For  example,  in  Austria,  a  coordination  platform  was  established  at  the  beginning  of  the 
EUSALP process and still functions well. Social and economic actors at national and regional 
level,  as  well  as  many  relevant  NGOs,  are  involved  in  this  platform.  While  a  number  of 
relevant institutions regularly participate, involving all actors remains challenging.  

The  Italian  EUSALP  Steering  Committee  (‘Cabina  di  Regia  EUSALP’)  is  a  permanent 
working  group  responsible  for  coordinating  the  national  position  prior  to  the  EUSALP 
Executive  Board  meetings.  This  Committee  includes  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  and 
International  Cooperation,  the  Department  for  Cohesion  Policies  of  the  Presidency  of  the 
Council of Ministers, sectoral Ministries, and the Italian regions concerned.  

In  Bavaria,  regular  meetings  involving  the  national  coordinators  with  representatives  from 
line ministries as well as Bavarian AG leaders have taken place.  

Implementation level 

The  role  of  the  nine  AG  has  grown  noticeably,  as  they  are  the  drivers  of  the  day-to-day 
implementation of actions. However, the position of many MRS implementers remains rather 
challenging, as neither the financing nor the political and administrative support to implement 
a broad set of targets is continuously present. 

New subgroups have been established, work plans have been further developed, and regular 
meetings of both the AGs and the Board of Action Group Leaders (BAGL) have taken place.  

The Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes Region became co-leader of AG 9 and the Provence-Alpes-Côte 
d’Azur Region became co-leader of AG 4. Baden-Württemberg is no longer the co-leader of 
AG 2. The leader of AG 3 also changed and the Piedmont region volunteered to co-leader this 
AG together with the Trento autonomous province. 

As regards representation at national and regional level in the AGs, the picture is (still) quite 
diverse, although slightly improving. Some AGs still lack a sufficient number of members in 
order to have the necessary country quorum for taking decisions. Other AGs are composed of 
members  who  have  neither  the  appropriate  technical  expertise  nor  the  mandate  to  take 
decisions.  In  other  cases,  the AGs  have  too  many  participants  at  the  meetings.  This  makes 
implementation processes in the AGs and consensual decisions challenging. 

The reports from the AGs show that almost that all AGs are systematically implementing and 
continuously adjusting their work plans along the topics of the EUSALP’s action plan, and in 
some  cases,  even  taking  new  topics  on  board.  The  EB  and  the  AGs  acknowledged  in  the 
meeting  of  June  2019,  that  the  EUSALP Action  Plan  is  still  appropriate  and  no  revision  is 
needed, so far. 

An increasing number of projects have been developed by AGs. These projects are providing  
more and more of a transnational added value, showing big improvements and an increasing 
professionalisation.  

64 

 
 
In  order  to  help  AG  leaders  and  members  to  address  and  implement  the  policy  cycle  and 
improve  efficiency,  the  AlpGov  2  project,  funded  in  2019  by  the  Interreg  Alpine  Space 
transnational  programme,  has 
introduced  a  special  work  package  called  ‘learning 
environment’. This is due to start in 2020 and is led by Bavaria.  

Civil society 

Stakeholders  have  been  involved  since  the  beginning  of  the  EUSALP  and  civil  society  is 
playing an increasing role in implementing the Strategy. Several AGs include representatives 
from  the  civil  society  organisations  among  their  members.  Civil  society  is  also  involved  by 
participating in different AGs events, for example the AG 4’s annual mobility conference and 
the AG 9’s energy conference. A successful test case was the stakeholder involvement during 
the  preparation  of  the  Joint  Declaration  on  soil,  where  Bavaria  actively  identified  and 
involved  –  via  its  line  ministries  –  relevant  stakeholders  including  in  meetings  to  develop 
positions. 

Civil society also participates in events, like e.g. the annual fora. More than 1 000 participants 
attended the two-day annual forum in November 2018 in Innsbruck, and around 600 attended 
the  annual  forum  in  November  2019  in  Milano.  The  networking  village  organised  by  the 
Tyrolean  Presidency  and  the  workshops  offered  the  general  public  the  chance  to  exchange 
views with the experts working on implementing the Strategy. 

For  the  ‘youth.shaping.EUSALP’  process,  an  ongoing  task  force  (Tyrol,  Switzerland  and 
Liechtenstein) is designing a sustainable model for young people to participate in the Alpine 
region, which can represent good practice for getting young people involved. Moreover, this 
exchange had a positive effect on foreign relations with those entities overall. Networks that 
were  established  by  Swiss  partners  for  the  EUSALP  have  also  been  mirrored  in  Interreg 
project  partnerships.  The  annual  competition  ‘Pitch  your  project’,  the  EUSALP  summer 
camps  programme  and  the  future  participative  online  platform  also  aim  to  broadly  involve 
young people and the existing youth structures. 

The French Presidency began to develop a digital participatory platform to boost sustainable 
initiatives,  dissemination,  and  involvement  of  stakeholders  from  the  ground  (sub-regional 
authorities,  SMEs,  NGOs,  young  people  and  members  of  the  public).  With  this  initiative, 
initially envisaged in the EUSALP’s action plan, there has been a boost in strengthening civil 
society and youth involvement in implementing the EUSALP. 

Multi-level governance 

The  MRS  multi-level  governance  approach  requires  dialogue  and  enduring  coordination 
across all decision-making levels and sectors in each country and  region as well as between 
participating  countries  and  regions.  To  reduce  fragmentation  and  increase  the  number  of 
actions being successfully completed, effective participation needs to be encouraged from the 
actors involved. The multi-level governance approach also requires the capacity to exchange 
information and to detect policy gaps or dysfunctionalities when they arise. 

At  the  annual  fora,  a  significant  number  of  participants  from  national,  regional  and  local 
administrations,  universities,  the  business  sector  as  well  as  youth  representatives  and  media 
took  stock  of  progress  achieved. The  discussion  focused  on  challenges  facing  the  EUSALP 
region and exchanged ideas and experience on projects, actions or activities of macro-regional 
relevance. 

EUSALP  is  based  on  and  rooted  at  the  regional  level.  In  light  of  this,  it  has  opened  a  new 
‘policy  channel’,  establishing  a  more  direct  link  between  the  regional  and  EU  level,  not  by 

65 

 
 
bypassing  the  national  level,  but  by  acting  at  the  same  level  in  partnership.  Following  the 
establishment of the EUSALP, politicians can discuss Alpine issues at the General Assembly, 
the European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions. This flattened hierarchy has the 
potential to bring the EU closer to the people . 

At  regional  level,  EUSALP  projects  contributed  to  the  exchange  of  experience,  networking 
and  cooperation  between  actors.  For  example,  under  the  EUSALP  French  Presidency,  a 
systematic  collaboration,  on  an  equal  basis  has  been  established  between  the  state  and  the 
three regions (Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes Provence-Alpes-Côte-d’Azur and Bourgogne-Franche-
Comté). Furthermore, sub-regional authorities, like the ‘Départements’ and Metropolises, and 
NGOs, have become increasingly involved in the macro-regional related processes. 

At national level the facilitator/informer role is being taken seriously. In France, seminars and 
conferences  are  regularly  held  to  inform  and  enable  civil  society  to  participate,  notably  in 
Interreg  programmes  and  seminars  and  in  meetings  of  both  Alpine  and  Jura  Massifs 
Committees.  Switzerland  regularly  informs  interested  stakeholders  and  sets  up  meetings 
(when necessary) to discuss involvement of new parties. 

Policy and thematic priorities  

Achievements 

The  EUSALP,  within  this  reporting  period,  has  been  a  driving  force  for  boosting  and 
implementing both long term processes and short-term specific projects/initiatives which have 
a positive impact on the EUSALP region. 

In  terms  of  long-term  cross-cutting  processes,  the  Strategy  has  contributed  in  particular  to 
strengthen: 
 
 

the dialogue between different sectors; 
the coordination and cooperation within the countries participating in the Strategy and 
between different key organisations acting in the region; and 
the establishment of new stable networks for exchanges and joint actions. 

 

EUSALP  has  also  helped  to  establish  and  strengthen  new  processes  and  networks  between 
experts and policy actors. The exchange of best practices to tackle similar challenges, such as 
climate change and extreme weather events, have proven valuable in developing sustainable 
and effective responses on local, regional, national and transboundary scales. 

In terms of specific projects/initiatives implemented, the Strategy offers a wide range of tools 
aimed at dealing with the main common challenges in the fields of: 

  economic growth and innovation (EUSALP objective: fair access to job opportunities, 

building on the high competitiveness of the region); 

  mobility and connectivity (Objective: sustainable internal and external accessibility to 

all); and 

  environment  and  energy  (Objective:  a  more  inclusive  environmental  framework  for 

all and renewable and reliable energy solutions for the future).  

The  examples  below  related  to  this  reporting  period,  sufficiently  represent  the  diverse 
character of these projects/initiatives where the EUSALP has played a key role as a platform 
for  coordination  and  cooperation  between  sectors  (horizontal  coordination)  and  governance 
levels/stakeholders  (vertical  coordination).  They  form  part  of  long-term  processes  aimed  at 
achieving the long-term EUSALP objectives and strengthening cooperation and coordination 
across different fields. 

66 

 
 
Objective: fair access to job opportunities, building on the high competitiveness of the 
region 

In the field of economic growth and innovation, for example, EUSALP helps to: 

  promote the use of wood as a sustainable building material90; 
  create a common level of understanding and a common scientific base in dual 

education91; and 
facilitate the knowledge process regarding the Research & Innovation Centres 
operating in the Alpine macro-region. 

 

Project example: 
The project Re-Search Alps92 (completed) was led by AG 1 ‘To develop an effective research 
and innovation ecosystem’ and was funded by INEA CEF-TELECOM. The project developed 
a wide database with information concerning laboratories, research centres, SMEs and start-
ups operating in the Research & Innovation field and located in the 7 EUSALP Countries. It is 
now possible to enable the knowledge process regarding the Research & Innovation Centres 
operating  in  the  EUSALP  region  as  well  as  improve  the  networking  across  different 
competence centres. The initiative has achieved important recognitions at European level, as 
since  March  2019  the  Re-Search Alps  dataset  has  been  implemented  in  the  European  Data 
Portal and included in the ‘good practices’ section of the Interreg Europe’s Policy Platform. 

Objective: Sustainable internal and external accessibility to all 

In  the  field  of  mobility  and  connectivity,  the  EUSALP  helps  the  Alpine  macro-region  to 
address key challenges,  such as  cross-border mobility  and digital  connectivity in  the Alpine 
villages.  For  example,  the  EUSALP  helps  to  develop  more  sustainable  mobility  options  in 
cross-border commuting hotspots93 and to support the Smart digital transformation of Alpine 
villages. 

Project example: 
The project Smart Villages94 (ongoing) is led by AG 5 ‘To connect people electronically and 
promote  accessibility  to  public  services’  and  is  funded  by  the  Interreg  Alpine  Space 
programme.  The  project  aims  to  apply  the  Smart  villages  approach  and  bring  together  -  in 
regional  stakeholder  groups  -  policy  makers,  businesses,  academia  and  civil  society  to 
improve the framework for innovation through new forms of stakeholder involvement enabled 
by Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). The project is user-orientated, which 
aims  to  highlights  the  opportunities  and  potentials  that  digitalisation  brings  for  rural 
communities. The active involvement of this population into the elaboration of the project in 
the various test areas is  therefore crucial. The Smart  villages approach  was presented at  the 
EUSALP annual forum in November 2017 and at a major event in May 2019 in Courmayeur, 

90  ARPAF I project ‘Triple Wood – Sustainable Wood Building Culture in the Alpine Region’, leaded by AG 2 

‘To increase the economic potential of strategic sectors’: https://www.triplewood.eu/  

91  Alpine study ‘Dual Systems in the Regions of the Alpine Space’, developed under the leadership of AG 3 ‘To 

improve the adequacy of labour market, education and training in strategic sectors’: https://www.alpine-
region.eu/sites/default/files/uploads/activity/2156/attachments/book_en.pdf  

92  https://www.alpine-region.eu/projects/re-search-alps  
93  ARPAF I project Cross-Border, leaded by AG 4 ‘To promote inter-modality and interoperability in passenger 

and freight transport’: https://www.alpine-region.eu/projects/arpaf-crossborder  

94  https://www.alpine-region.eu/projects/smart-villages  

67 

 
 
                                                           
organized by Aosta Valley Autonomous Region as part of the Italian Presidency of EUSALP.  

Objective: a more inclusive environmental framework for all and renewable and reliable 
energy solutions for the future 

In the field  of  environment  and energy, the EUSALP helps  the Alpine macro-region  to  face 
key  challenges,  such  as  ensuring  a  balance  between  economic  growth  and  environment, 
climate change and environmental risks, and habitats loss and fragmentation. For example, the 
EUSALP has helped to: 

  develop territorial brands for local sustainable growth in the agri-food sector95; 
  establish  a  climate  adaptation  knowledge  portal  covering  the  entire  Alpine  macro-

region96; 
 promote energy efficiency in SMEs97; and 

 
  strengthen ecological connectivity. 

Project example: 

The  EUSALP  ‘star  initiatives’  (ongoing)  are  led  by  AG  7  ‘To  develop  ecological 
connectivity in the whole EUSALP territory / Green Infrastructure’ and aim to: 

(i)  implement  the  political  declaration  of  Alpine  States  and  Regions  ‘Alpine  Green 

infrastructure – joining forces for nature, people and the economy’98; and 

(ii) strengthen the development of green infrastructure in the Alpine macro-region. 

They are financed by different sources of funding:   

  LUIGI  (Linking  Urban  and  Inner-Alpine  Green  Infrastructure  -  Multifunctional 
the  Interreg 

territories),  financed  by 

Ecosystem  Services  for  more 
liveable 
transnational programme Alpine Space99;  

 

INNSIEME  (Artenschutz  und  Umweltbildung  am  Inn  von  der  Quelle  bis  zur 
Mündung)  financed  by  the  Interreg  cross-border  cooperation  programme  Austria-
Bavaria100;  

  Rediafor (Multifunctional forest in the Alps: reinforcing dialogue) and Impuls4Action 
(From  Intelligent  Land  Use  to  Sustainable  municipalities),  financed  by  the  Alpine 
Region Preparatory Action Fund (ARPAF II)101.  

95  International conference ‘Territorial Brands in the Alpine Region, A chance for a better valorisation of 

regional and local agri-food products!’, organised by Group 6 ‘To preserve and valorise natural resources, 
including water and cultural resource’  and its follow-up ARPAF II project ‘100%Local!’: https://www.alpine-
region.eu/projects/100-local  

96 Climate Change Adaptation Platform for the Alps – CAPA, developed by AG 8 ‘To improve risk management 

and to better manage climate change, including major natural risks prevention’: https://www.capa-
eusalp.eu/home. It is integrated in the European Climate Adaptation Platform Climate-ADAPT: 
https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/   

97 Conference ‘Energy efficiency in enterprises’, organised by AG 9 ‘To make the territory a model region for 
energy efficiency and renewable energy’ and its follow-up ARPAF II project ‘CAESAR – CApacitating 
Energy efficiency in Small Alpine enteRprises’: https://www.project-caesar.eu/  

98 https://www.alpine-region.eu/results/28-alpine-states-and-regions-adopted-political-declaration-„alpine-green-

infrastructure-–  

99 https://www.alpine-space.eu/projects/luigi/en/home  
100 https://www.innsieme.org/  

68 

 
 
                                                           
Policy impact 

The EUSALP’s overall policy aim, is to strengthen the coordination of policies and funds in 
the Alpine macro-region through cooperation between different sectors, governance levels and 
stakeholders.  Furthermore,  it  helps  implement  multilateral  agreements,  EU  sectoral  policies 
and national/regional policies in the Alpine region.  

In  the  last  reporting  period,  the  EUSALP  has  further  helped  to  strengthen  the  dialogue 
between the EU and the regional/territorial level and to increase political awareness of some 
key Alpine topics. 

The  EUSALP  has  proven  to  be  a  useful  tool  to  direct  the  attention  of  politicians, 
administrations, and others e.g. cluster organisations, educational and cultural institutions and 
civil  society  organisations,  towards  the Alpine  region.  More  specifically,  the  EUSALP  has 
helped  raise  the  political  awareness  of  key  actions  for  the  region.  For  example,  (i)  it  has 
contributed  to  increase  the  awareness  of  the  importance  to  implement  a  more  bioeconomy 
focused  industrial  approach;  (ii)  of  the  potentials  of  wooden  constructions  as  well  as  of  the 
digitalisation  of  industry.  In  some  cases  the  EUSALP  also  helps  to  add  an  international 
dimension to the related policies (for example in the sector of wooden constructions). 

Furthermore, the EUSALP has helped to implement the sectoral EU policies by better linking 
the different levels of public action: EU level, national level and regional level.  

In  this  last  reporting  period,  there  are  several  examples  of  how  the  EUSALP  helped  to 
implement EU sectoral policies, and how it contributed to the Convention on the Protection of 
the Alps (Alpine Convention102) and to national/regional policies.  
The Declaration on sustainable land use and soil protection103 sufficiently illustrates how the 
EUSALP  has  contributed  to  all  these  three  policy  levels.  The  Declaration,  supported  by  20 
Alpine regions and 6 states, as well as the series of awareness-raising events on reduced land 
take  and  on  soil  consumption  (both  run  by AG  6)  helped  strengthen  the  focus  of  political 
decision-makers and helped to implement policies at different levels. This has reinforced the 
implementation of the Soil Protection Protocol of the Alpine Convention, which is also part of 
the EU Acquis., It also helped to achieve the objectives of the EU soil thematic strategy and 
the  Roadmap  to  a  resource  efficient  Europe  with  its  ‘no  net  land  take  by  2050’  initiative, 
which is also connected to ongoing climate change. 

Monitoring and evaluation  

The EB and the AGs are in charge of monitoring and evaluation. Although initiatives are on-
going in some AGs, a real monitoring system adapted to monitor the complexity of an MRS, 
has  so  far  not  been  established.  Apart  from  individual  examples  of  indicators  and  targets 
included in the action plans, no list of common indicators has been agreed upon yet, nor do 
baselines exist to  measure progress  towards targets.  Currently, the AGL’s annual  reports are 
the main source of information, reporting on activities, achievements, results and challenges 
encountered during the year. 

In  this  context,  a  practical  and  operational  macro-regional  Territorial  Monitoring  Tool  was 
developed  by  the  ESPON  programme  to  continuously  observe  the  development  trends  and 

101 https://www.alpine-region.eu/sites/default/files/uploads/publication/2239/publications/arpaf.pdf 
102 https://www.alpconv.org/en/home/  
103 https://www.alpine-

region.eu/sites/default/files/uploads/result/2257/attachments/EUSALP_ag6_declaration_land_usesoil_finlogos
_181107_en.pdf  

69 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
patterns  at  the  level  of  the  four  EU  MRS  and  for  the  whole  EU.  The  tool  aims  to  support 
European,  macro-regional,  national  and  regional  policy  makers  and  other  stakeholders  with 
territorial information, data, maps, graphs, analytical features and short reports. 

This tool will allow for better monitoring of the progress made in implementing the Strategy 
towards the set objectives, targets and indicators. Better monitoring will also provide a more 
solid basis for changes, where necessary to improve the performance of the Strategy and adapt 
it to developments and needs. 

At  national  level,  some  initiatives  have  also  been  deployed.  For  instance,  in  Italy,  the 
Department  for  Cohesion  Policies  and  the Agency  for  Territorial  Cohesion  issues  a  yearly 
‘Summary  Report  on  the  Italian  Participation  in  Territorial  and  European  Cooperation 
Programmes,  ENI  and  IPA  II  for  2014-2020’,  which  is  shared  with,  and  endorsed  by,  the 
regions.  This  report  includes  a  specific  focus  on  MRS  and  is  an  important  instrument  for 
monitoring  the  progress  made  in  implementing  the  Strategies.  The  ‘Cabina  di  Regia  of 
EUSALP’  (Italian  national  steering  committee  for  EUSALP)  is  also  involved  in  monitoring 
the progress made in implementing the EUSALP Strategy. 

In France, monitoring is based on the activity report from the AGs and shared feedback from 
the  members  and  co-leaders  of  French AGs.  In  Bavaria,  joint  meetings  of  the  national  and 
regional  coordinators  of  all  MRS  in  Germany,  helped  to  monitor  the  implementation.  In 
Baden Württemberg, monitoring mainly takes place at project level (within the framework of 
the obligatory programme / project monitoring) or in a more informal or less structured way, 
e.g. by means  of inter-ministerial meetings or reports to  the Council of Ministers.  In  Baden 
Wurttemberg there is no regular regional EUSALP monitoring system in place. 

In  Austria,  progress  is  followed  in  qualitative  ways  by  continuous  exchange  and  dialogue 
between  the  stakeholders,  for  example:  on  national  coordination  platforms,  involving  all 
relevant  stakeholders  from  national  and  regional  level,  as  well  as  economic  and  social 
partners  and  relevant  NGOs.  This  exchange  is  based  on  available  information  and  aspects 
such  as  information  provided  by  EB  and  AGs  (based  on  the  AGs’  work  programmes).  In 
Switzerland, progress is mainly monitored through direct contact with the AG members.  

Funding 

Funding mobilisation 

The  Strategy  has  attracted  funding  from  different  funding  sources.  The  hit  rate  with 
programmes  within  the  EUSALP  territory  has  risen  considerably,  with  more  and  more 
programmes  integrating  EUSALP  implementers  into  their  decision-making  mechanisms. 
Thus, the ability of the Strategy implementers to address relevant authorities and to promote 
macro-regional cooperation has increased, as has the notion of macro-regional action and its 
benefits to the programmes. 

National  coordinators  are  involved  in  programming  process  in  several  programmes.  For 
instance, NCs in their capacity as official observers joined a German task force contributing to 
the programming of the future Interreg transnational Alpine Space programme. In the ERDF 
mainstream programme, one NC is a member of the monitoring committee and has ensured 
the  link  to  the  EUSALP  and  at  the  same  time  proposed  concrete  activities  in  line  with 
EUSALP  activities.  Furthermore,  regional  information  events  and  online  surveys  held  by 
cross-border Interreg programmes have been used to highlight EUSALP topics. 

70 

 
 
The mobilisation on funding not only from Interreg and mainstream ERDF funds, but also the 
CF and EAFRD, shows the Strategy’s ability to pool and combine different components for 
macro-regional benefit.   

The Interreg Alpine Space transnational programme, in the beginning the biggest contributor 
to the Strategy and often its sole source of funding, continues to be one of the cornerstones of 
the  Strategy’s  implementation.  Although  the  programme  does  not  cover  the  administrative 
cost  of  the  Strategy  (e.g.  direct  grants  to  AGs,  technical  secretariats  or  meetings),  it 
coordinates  well  with  Strategy,  and  the  two  participates  in  each  other’s  decision-making  
processes.  An  important  part  of  the  governance  of  the  Strategy  is  supported  by  the  Alpine 
Space programme’s AlpGov projects (AlpGov1 and AlpGov2). 

Furthermore,  the  Alpine  Region  Preparatory  Action  Fund  (ARPAF)  from  the  European 
Parliament, has supported important EUSALP implementation activities on the ground during 
the last reporting period. 

In mid-2019, the first reflections on the possibility of launching an integrated LIFE project on 
Alpine  peatlands  started,  based  on  the  Impuls4Action  project.  As  a  specific  approach,  the 
project began a needs assessment at local level and following an approach being inspired by 
community-led  local  development  (CLLD).  At  the  end  of  2019,  a  feasibility  study  was 
launched  to  prepare  a  road  map  for  a  large-scale  follow-up  project,  funded  either  under  the 
current or future LIFE programme. 

Finally,  in  addition  to  looking  for  new  funding,  on-going  projects  such  as  LIFE  Integrated 
Projects  (e.g.  for  clean  air  in  Italy/Slovenia)  could  also  provide  useful  building  blocks  for 
closer cooperation and exchange of best practice on shared problems in the EUSALP area. 

Embedding 

Several initiatives have been launched to improve the situation and mobilise the almost 100 
ESI  Funds  programmes  covering  the  Alpine  region  in  order  to  support  priorities  and 
objectives  of  the  Strategy,  the  most  recent  example  being  the  Embedding  Workshop  in 
Brussels, 19-20 February 2020. 

At the political level, regions, Member States and non-EU countries involved in the Strategy 
have  repeatedly  highlighted  the  need  to  integrate  the  Strategy  into  the  available  funding 
programmes. The latest declaration of Milan in November 2019, also supported by Italian PM 
Conte during the annual forum, gives additional weight to this point.  

The November 2019 Milan Declaration states: ‘We are convinced that making best use of the 
future  EU  funding  programmes  2021-2027  is  highly  important  for  implementing  EUSALP 
priorities. To that purpose, we underline as crucial to join forces of EUSALP with programme 
actors in preparation and implementation of programmes by supporting the identification of 
potential  fields  of  interventions  and  by  further  developing  appropriate  cooperation 
mechanisms. We ask the Executive Board to take an active role in this process’. 

Meetings organised under the Bavarian and Tyrolean presidencies have prepared the ground 
for this process. Under the French Presidency of the EUSALP and in close cooperation with 
the region of Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (PACA), the Commission organised a workshop in 
Brussels  to  structure  the  process,  with  the  participation  of  Commissioner  Elisa  Ferreira  and 
President  of  PACA  Region.  Around  150  key  EUSALP  implementers  (NCs  and  AGs)  and 
several  managing  authorities  of  ESI  Funds  programmes  (ESF/ERDF  mainstream,  Interreg 
programmes)  as  well  as  representatives  from  Commission  directly  managed  programmes) 
engaged in discussions at the event. The feedback from participants was positive and showed 

71 

 
 
the  benefit  of  coordination  not  only  for  EUSALP,  but  also  for  all  operational  programmes 
active  in  the  region.  As  follow-up  of  this  event,  a  table  with  the  priority  project  ideas 
presented by the EUSALP AGs and the corresponding cohesion policy national and regional 
operational  programmes  (which  potentially  could  contribute  to  finance  these  project  ideas) 
and  a  list  of  contacts  of  EUSALP  governance  and  EU  funding  representatives  have  been 
elaborated and will be updated in order to continue the dialogue started at the Workshop. 

Concrete options that were discussed as regards embedding included:  

  systematic participation of EUSALP key implementers in the monitoring committees 

 

 

of ESI Funds mainstream and Interreg programmes in the EUSALP region; 
the  creation  of  one  (or  more)  network(s)  of  managing  authorities  in  the  EUSALP 
region; and 
the coordination of all calls for projects relevant to implementing EUSALP priorities 
and specific calls for EUSALP projects . 

On  a  Member  State  level,  coordination  mechanisms  have  evolved  significantly.  The  Italian 
Department  for  Cohesion  Policies  produced  a  document  late  in  2019  (‘Embedding  the 
Priorities of Macro-Regional Strategies and the WestMED Initiative in the ERDF 2021-2027 
Programming’),  which  aimed  to  help  representing  EUSALP  priorities  and  assist  Italian 
managing  authorities  of  ESI  Funds  programmes  in  drafting  the  operational  programmes  for 
2021-2027.  The  relevant  committee  of  the  Austrian  Conference  on  Spatial  Planning  has 
commissioned  its  Partners/Constituents  to  reconsider  the  current  national  governance 
structure  on  transnational  and  cross-border  funding  programmes  with  a  view  to  more 
effectively embedding the MRS. 

Also  on  a  regional  level,  actors  promote  the  embedding  of  the  MRS.  In  some  regions,  a 
structured  dialogue  has  begun  initiated,  involving  authorities  in  charge  of  MRS  and  other 
cross-border  strategic  activities  as  well  as  representatives  of  managing  authorities  (ERDF, 
ESF). In the case of Baden-Württemberg, regular meetings have been taking place every 3-4 
months.  On  15  July  2019,  a  larger  information  day  event  was  organized  in  Baden-
Württemberg, involving also representatives of other programmes e.g. LEADER and EMFF. 
Several  Italian regions adopted measures aimed at promoting synergies between the calls of 
ESI Funds mainstream and Interreg programmes and the Strategy, through specific selection 
criteria or additional scores. 

On a more  general  level, the report produced by the EUSALP AGs ‘Funding Requirements 
from  Future  EU  Funding  Programmes  post  2020’,  formally  endorsed  by  the  EUSALP  EB, 
clearly highlighted the funding needs of the AGs to the various EU funding programmes 

Communication 

The  EUSALP  Strategy  has  made  increasing  efforts  on  communication.  Three  dedicated 
workshops  –  co-organised  by  the  European  Commission  and  the  Trio  presidencies  –  took 
place in 2018 and 2019. Members of the EB and members and leaders of the AGs, developed 
together the EUSALP mission, vision and main target audience. As a result, a strategic paper 
on  communication  was  issued,  subsequently  endorsed  by  the  EB  in  early  2019.  The  last 
workshop aimed to provide key implementers of the EUSALP with core communication tools 
to explain the mission and vision agreed. 

These  communication  tools  include  a  common  visual  identity  (logo  as  well  as  the  colour 
code/  graphic  chart  of  the  EUSALP)  which  is  now  widely  used.  In  addition,  a  number  of 
brochures,  publications,  infographics  as  well  as  a  bi-monthly  newsletter  were  issued. 

72 

 
 
Furthermore, other communication tools comprise the website, social media (Facebook: 1300 
followers; Twitter: with almost 600 followers; Instagram: with almost 500 followers), footage 
of case study videos, and press related activities.  

The  annual  fora  have  been  successful  communication  actions,  gathering  around  800 
participants each year. Each EUSALP Presidency managed to mobilise high-level politicians, 
triggering  high  public  and  media  interest.  For  example,  present  at  the  kick-off  event  of  the 
Tyrolian Presidency were Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurtz, Austrian President Alexander 
Van der Bellen and several presidents of Alpine Regions. The Italian Presidency ensured the 
Italian  Prime  Minister  participated  at  the  annual  forum  in  2019.  The  French    Presidency 
organised its kick-off events with three presidents of regions and Ministers.  

The AGs also organise events in the Alpine region to promote their activities and most AGs 
participate in other events, helping to circulate information about the EUSALP. For example, 
the EUSALP was  represented at  the European Vocational  Skills Week, the annual  forum  on 
Dual Education in the Alpine region, and the EU Sustainable Energy Week in Brussels in June 
2019.   

Inevitably, events also raise awareness at national and regional levels thanks also to the role 
played  by  NC  in  highlighting  the  EUSALP.  In Austria,  information  is  regularly  provided  in 
several relevant working formats in the Austrian Conference on Spatial Planning (ÖROK). In 
Germany, the Baden Württemberg region ensures several political delegations from the region 
visit  other  Alpine  countries  and  regions.  Each  year  the  Slovenian  authorities  organise  the 
Mediterranean Coast and EU Macro-regional Strategies Week. The French Presidency (2020) 
has  been  increasingly  communicating  through  national  and  regional  institutional  websites, 
specialised  ESI  Funds  websites  (Europe  en  France,  Europe  en  Région)  as  well  as  through 
documentation  (brochures)  during  the  EUSALP  events.  In  Switzerland,  regular  discussion 
between AG members, interested parties and political representatives is promoted. 

In Brussels, the European Commission helped to promote the EUSALP by co-organising two 
let’s  talk  to  your  neighbours  events  in  cooperation  with  and  at  the  representing  offices  of 
Lombardia  and  Provence-Alpes-Côte  d’Azur  regions  in  Brussels.  These  networking  events 
aimed  at  gathering  together  stakeholders  based  in  Brussels  (PERM  REP,  MEPs,  Regional 
Offices, European Commission DGs, etc.) to exchange information about the EUSALP. More 
recently, the EU Macro Regional Strategies Week (Brussels) gathered hundreds of participants 
from  all  participating  countries,  and  mobilised  officials  from  European  institutions  raising 
awareness  of  the  MRS  in  general,  and  the  EUSALP  in  particular  through  the  embedding 
workshop. 

Reaching  out  to  young  people  –  communicating  with  young  people  through  young  people 
youth by youth: Among the many target audiences of the EUSALP communication strategy, 
efforts are particularly focused on reaching out to the younger generations. Tyrol launched, in 
cooperation  with  DG  REGIO,  the  initiative  ‘youth.shaping.EUSALP’,  promoted  via  social 
media (Instagram, Facebook, YouTube). A wide network of youth organisations, projects and 
centres  have  been  targeted  to  inform  young  people  about  the  EUSALP  initiative,  the 
competition ‘Pitch your project’ and the summer programme. Communication about EUSALP 
and youth activities was carried out during meetings organised in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté 
region  aimed  at  to  raising  interest  for  EUSALP  and  for  its  thematic  area  youth  among 
stakeholders. This will be further developed with a Stakeholders Platform.  

73 

 
 
 
 
Cooperation within and across strategies 

Cooperation within the EUSALP 

There are different forms of cooperation within the Strategy.. 

The  EUSALP,  as  a  cross-sectorial  platform,  has  managed  to  accelerate  better  policy 
integration  leading  to  a  cross-sectoral  approach  on  a  national  level.  For  example,  Swiss 
members in ARPAF projects have developed initiatives (smart villages, cross-border mobility) 
involving  several  federal  ministries  which  has  led  to  better  cross-sectoral  exchanges  and 
action on these topics. 

EUSALP AGs have cooperated in the framework of the projects funded by the Alpine Region 
Preparatory Action  Fund  from  the  European  Parliament  (ARPAF  I  and  II)  covering  at  least 
two respectively three EUSALP AG. For example, AG 6 and AG 3 have worked together in 
the  ‘AlpJobs’  project,  which  aims  at  forecasting  future  jobs  in  Alpine  remote  areas  and 
developing corresponding job profiles104. AGs 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 have established a task force on 
the  topic  ‘sustainable  forestry  and  timber  production  in  Alpine  region’.  This  task  force 
organised  a  joint  thematic  workshop  at  the  EUSALP  annual  forum  in  Milano  (November 
2019). Furthermore, outside of established task forces, AGs have cooperated in cross-sectoral 
workshops,  such  as  the  ‘Smart  Villages  –  a  common  perspective  through  different  visions’ 
event, organised in Valle d’Aosta (Italy) in May 2019 by AG 5, with support from AGs 3, 4 
and 9. 

At national level, for example, the Swiss Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE) has 
established  and  facilitates  a  Network  of  Swiss AG  members. Through  this  network,  several 
project ideas and partnerships have been created. 

Moreover, the EUSALP has enabled coordination and synergies between the countries/regions 
participating in the Strategy and the Alpine Convention, of which the EU is Contracting Party 
and which is part of the EU Acquis.  Furthermore, it creates coordination and synergies also 
with  other  cross-border  and  transnational  key  actors  operating  in  the  region  and  also  some 
Interreg  projects.  These  actors  include  among  others,  the  International  Lake  Constance 
Conference, the cooperation of the Four Motors for Europe (Baden-Württemberg, Auvergne-
Rhône-Alpes, Lombardy, Catalonia), Arge Alp, the Suivi de Zurich Process. 

Cooperation across the MRS 

There are several examples of cooperation between the EUSALP and the other three MRS in 
several topics and sectors. 

EUSALP representatives have participated in  several  events  with  all four MRS, such as the 
Meeting of the four MRS Presidencies and Trio, organised by the Croatian Presidency of the 
EUSDR in February in the framework of the Macro-regional strategies Week in Brussels.  

EUSALP  representatives  have  also  participated  in  a  series  of  events  on  cross-cutting  issues 
(communication,  capacity  building  and  ESI  Funds  programmes  post  2020)  and  thematic 
issues  (innovation,  smart  specialisation,  Research  &  Development;  energy;  biodiversity  and 
ecological connectivity) organised by the Interact programme. 

EUSALP representatives  were  actively involved  in  the 2018  and 2019 Mediterranean Coast 
and EU Macro-regional strategies Weeks in Slovenia. For example, a cross thematic exchange 

104 https://www.alpine-region.eu/projects/alpjobs  

74 

 
 
                                                           
between  EUSAIR  and  EUSALP  on  environment  &  green  infrastructure  was  organised  in 
2019.  

The  case  of  AG  4  is  a  good  example  of  how  these  exchanges  provide  added  value.  The 
development  of  an  assessment  methodology  for  identifying  and  labelling  strategic  transport 
projects, in the Alpine region, was largely informed by the experiences and recommendations 
of other MRS transport coordinators. 

EUSALP has also established bilateral cooperation with other MRS on some cross-cutting and 
sectoral  issues.  For  example,  the  project  ‘youth.shaping.EUSALP’  cooperates  with  similar 
projects  that  involve  young  people  in  the  EUSDR  that  are  carried  out  by  the  foundation 
AGAPEDIA.  

CHALLENGES  

Governance and administrative capacity  

At  political  level  -  The  role  of  the  rotating  MRS  presidency  is  growing,  which  allows  for 
smooth  transition  between  presidencies.  However,  the  sequencing  of  annual  presidencies  is 
not  yet  formally  established,  creating  uncertainty  as  to  who  will  hold  the  presidency.  This 
hampers a prompt preparation and weakens its role. 

In practise, there is still a gap, between political commitment as expressed by participation in 
major events (annual fora, launch events) and Joint Declarations and the follow-up at the day-
to-day implementation level. Each country/region should show its commitment, in particular 
by  making  sure  that  the  key  implementers  of  the  Strategy  (such  as  coordinators  and 
implementers at AG level) get the necessary recognition and legitimacy to fulfil their tasks. 

At coordination level (Executive Board) - There is unanimity among all participants (at both 
EB and AGs levels) about the need to improve the interactions between the EB and AGs as 
their  relations  should  enter  in  a  new  phase.  The  EB  needs  to  provide  more  guidance  to  the 
AGs,  as  has  been  repeatedly  requested.  The  EB  needs  to  focus  more  on  its  core  tasks,  in 
particular  on  implementing  the  political  decisions  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  on 
monitoring  the  implementation  of  the  EUSALP  action  plan  by  putting  in  place  an  effective 
MRS monitoring system.  

It is crucial to strengthen the way the EB coordinates and monitors the work of the AGs. In 
order to ensure that the projects proposed by the AGs are consistent with the ambitions of the 
Strategy,  the  macro-regional  impact  of  each  project  should  be  assessed.  It  is  also  crucial  to 
support  the  move  from  a  ‘project  driven  approach’  to  a  more  ‘process  approach’.  The  EB 
should  also  play  a  role  in    facilitating  cross-cutting  issues,  national/regional/thematic 
coordination and major events. 

At  implementing  level  (Action  Groups)  -  With  regard  to  the  participation  of  countries  and 
regions in the AG, progress has generally been made. Nevertheless, it remains a challenge to 
mobilise  AG  members  with  the  necessary  decision-making  power  and/or  technical 
competence  and  there  is  still  potential  to  improve  the  involvement  of  national-level 
representatives  from  some  countries.  It  would  also  be  highly  welcome  if  line  DGs  of  the 
European Commission were to participate more actively .  

To support the AGs work, members must be empowered with an appropriate mandate and the 
position of each country must be coordinated between the representative of that country . To 
preserve  a  balanced  composition,  stability,  and  an  effective  working  pattern,  the  number  of 

75 

 
 
participants  should  remain  representative  of  all  countries  and  regions  as  well  as  remain 
manageable. 

The EUSALP  action plan expressly sets  out  that the composition  of AGs must be reviewed 
and  its  members  changed  (or    reconfirmed)  every  3  years.  However,  in  practice,  this  didn’t 
take place as the EB decided not to make any changes to the current leaders and members of 
the AGs. This has a positive effect on the continuity and the stability of the AGs’ work. On the 
negative side, it prevents rotation among counties and regions on the thematic topics. In the 
end, this may lead to  an ‘appropriation’ of some thematic topics by some countries/regions, 
which risks other countries/regions becoming detached from the process. 

AGs  highlighted  that  maintaining  the  EUSALP  governance,  at  AG  level,  by  means  of  an 
Interreg  Alpine  Space  project  remains  a  big  challenge  and  produces  high  administrative 
burdens.  A solution is being sought to find a stable financing mechanism for supporting the 
governance of the EUSALP, and to reduce the bureaucratic burdens and non-strategic tasks in 
the AG core business.  

Moreover,  the  AlpGov  project  only  provides  support  to  the  AGs,  leaving  out  the  EB,  the 
General Assembly, the annual fora and the rotating presidency. Aiming to address this issue, 
the  General Assembly  (Lyon,  4  February  2020),  following  the  example  of  the  EUSDR  and 
EUSAIR, decided to establish a Technical Support Structure/Secretariat. A mandate was given 
to the EB to define in detail the operational and administrative support to the EB, the AGs and 
the presidencies as well as the EUSALP annual forum. 

Finally,  the  role  of  the  Board  of  Action  Group  Leaders  (BAGL),  established  within  the 
‘AlpGov  I’  project,  in  the  EUSALP  framework  must  be  clarified.  If  the  General Assembly 
decides  to  maintain  it,  its  composition,  role  and  tasks  should  be  properly  integrated  in  the 
governance structure of the EUSALP. 

Policy and thematic priorities 

A  key  challenge  is  aligning  the  AGs  tasks/objectives  with  high-level  policy  strategies  and 
objectives, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Agreement or the EU’s 
strategic initiatives and objectives. Adding to this, another key challenge is the absence of a 
system to monitor the policy impact of the EUSALP. In order to have a more positive impact 
on the policy level and to facilitate the policy implementation process, improved cooperation 
between the different governance levels and improved engagement of decision-makers within 
regional/national ministries will be crucial. 

Monitoring and evaluation 

At present, the monitoring of the EUSALP is done in a subjective manner, without using the 
appropriate  tools  to  ensure  that  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  is  a  credible  process. 
Consequently,  the  results  are  often  not  tracked  in  a  consistent  manner.  In  this  context,  it  is 
crucial to develop a phase-specific monitoring mechanism for the EUSALP. Otherwise, there 
is  a  risk  that  the  EUSALP’s  performance  and  results  will  be  evaluated  with  inappropriate 
indicators, thus providing incorrect/misleading information. In addition, a monitoring system 
reflecting  the  EUSALP’s  development  would  show  relevant  and  realistic  results  for  each 
phase, which would help maintain political support.  

The  appropriate  monitoring  of  AGs’  actions  should  also  ensure  that  the  projects  are 
adequately  responding  to  the  level  of  the  ambitions  of  the  macro-regional  strategy.  In  this 
discussion,  the  macro-regional  impact  of  the  project  should  be  assessed,  as  well  as  the 
possibility to promote regulatory alignment of actions, directives or regulations.  

76 

 
 
Funding 

During  the  current  programming  period,  the  alignment  between  EUSALP  and  ESI  Funds 
programmes  suffered  from  a  timing  problem,  as  the  Partnership Agreement  and  operational 
programmes  had  already  been  drafted  and  adopted  when  the  EUSALP  was  adopted  in 
December 2015.  

The  operational  links  between  national  operational  programmes  and  the  EUSALP  were 
relatively  weak.  Only,  two  Italian  regions,  Veneto  and  Friuli-Venezia  Giulia,  have  adopted 
specific  selection  criteria  or  additional  scores  to  promote  EUSALP  sponsored  projects. 
Furthermore, no programmes launched specific calls targeted towards the implementation of 
the  Strategy.  As  far  as  financing  is  concerned,  the  contribution  from  ESI  Funds  or  other 
national  funds  to  the  EUSALP  cannot  be  easily  quantified  ex-post  where  identification  of 
macro-regional added value was not provided when the project was approved.  

Strategy actors lack a clear overview of MRS actions/projects that have been financed by EU 
directly  managed  instruments,  notably  because  the  EUSALP  does  not  have  any  technical 
support structure to monitor it.  

AGs  state that financing for projects was an issue (i.e. it was difficult and current rules are 
not  appropriate). As result, almost all projects  proposed by the  AGs  and adopted until  now, 
have  been  financed  under  the  Interreg  Alpine  Space  transnational  programme  or  under  the 
ARPAF. 

Although  progress  has  been  made,  the  current  preparation  phase  of  the  next  programming 
period is a crucial time for addressing one of the biggest challenges: embed MRS objectives 
in  programme’s  priorities  to  enable  access  to  different  funding  sources  and  structured 
dialogue with authorities responsible for prioritising funding. 

Numerous regions  have  carried out  structured consultations on their future programmes and 
have invited active participation from actors implementing the Strategy. This is a good step in 
ensuring  national  coherence.  However,  it  remains  a  major  challenge  to  define  joint  projects 
that  ultimately  require  transnational  and  interregional  cooperation.  AGs  need  to  be  ready  to 
give  input  to  these  discussions.  The  new  proposed  cohesion  policy  regulations  envisage 
measures that should facilitate this process. 

Communication 

Despite  the  encouraging  results  from  EUSALP  communication  activities  and  the  progress 
made so  far, there  are still challenges that should be tackled to  improve  the communication 
actions but also to ensure a positive impact at all levels.  

One of the biggest challenges for the EUSALP is its ability to communicate its results and to 
attract  new  stakeholders.  This  difficulty  is  mainly  related  to  the  EUSALP  structure,  which 
need to be solved quickly. For example, there is a need for internal coordination of the overall 
communication  activities,  with  clearly  defined  roles  and  tasks  of  all  three  levels  of 
governance.  The  EB  has  an  important  role  to  play  in  steering  this  process.  The  new  lead 
partner of the AlpGov project in charge of the communication package should carry out this 
task and propose measures to be adopted and implemented as soon as possible to the EB. A 
communication advisor in each AG needs to be appointed. In addition, the continuous flow of 
information  between  NCs  and  AGs  should  be  improved  in  order  to  have  a  strategic 
communicable approach towards actions carried out by AGs and those carried out by NCs.  

On social media management, it is important to address issues with social media accounts to 
increase  the  number  of  followers  on Twitter  and  Instagram. There  is  also  a  need    to  collect 

77 

 
 
more  stories,  attain  good  practices,  and  provide  tangible  examples  as  showcases  for 
EUSALP’s  achievements.  A  rethinking  of  EUSALP’s  communication  methods  in  order  to 
make  it  ‘greener’  (e.g.  no  more  hard  copies  of  publications)  should  also  be  considered. 
Finally, the current funding of communication actions via the AlpGov project should be better 
adapted to the actual communication needs. 

Cooperation within and across Strategies 

Concerning cooperation within the EUSALP, on the positive side, cooperation among AGs is 
going more and more beyond the pure technical cooperation and is developing into real cross-
sectoral cooperation. However, AGs would greatly welcome a better link to the EB in order to 
get  better  backing  from  it  and  the  presidency  on  priority  topics  as  well  as  to  bring  about 
concrete  outcomes  at  the  EB  level  for  supporting  increased  and  sustainable  political 
capitalisation (e.g. within presidency activities). 

Concerning cooperation between the EUSALP and other MRS, the administrative capacity of 
some EUSALP implementers  is  not  sufficient  to  engage in  exchanges with other Strategies. 
Increasing the political ownership of the Strategy could lead to a better allocation of human 
resources to the AGs, which would be crucial in order to overcome this challenge. 

THE WAY FORWARD 

Lessons learnt  

As regards lessons learnt, it is important that the Strategy concentrate on a limited number of 
‘lighthouse initiatives’ (e.g. political agreements but also major projects’ developments with 
macro-regional scope) and on projects that have an impact at a local level but require a macro 
regional  approach.  The  topics  of  some  AGs  which  have  too  wide  a  scope  need  to  be 
concentrated on the core MRS added value actions. It is clear that to make the EUSALP work, 
the involved actors, at all levels of governance, need to become more determined in the hunt 
for  funding  EUSALP  macro  regional  projects.  In  this  process,  the  embedding  of  EUSALP 
priorities and objectives in the 2021-2027 national and regional programmes, is of the utmost 
importance. 

Experience  to  date  with  the  EUSALP  and  all  MRS  in  general,  shows  that  streamlined 
governance mechanisms are  a key element for effective implementation and that the way as 
the    interaction  between  the  political  decision  makers  and  implementers  is  organised,    is  
crucial.  Experience  also  shows  that  efficient  trans-border  governance  systems  are  complex 
and that the process of setting these up is inevitably slow and takes time.  

Sound  governance  requires  that  roles  be  clearly  defined:  who  implements  the  Strategy  and 
how,  and  who  initiates  and  finances  joint  actions  and  how.  Limited  human  resources, 
inadequate experience/skills and lack of empowerment as well as lack of clear mandates, are 
critical  issues in several  AGs. Accordingly, providing the resources and  status for decision-
making, is a crucial factor in attaining more results. 

Main issues  

Macro regional cooperation represents a powerful tool to support economic development and 
competitiveness  as  well  as  territorial,  economic,  and  social  integration,  and  to  foster  good 
neighbourhood  relations. There  is  no  doubt  that  macro-regional  approach  can  pave  the  way 
towards  a  more  innovative,  sustainable  and  greener  Europe.  However,  this  new  type  of 
cooperation still has weaknesses that need to be addressed. 

78 

 
 
Based on the experience and on the information gathered from  EUSALP  key implementers, 
the following areas have been identified as needing further improvement. 

Strengthen the ownership and commitment of line Ministers and Presidents of Regions:  
The  way  the  General Assembly  works  should  be  re-thought  and  its  current  format  revised. 
Political  participation  must  go  beyond  the  adoption  of  joint  declarations.  The  General 
Assembly should become an arena where important topics for the macro-region are discussed, 
even if controversial. Thus, the General Assembly should be responsible for laying down the 
general political guidelines for the Strategy. 

Efforts should also be made to make members the General Assembly  aware of the potential 
benefits  which  the  EUSALP  may  bring  and  invite  them  to  duly  empower  the  officials 
representing their ministries/regions at AG meetings. 

Achieve  greater  policy  impact  through  strategic  activities:  alignment  of  policymaking  and 
alignment of funds, macro-regional projects and flagship processes: 
The EUSALP projects remain moderately sized, and a great part of them take the format of a 
typical Interreg programme. Delivering the macro-regional added value is not achieved with 
such type of projects, as they can easily be financed by a programme, without the need of a 
MRS.  No  innovative  ‘processes’  or  harmonisation  of  laws  or  regulations  have  (yet)  been 
proposed  (e.g.  a  common  online  platform  for  booking  trains,  as  already  exists  in  Austria, 
Germany and Switzerland, etc.). 

Most of the AGs’ focus  was,  up to now, on pilot projects. The results of these projects now 
need  to  be  disseminated  throughout  the  whole  Alpine  area  to  all  countries,  regions  and 
municipalities.  Therefore,  a  strong  focus  should  lie,  in  the  upcoming  years,  on  capitalising 
what has been achieved. 

Finally,  the  tendency  to  develop  a  number  of  cross-sectoral  policy  areas  with  the  aim  of 
bundling efforts and improving effectiveness of the work of EUSALP actors and ensuring the 
EUSALP is implemented correctly. 

Greater clarification of roles and responsibilities of actors: 
Due to different roles and engagement possibilities, a clear view is needed on the mandate of 
AG  Leads, AG members or other EUSALP actors. Clarification of roles, empowerment  and 
skills  improvement/development  are  planned  within  the  AlpGov2  project  for  AGs  and  are 
expected to be implemented in coming two years. However, EB members should also benefit 
of this type of projects  

Strengthen the role of the Trio presidencies: 
To  ensure  continuity  between  the  annual  rotating  presidencies,  the  ‘Trio’  format  should  be 
strengthened. Introducing new priorities by presidencies during their mandate should be done 
in close liaison and endorsed by the GA. 

An  important  decision  should  be  taken  on  establishing  a  fixed  order  for  annual  presidency 
rotation  (e.g.  an  alphabetical  order,  by  name  of  the  country  in  English  or  in  the  original 
language,  or  other  type  of  order). This  decision  would  eliminate  an  element  of  randomness 
and uncertainty that results from the need to choose each year who will hold the presidency in 
two years.  This would also serve to strengthen the role of the annual presidency, which would 
certainly see greater care being applied in its preparation. 

79 

 
 
Ensure impactful actions through monitoring and evaluation: 
Monitoring tasks should be deepened and professionalised through common tools and support 
from  coordinating/supporting  structures  of  the  MRS.  Furthermore,  the  EB  and AGs  should, 
without  any  further  delay,  develop  an  in-depth  monitoring  and  evaluation  system  that  will 
focus  on  collecting  data,  building  a  knowledge  base,  establishing  baselines,  impact-aimed 
targets  and  indicators  and  working  on  an  annual  monitoring  report.  An  impact  driven 
evaluation should be launched. 

Facilitate and strengthen the stakeholders dialogue: 
Successful  implementation  requires  broadening  the  involvement  to  actors  other  than  just 
public administrations and bodies as this can contribute to boosting public efforts. The private 
sector, the business  community  and people living in  the EUSALP  region should  be actively 
involved to ensure engagement with and ownership of the Strategy. 

Making the Stakeholder Platform operational must be achieved without any further delay so 
as to facilitate regional and local stakeholders’ contributions to the Strategy in order to raise 
their awareness of the opportunities offered by the EUSALP and improve communication. A 
specific section on young people should be planned for as well. 

The inclusion of young people, a key group of stakeholders in implementing the EUSALP, is 
a long-term strategy process and should lead to them permanently contributing to the MRS.   

Strengthen communication: 
EUSALP  actors  should  be  provided  with  a  clear  communication  strategy/plan.  Much  work 
has already been done but an comprehensive communication strategy and the corresponding 
key  messages  still  need  to  be  finalised.  The  endorsement  of  the  strategic  paper  on 
communication  by  the  EB  is  not  sufficient.  The  communication  strategy  has  to  be 
complemented  with  an  action  plan  with  clear  guidelines  on  communication  actions,  a 
dedicated timeline, indicative priority target audience and the setup of some communication 
requirements. This should be done for a short-term period  – for example a  year (even up to 
three) and should be designed as soon as possible to ensure a strategic impact.  

Communication  tasks  should  be  regularly  undertaken  by  professionals. The  appointment  by 
the  French  Presidency  of  a  communications  officer  is  a  positive  step  and  should  help  in 
structuring communication actions.  

The  use  of  case  study  videos  is  good  practices,  which  should  be  repeated.  The  policy 
impact/results  of  EUSALP  actions  should  be  attained  more  quickly  and  should  be  more 
tangible, in order to communicate the Strategy’s achievements. 

Quickly operationalise on a support structure to the governance: 
After the decision taken by the General Assembly held in Lyon (France, 4 February 2020) to 
establish a Technical Support Structure (TSS)/Secretariat, the EB has been given the mandate 
to define and find a different and, if possible, more stable and less complex solution than the 
AlpGov one. 

Future development 

EU  funding  programmes  2021-2027:  All  mainstream  ERDF  and  ESF  national/regional 
programmes  and  the  Interreg  programmes  relevant  to  the  EUSALP  region  will  need  to 
strengthen  their  contribution  to  the  Strategy  objectives  and  actions  for  the  2021-2027 
programming period.  

80 

 
 
To this end, there is a need for the EUSALP to coordinate with the various programmes from 
the  very  early  phases  of  their  preparation,  and  after,  during  their  implementation.  The 
establishment  of  a  network  of  managing  authorities  is  key  for  coordination  both  in  the 
programmes preparation phase, but also in the subsequent implementation phase. 

In this context, the link between the programmes and the EU priorities can play an important 
role.  For  example,  climate  priorities  could  represent  an  important  leverage  in  the  effort  to 
align EUSALP, and the other MRS, with the EU funding priorities. While climate challenges 
could  be  local  and  specific,  solutions  are  just  as  often  widely  applicable  on  a  regional, 
national  or  transnational  scale.  Moreover,  there  is  a  strong  cross  border  dimension  of  many 
climate change impacts, and the EU macro-regions are sharing common climate risks, such as 
the Alpine mountainous areas. 

Furthermore,  it  is  important  to  increase  awareness  among  EUSALP  implementers  of  the 
opportunities offered by the EU’s centrally managed programmes such as LIFE and Horizon 
Europe.  By  using  these  programmes  the  Strategy  can  gain  access  to  funding  sources  and 
increase competitive solution funding. At the same time these programme can increase their 
regional impact. Additionally, the future CEF Digital programme, on the basis of the current 
Commission  proposal,  will  give  the  opportunity  to  support  cross-border  Gigabit  backbone 
networks of strategic importance like 5G  transport corridors and submarine cables. 

Strategy  impact:  In  order  to  further  increase  the  EUSALP’s  impact,  it  is  crucial  to  quickly 
establish a technical support structure, as decided by the General Assembly in February 2020. 
the  rotating 
This  structure  should  facilitate 
presidencies,  strengthen  the  dialogue  between  the  EB  and  AGs  ,  animate  and  support  the 
network of managing authorities, propose a monitoring system, and improve and bundle the 
communication activities. This would help develop a stable basis for all activities, including 
the work of AGs, and would be a more sustainable (in terms of time and resources) solution 
than current Interreg project support to the governance structures. 

implementation,  support 

the  Strategy’s 

EU priorities: The EUSALP could help in transforming the COVID-19 crisis into something 
that will help to achieve long-term goals. It can play a key role in particular in implementing 
the  European  Green  Deal,  which  could  be  the  cornerstone  for  a  resilient  recovery  after  the 
crisis.   

Macro-regional  cooperation  is  instrumental  in  protecting  the  environment,  preventing  and 
withstanding  the  risks  and  shocks  driven  by  climate  impacts,  and  increasing  solidarity  and 
fairness  across  and  within  the  participating  countries.  These  role  and  efforts  are  even  more 
important against the background of the severe socio-economic consequences of the COVID-
19 pandemic, to ensure that policies aim from the start at the mutually reinforcing objectives 
of social and environmental sustainability. 

The  EUSALP  covers  important  key  sectors  of  the  European  Green  Deal,  such  as  climate 
action,  clean  energy  and  circular  economy,  which  is  a  paradigm-shift  identified  in  the 
European Green Deal as the recipe to protect the environment while at the same time boosting 
local jobs creation and economic growth. The EUSALP has already proven that it can play a 
key  role  in  implementing  the  European  Green  Deal  on  a  regional  scale,  e.g.  towards  the 
transition  to  climate  neutrality  and  circular  economy  in  the  macro-region.  This  requires 
regular dialogue between key implementers of the EUSALP and the European Green Deal as 
well as stakeholders in both. The green priorities for recovery should also be a cornerstone of 
the work of AGs. 

81 

 
 
Furthermore,  the  EUSALP  has  already  proven  that  it  can  play  a  significant  role  in  the  twin 
green  and  digital  transition  by  also  supporting  the  implementation  of  the  European  Digital 
Strategy,  in  particular,  through  strategic  initiatives  aimed  at  fostering  smart,  digital 
transformation in Alpine villages which should become full players in the new digital world. 

Changing  needs:  the  role  of  the  EUSALP  in  shaping  response  measures  to  economic 
challenges,  especially  in  the  aftermath  of  the  COVID-19  crisis,  economic  recovery  and 
mitigation of negative impacts will be crucial. The Strategy, as a cooperation platform already 
in place, should coordinate the efforts across funds and borders. As the Alpine region has been 
strongly  affected  by  the  crisis,  both  the  ESF  and  ERDF  funds  together  with  funding 
instruments need to maximise their input. Action should be taken immediately. The EUSALP 
EB  extraordinary  COVID-19  crisis  meeting  of  18  May  2020,  and  the  follow-up  actions 
proposed by the EUSALP French Presidency, is already a significant step in that direction.  

82 

 
 
 
 
Contribution of programmes to macro-regional strategies 

1.  The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 

Eighty six mainstream, Interreg and ENI-CBC programmes are relevant for the EU Strategy 
for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR).   
Sixty two105 out of the 86 programmes provided replies to the questionnaire included in the 
Annual  Implementation  Report,  representing  72%  of  the  EUSBSR  relevant  programmes, 
which is a satisfactory reply rate; These programmes are composed by:  

  46 mainstream ESI Funds programmes;   

  16 Interreg programmes (14 cross-border, and 2 transnational programmes).  

Aggregated data are provided in the table below:  

Country  

Germany  
Denmark  
Estonia  
Finland  
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Poland  
Sweden  
Interreg TN  
Interreg CBC  
Total  

Number of 
relevant OPs  
13  
4  
3  
6  
3  
3  
23  
12  
4  
15  
86  

Number of OPs 
that replied  
9  
3  
2  
2  
3  
1  
21  
5  
2  
14  
62  

Percentage of OPs 
that replied  
69%  
75%  
67%  
33%  
100%  
33%  
91%  
42%  
50%  
93%  
72%  

The operational programmes have committed to contribute to the EUSBSR in several ways, 
the most frequent described below:  

  Eighteen programmes out of the 62 indicated that extra points have been attributed to 
specific measures supporting the EUSBSR. Of these, 10 programmes have carried out 
targeted  calls  for  proposals  for  macro  regional  relevant  projects,  and  7  have  given 
extra points to projects/actions with high macro-regional significance or impact;   

  Two  programmes:  ‘Pomorskie  Voivodeship  –  ERDF/ESF  programme’  and  ‘Interreg 
V-B  Baltic  Sea’,  have  underlined  that  although  they  have  not  given  bonus  or  extra 
points to macro-regional relevant projects, they have encouraged flagship actions with 
a positive macro-regional impact. Further details  would be needed in order to obtain 
more clarity on those actions;  

105ENI programmes are also relevant for the EUSBSR. However 2018 was a transitory year with the closure of 

ENPI programmes and launch of the ENI programmes which have yet to be implemented.  

83 

 
 
 
  
                                                           
  Nine  out  of  62  programmes  associate  EUSBSR  key  implementers  (e.g.  national 
their  monitoring 

coordinators,  policy  area  coordinators;  flagship 
committees;  

leaders) 

in 

  Regarding EUSBSR related projects,  the  programmes that replied have  supported so 
far,  5.377  projects.  However,  three  programmes  claimed  having  financed  91,5%  of 
these projects:  

(i) 

‘EU  Structural  Funds  Investments  -  LT  –  ERDF/ESF/CF/YEI  programme’ 
(2.276 projects); 

(ii)  ‘Kujawsko-Pomorskie  Voivodeship  –  ERDF/ESF  programme’ 

(1.507 

projects); 

(iii)  ‘Infrastructure  and  Environment  -  PL  –  ERDF/CF  programme’  (1.140 

projects).  

  Two programmes, ‘Hamburg – ESF programme’, and ‘Infrastructure and Environment 
-  PL  –  ERDF/CF  programme’,  have  supported  other  actions,  especially  strategic 
projects.  Here  are  three  examples  of  projects  supported  by  the  ‘Hamburg  ESF 
programme’: ‘Come in’, ‘School mentors’, and ‘Jugend Aktiv Plus’.  

Thirty-six  ESI  Funds  programmes  reported  that  they  have  already  invested  funds  into  the 
EUSBSR’s implementation.   

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

ERDF  

EMFF   CF  

ESF  

EAFRD*  

ENI  Other Funds  

22.774.737.736   29.427.133   10.579.554.13   3.165.026.780  

0   1.124.144**  

683.469.632  

Total in €: 37.233.339.556 

* No response from the EAFRD programmes  
** ENI share of the Interreg Baltic Sea programme  

Countries reporting the largest investments 

EU Member States  ERDF total amount   

CF total amount   

ESF total amount  

PL 

LV 

DK 

21.159.777.676  

10.269.161.507  

3.106.324.876  

395.562.596  

288.369.358  

3.341.903  

558.476.658  

0  

0  

It  is  worth  noting  that  the  above  table  comprises  figures  as  reported  by  the  programmes  in 
their  Annual  Implementation  Report  2018  (submitted  in  2019).  There  is  no  other  evidence 
that  the  programmes  have  invested  the  reported  amounts  to  support  the  macro-regional 
strategy.  In  fact,  in  some  cases  the  managing  authorities  of  mainstream  programmes 
considered  that  the  full  amount  of  their  programme  contributes  to  fulfilling  the  macro-
regional strategy’s objectives. This is a point to further explore with specific programmes, in 
order  to  receive  more  realistic  data  and  information.  In  addition,  a  list  with  the  specific 
investments would be needed for further use.  

The question: ‘Please indicate the obtained results in relation to the EUSBSR’ aims to explore 
which programmes deem themselves to be compatible with the macro-regional strategy.  

84 

 
 
  
Twenty-nine programmes acknowledge their compatibility with the EUSBSR priorities. This 
could  lead to  an understanding on whether synergies between programmes  and the Strategy 
have been identified, and whether the managing authorities consider that a contribution to the 
EUSBSR  will  result  in  win-win  opportunities.  The  results  are  satisfactory,  since  27 
programmes  consider  that  directly  investing  in  specific  EUSBSR  priority  areas  implies  an 
added value. Two programmes underlined that they only indirectly contribute to the Strategy, 
albeit  they  benefit  from  the  EUSBSR  added  value.  However,  nine  additional  programmes 
claimed  that  either  they  cannot  assess  any  results,  so  far,  or  they  are  not  concerned  by  the 
EUSBSR.   

However,  when  we  posed  the  following  questions  to  the  programmes:  ‘Please  specify  the 
objective (s), policy area(s), and horizontal action(s) of the EUSBSR that your programme is 
relevant to’, all 62 programmes replied by indicating at least one out of these three options. 
This shows us that even if the programmes do not see any direct link to  the macro-regional 
strategy,  there  is  potential  to  further  explore  synergies  through  common  themes,  or  through 
mainstream cooperation.  

In  order  to  analyse  these  data,  we  have  to  explain  the  methodology,  which  gives  the 
programmes  that  replied  the  opportunity  to  choose  as  many  topics  as  they  deem  relevant. 
Therefore,  a  programme  might  opt  for  two  or  more  objectives,  policy  areas  or  horizontal 
actions.  

Further to  the  analysis,  all 62 programmes have pointed out  relevant  topics, which result in 
the following being the most popular themes of the EUSBSR. 

Most popular objective:  ‘increase prosperity’ with 51 replies; the two other objectives ‘save 
the sea’ and ‘connect the region’ got the same number of replies (40 replies each)   

Most popular policy areas:  ‘innovation’ with  43 replies, ‘bio economy’  with 34 replies, and 
‘education’ & ‘culture’ with 33 replies each.  

The most popular horizontal actions: ‘climate’ with 30 replies.  

85 

 
 
 
 
2.  The EU Strategy for the Danube Region 

Ninety-five  programmes  (ESI  Funds  mainstream,  Interreg  and  IPA-CBC  programmes,  and 
IPA II mainstream) are relevant for the EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR).  
Sixty-two out of the 95 programmes provided updated replies106 to the questionnaire included 
in the Annual Implementation Report 2018 (submitted in 2019). This corresponds to a 65% of 
the EUSDR relevant programmes replying to the questionnaire, which is a satisfactory reply 
rate. These programmes are composed of: 

  37 mainstream ESI Funds programmes;  

  18 Interreg programmes (15 CBC programmes and 3 transnational programmes) 

  4 IPA-CBC programmes 

  3 IPA-IPA CBC programmes 

The aggregated data are provided in the table below: 

Country 

Austria 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Czechia 
Germany 
Hungary 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Interreg TN 
Interreg CBC 
Total 
IPA-CBC (HU-RS, 
RO-RS, HR-RS, 
HR-BiH-MNE) 
IPA-IPA CBC (BiH-
MNE, RS-MNE, 
RS-BiH) 
IPA mainstream 
BiH, RS, MNE 
IPA multi-country 
2018 
Total 
Grand total (ESI 
Funds+IPA II) 

Number of 
relevant OPs 
4 
10 
4 
9 
9 
9 
8 
8 
3 
3 
18 
84 

Number of OPs 
that replied 
1 
7 
2 
6 
5 
7 
5 
3 
1 
3 
15 
55 

Percentage of OPs 
that replied 
25 % 
70 %  
50 % 
66 % 
56 % 
77 % 
62 % 
38 % 
33 % 
100 % 
83,3 % 
65,4% 

5 

5 

3 

1 

14 

95 

4 

3 

0 

0 

7 

62 

80% 

60% 

0 

0 

50% 

65% 

106ENI programmes are also relevant for the EUSDR. However 2018 was a transitory year with the closure of 

ENPI programmes and launch of the ENI programmes which have yet to be implemented. 

86 

 
 
                                                           
The  operational  programmes  have  committed  to  contribute  to  the  EUSDR  objectives  in 
several ways, as described below. 

  Nineteen  out  of  the  62  programmes  work  with  key  implementers  of  the  EUSDR  in 
their  monitoring  committees  (11  ESI  Funds  programmes,  5  Interreg  programmes,  2 
IPA-CBC programmes, 1 IPA-IPA CBC programme); 

  Sixteen  programmes  out  of  the  62  indicated  that  they  gave  extra  points  to  specific 
measures supporting the EUSDR. Of these, 10 programmes have carried out targeted 
calls for proposals for macro-regional relevant projects, and 11 have given extra points 
to projects/actions with high macro-regional significance or impact; 

  In  addition,  the  Romanian  ‘Large  Infrastructure  Programme  -  RO  –  ERDF/CF’  has 
given bonus points to ‘biodiversity’ and ‘energy’ projects that have a macro-regional 
dimension; 

  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 through targeted calls for proposals; 

  In matters of EUSDR related projects, a total of 718 projects have been supported so 

far. However, 3 programmes claim to have financed 68,2% of these projects: 

(i)  Romanian  ‘Large  Infrastructure  Programme  -  RO  –  ERDF/CF’  programme 

(226 projects); 

(ii)  ‘Interreg V-A – Romania-Bulgaria’ programme (166 projects); 
(iii)  ‘Bayern – ERDF’ programme (98 projects). 

  3 programmes have supported other actions, especially strategic projects, for example 
the programme ‘Investments in Growth and Employment - AT – ERDF’ financed the 
project  ‘Dream’,  coordinated  by  Austria,  ‘IPA  CBC  Romania  –  Serbia’,  and  the 
‘Interreg V-B – Danube’. 

Twenty-three ESI Funds programmes reported that they have already invested funds into the 
EUSDR’s implementation.  

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

ERDF 

EARFD 

EMFF 

CF 

ESF 

IPA 

ENI 

Other Funds 
(national) 

4.849.347.834 

4.886.562.548 

4.326.918 

5.830.567.940  45.014.378  87.244.816  10.000.000 

11.986.766 

Total in €: 15.725.051.223 

Countries reporting the largest investments  

EU Member 
States 

ERDF Total 
Amount  

CF Total 
Amount  

ESF Total 
Amount 

EAFRD Total 
Amount 

RO 

HU 

HR 

0 

0 

0 

4.886.562.548 

1.780.778.635 

2.091.200.000 

42.514.376 

1.479.856.591 

1.220.429.352 

0 

0 

0 

87 

 
 
 
 
SK 

563.825.806 

1.745.759.763 

0 

0 

It  is  worth  noting  that  the  above  table  comprises  figures  as  reported  by  the  programmes  in 
their  Annual  Implementation  Report  2018  (submitted  in  2019).  There  is  no  other  evidence 
that  the  programmes  have  invested  the  reported  amounts  to  support  the  macro-regional 
strategy.  In  fact,  in  some  cases  the  managing  authorities  of  mainstream  programmes 
considered  that  the  full  amount  of  their  programme  contributes  to  the  objectives  of  the 
Strategy. This is a point to further explore with specific programmes, in order to receive more 
realistic  data  and  information.  In  addition,  a  list  with  the  specific  investments  would  be 
needed for further use. 

There  is  probably,  among  some  OPs,  still  a  lack  of  understanding  on  what  determines  a 
project with macro-regional added value.  

The question ‘Please indicate the obtained results in relation to the EUSDR’ aims to explore 
which programmes deem themselves to be compatible with the macro-regional strategy. 

Twenty-five  programmes  acknowledge  their  compatibility  with  the  EUSDR  priorities.  This 
could  lead to  an understanding on whether synergies between programmes and the Strategy 
have been identified, and whether the managing authorities consider that a contribution to the 
EUSDR  will  result  in  win-win  opportunities.  The  results  are  satisfactory,  since  25 
programmes  consider  that  directly  investing  in  specific  EUSDR  priority  areas  implies  an 
added value. 

Fifteen additional programmes, however, claimed that either they cannot assess any results, so 
far or they are not concerned by the EUSDR. 

However, when we posed the following question to the programmes: ‘Please specify the Pillar 
(s) and Priority Area(s) of the EUSDR that your programme is relevant to’, all 62 replied by 
indicating at least one of these options. This shows us that even if the programmes do not see 
any  direct  link to  the macro-regional strategy, there is  potential to  further explore synergies 
through common themes, or even through mainstream cooperation. 

In  order  to  analyse  these  data,  we  have  to  explain  the  methodology,  which  gives  the 
programmes  that  replied  the  opportunity  to  choose  as  many  topics  as  they  deem  relevant. 
Therefore, a programme might opt for two or more pillars, and priority areas. 

Further to  the analysis,  all 62 programmes have pointed out  relevant  topics, which result in 
the following being the most popular themes of the EUSDR. 

Most popular Pillars:  

  Pillar 3: ‘Building Prosperity in the Danube Region’ with 83 replies; 
  Pillar 2: ‘Protecting the Environment in the Danube Region’ with 75 replies; 
  Pillar 1: ‘Connecting the Danube Region’ with 59 replies; and 
  Pillar 4: ‘Strengthening the Danube Region’ with 23 replies. 

Most popular Priority Areas:  

 
 
 
 

‘Competitiveness’ with 31 replies; 
‘Biodiversity, landscapes, air and soil quality’ with 28 replies; 
‘People & skills’ with 27 replies; and 
‘Culture and tourism’ with 25 replies. 

88 

 
 
 
 
3.  The EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region  

Some 111 programmes (ESI Funds mainstream,  Interreg,  IPA-CBC,  IPA  II mainstream  and 
IPA-IPA  CBC)  are  relevant  for  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian  Region 
(EUSAIR).  

Among  them,  four  Interreg  programmes  -  three  transnational  (Mediterranean;  Balkan-
Mediterranean,  Central  Europe)  and  one  CBC  (Italy-Austria)  -  marginally  covering  the 
EUSAIR region could be considered as relevant and as contributing to it.  

Forty five out of the 111 programmes provided updated replies to the questionnaire included 
in their Annual Implementation Report 2018 (submitted in 2019) . This corresponds to a 40% 
of EUSAIR relevant programmes replying to the questionnaire, a sufficient reply rate. These 
programmes are composed of: 

  30  country-specific  mainstream  programmes  covering  ESI  Funds  (21  regional  and  9 

national programmes); 

  10  Interreg  programmes  (4  cross-border,  2  transnational,  4  IPA-CBC  with  EU 

Member States); 

  5 IPA-IPA CBC programmes. 

The aggregated data are provided in the table below: 

EU Member States 

Croatia  
Greece  
Italy 
Slovenia  
IPA-CBC (with EU MSs) 
Interreg CBC 
Interreg TN 
Total 

Number of 
relevant 
OPs 
4 
23 
57 
3 
4 
5 
3 
99 

IPA countries (IPA 
mainstream + IPA-IPA CBC) 

Total IPA II 
programmes 

2 
Albania  
2 
Bosnia and Herzegovina  
2 
Montenegro  
Serbia 
4 
Multi- country programmes 2018  2 
Total 
Grand Total (ESI Funds+IPA 
II) 

12 

111 

Number of OPs 
that replied 

Percentage of 
OPs that replied 

2 
6 
20 
2 
4 
4 
2 
40 
Total number of 
programmes that 
replied 
0 
1 
1 
3 
0 
5 

45 

50% 
26% 
35% 
66% 
100% 
80% 
66% 
40% 
Percentage of 
programmes 
that replied 

50% 
50% 
75% 

42% 

40% 

The  operational  programmes  have  committed  to  contribute  to  the  EUSAIR  objectives  in 
several  ways,  which  do  not  automatically  involve  the  implementation  of  macro-regional 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
projects or actions, but have the potential to promote the EUSAIR and signal a strong interest 
to it, notably : 

-  Thirteen  programmes  opened  up  participation  in  their  monitoring  committee  to 
EUSAIR  key  implementers  (9  ESI  Funds  programmes  and  4  IPA-IPA  CBC 
programmes); 

-  Fourteen  ESI  Funds  and  4  IPA-CBC  programmes  gave  extra-points  to  EUSAIR 

labelled projects; 

- 

the monitoring committees of three ESI funds, two IPA-CBC programmes, one IPA II 
programme  and  one  IPA-IPA  CBC  programme  decided  to  directly  invest  funds  on 
EUSAIR objectives, opening targeted calls for proposals; 

-  Seven  ESI  Funds’  operational  programmes,  one  IPA-CBC  programme,  one  IPA  II 
programme and one IPA-IPA CBC programme reported that they have invested funds, 
which contribute to the EUSAIR’s implementation. 

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

ERDF 

CF 

ESF 

EAFRD 

EMFF 

IPA II 

1.547.650.085 

1.165.356.996 

0 

119.776.264 

0 

36.927.437 

Other 
Funds 
0 

Total in €: 2.869.710.782 

It  is  worth  noting  that  the  above  table  comprises  figures  as  reported  by  the  programmes  in 
their  Annual  Implementation  Report  2018  (submitted  in  2019).  There  is  no  other  evidence 
that  the  programmes  have  invested  the  reported  amounts  to  support  the  macro-regional 
strategy.  In  fact,  in  some  cases  the  managing  authorities  of  mainstream  programmes 
considered  that  the  full  amount  of  their  programme  contributes  to  the  objectives  of  the 
Strategy  on  the  basis  that  policy  areas  correspond  to  the  EUSAIR  pillars.  In  some  other 
circumstances  managing  authorities  reported  on  projects  that  are  in  line  with  the  EUSAIR 
objectives but did not report the funds invested, which leads to  an underestimation of funds 
invested in the Strategy. There is still clearly, among some OPs, a lack of understanding on 
what determines a project with macro-regional added value.  

Even though only 10 programmes in 2018 - a small number - have claimed to have invested 
directly in the EUSAIR, this has increased from 7 in the previous year.  

This  is  certainly  a  positive  development  for  the  future  of  the  Strategy  with  the  potential  to 
effectively  boost  its  implementation.  However,  clearer  advice  should  be  given  to  managing 
authorities on how to determine their contribution to achieving EUSAIR objectives.  

The 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,  37  out  of  40  ESI  Funds  programmes  have  replied 
that their priorities are compatible with the following EUSAIR pillars: 

-  Blue Growth (23) 

-  Connecting the region (20) 

-  Environmental quality (29) 

-  Sustainable tourism (31). 

90 

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

91 

 
 
 
 
4.  The EU Strategy for the Alpine Region 

Following  a very strict  geographical  approach (which aimed  to  include all  programmes that 
touch  the  EU  Strategy  for  the Alpine  Region  (EUSALP)  perimeter)  98  programmes  can  be 
identified as relevant for the EUSALP. This concerns country-specific (mainstream) as well as 
Interreg programmes. However, from a functional point of view only 78 programmes are de 
facto  relevant  for  the  EUSALP.  This  excludes  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. 

Twenty-nine  out  of  78  programmes  provided  replies  to  the  questionnaire  included  in  their 
Annual Implementation Report 2018 (submitted in 2019): 

  21 ESI Funds mainstream programmes 

  8 Interreg programmes (7 cross-border and 1 transnational) 

Aggregated data: 

Country 

Number of 
relevant OPs 

Number of OPs 
that replied 

Percentage of  OPs 
that replied 

Austria 

France 

Germany 

Italy 

Slovenia 

Interreg TN 

Interreg CBC 

Total 

4 

11 

9 

38 

3 

3 

10 

78 

1 

5 

5 

9 

1 

1 

7 

29 

25% 

45% 

55% 

24% 

33% 

33% 

70% 

37% 

Operational programmes have committed to contribute to the EUSALP in several ways, the 
most important of which are the following: 

✔  Eight programmes indicated that extra points have been attributed to specific measures 

supporting the EUSALP. 

✔  In  total,  1196  projects  were  supported  by  the  29  programmes  that  replied  to  the 
questionnaire.  However,  one  programme  alone  provides  78,3%  of  the  projects:  the 
Veneto - ERDF program (936 projects). 

✔  Seven    programmes  opened  up  participation  of  EUSALP  key  implementers  (e.g. 
national  coordinators,  policy  area  coordinators,  flagship  leaders)  in  their  monitoring 
committee. 

Four  ESI  Funds  operational  programmes  reported  to  have  already  invested  funds  which 
contribute to EUSALP’s implementation. 

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

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ERDF 

CF 

ESF 

EAFRD 

181.645.842 

377.097.742 

0 

215.461.813 

Total in €: 784.205.397 

Countries reporting the largest investments 

EU Member States  ERDF total amount 

CF total amount 

EARFD total amount 

SI 

FR 

DE 

44.587.451 

377.097.742 

0 

0 

10.777.298 

0 

0 

215.461.813 

0 

It  is  worth  noting  that  the  above  table  comprises  figures  as  reported  by  the  programmes  in 
their Annual Implementation Report 2018 (submitted in 2019). There is no other evidence that 
the programmes have invested the reported amounts to support the macro-regional strategy. In 
fact, in some cases the managing authorities of mainstream programmes considered that the 
full amount of their programme contributes to the objectives of the Strategy on the basis that 
the programmes’ policy areas correspond to the EUSALP priorities. This is a point to further 
explore with specific programmes in order to receive data that are more realistic. 

The question: ‘Please indicate the obtained results in relation to the EUSALP’ aims to explore 
which programmes deem themselves to be compatible with the macro-regional strategy. 

✔  Eight  programmes  acknowledge  that  compatibility  with  the  EUSALP  priorities  is  a 
very  important  factor.  This  could  lead  to  an  understanding  about  whether  there  has 
been scope for cooperation and where programmes have contributed to the EUSALP. 

✔  The results are satisfactory, since  eight programmes consider that they have received 

visible added value from contributing to the EUSALP. 

✔  Nine  other  programmes,  however,  claimed  that  they  are  not  concerned  by  the 

EUSALP. 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
Annexes: Maps of the macro-regional strategies 

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

94 

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

95 

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

96 

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

97 

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

98