Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the 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(2022) 705 final)
Date: 2023-06-14
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
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








C_2023293EN.01009101.xml










18.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/91







Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the 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(2022) 705 final)
(2023/C 293/14)







Rapporteur:



Stefano PALMIERI





Co-rapporteur:



Dimitris DIMITRIADIS











Referral


European Commission, 2.5.2023




Legal basis


Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion




Adopted in section


30.5.2023




Adopted at plenary


14.6.2023




Plenary session No


579




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


169/1/2




1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) acknowledges that macro-regional strategies (MRS) play an important role in the social, territorial and economic cohesion of the regions, and contribute to the European integration of neighbouring countries.












1.2.


The EESC points out that MRS address issues requiring several countries (and different actors within them) to cooperate based on a cross-sectoral and multi-level governance approach. Thus, the different actors should try to: make the coexistence between national interest and the principle of cooperation possible while also mitigating bureaucratic and complex procedures that makes MRS less attractive.












1.3.


The EESC believes more efforts should be made in order to strengthen MRS so that they can be leaders for change, inspire confidence and promote European values, especially with respect to the social, territorial and economic cohesion of the regions and the integration of neighbouring countries, as well as the 2030 Agenda.












1.4.


The EESC notes that the MRS have been useful tools in dealing with the health crisis and the effects of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Specifically, the EUSDR and the EUSBR have played an important role in increasing links between Ukraine and the EU for the integration of Ukrainian refugees and creating safe freight corridors.












1.5.


Considering the green, digital and social transitions, the EESC notes that the implementation process varies between the various MRS because of different levels and capacities for sectoral policy implementation and non-EU countries’ level of preparedness. The EESC believes it is relevant to address disparities through specific measures, especially with regard to the regions most disadvantaged, to prevent turning economic competitiveness and social cohesion into something problematic that will lead to bigger gaps between regions that are more ‘developed’ and those that are less so.












1.6.


The EESC believes it is pivotal to strengthen the link between the green, digital and social transitions to shift the focus from producing ‘more’ to producing ‘better’, thus avoiding the waste of overproduction, in full compliance with the principle of strategic autonomy. In this sense, it is important to valorise smart specialisation and clustering approaches, as well as to supply proper and thorough, relevant education and training.












1.7.


The EESC takes into consideration the fact that civil society organisations and social partners play a vital role in contributing to better decision-making, in particular by bringing local and regional communities closer to the MRS, and encourages the Member States, but also the European Commission, to make civil society organisations, social partners and regional and local governance even more involved, so that the sense of ownership of the programmes can be strengthened.












1.8.


Moreover, it becomes important for the efficiency and effectiveness of the four MRS to strengthen the capacity building of local state and non-state actors. The EESC considers it important that information and training processes are launched for these actors. In this context, the EESC proposes establishing a system for the short- and medium-duration exchange of civil servants between the regions of the MRS, similar to the Erasmus programme. The EESC welcomes the initiative to establish an institutionalised citizen’s dialogue across macro-regions, and believes that it could help in this respect. It is also important that the EESC, the house of organised civil society and social partners, play a more active role and be part of the governing board of all MRS. In this way, synergies and cooperation can become more effective and visible. In this regard, the EESC the EESC proposes organising forums with the representatives of civil society and social partners in MRS Member States.












1.9.


Moreover, the EESC calls on all MRS to explore the possibilities for reversing the lacking involvement of local key drivers for development (SMEs, existing industrial clusters, local bank, social enterprises, trade unions, academia, NGOs, and other CSOs), and of multinational corporations and international financial institutions and banks, which is crucial. In the context of MRS, the adoption of the partnership principle should be fully implemented with the full involvement of the stakeholders concerned.












1.10.


The EESC points out the relevance of aligning the MRS with the objectives of the 2030 Agenda and creating complementarity with those of the 2021-2027 cohesion policy to make the macro-regional initiatives more effective.












1.11.


Despite the European Commission’s efforts to increase the visibility of the MRS, the EESC believes that better communication does not depend on one key actor only, but on a greater engagement of Member States and third countries participating in the MRS. The EESC can help in this direction, and the multilevel participation of civil society in this can be essential.












1.12.


The EESC suggests that a different approach to MRS governance should be considered. As the political level is represented by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, the operational level should be strengthened with enhanced cooperation with the Ministries of EU Affairs and the Ministries for EU Funds. Participation of regional authorities, empowering their administrational capacity and reinforcing spatial planning, is also crucial for the implementation of the MRS.












1.13.


The EESC hopes that, with the approval of the Report by the European Parliament’s Regional Development Committee, the conditions will be ripe for an MRS to be implemented in the western Mediterranean regions as well.












1.14.


As part of the evaluation process of the future cohesion policy, it will be necessary to carefully evaluate the improvements to be made to the MRS in order to unleash their full potential.




2.   Introduction









2.1.


Since 2009, the European Union (EU) has defined macro-regional strategies as integrated, enhanced cooperation frameworks that enable countries located in the same area to jointly address common challenges, or to make the most of their common potential.












2.2.


Member States and non-EU countries sharing the same geographical area initiate a macro-regional strategy and set its objectives; the area covered by the strategy is identified on the basis of physical characteristics (a river basin, sea basin, mountain range, etc.) and builds upon pre-existing, historical socioeconomic and cultural links as the necessary response to the challenges resulting from a rapid evolving expansion of the EU.












2.3.


Macro-regional strategies provide integrated, enhanced cooperation frameworks for jointly addressing challenges and opportunities in specific areas of the EU, where these cannot be addressed individually with common tools. Moreover, given present circumstances, they can be a significant instrument to promote the spatial expansion of EU-outreach.












2.4.


With this opinion, the EESC will provide its assessment of the 4th report on the implementation of European Union macro-regional strategies, taking account of the fact that during the reporting period, from mid-2020 to mid-2022, the 19 EU Member States and 10 non-EU countries that are part of the EU macro-regional strategies have shown remarkable resilience in severe and continuous external shocks, and had to transform their regular cooperation actions into solidarity activities in order to tackle together the effects of COVID-19 and Russia’s unjustified military aggression against Ukraine.




3.   General assessment of the implementation of the macro-regional strategies

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









3.1.1.


The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, launched in 2009, involves eight EU Member States and four neighbouring third countries. The strategy has three key objectives — save the sea; connect the region; and increase prosperity — and is subdivided thematically into 14 interconnected policy areas, including risks, the bioeconomy, health and education.












3.1.2.


In terms of funding, the Interreg Baltic Sea Region programme has played a key role in financing the implementation of the macro-region from the beginning. From 2014-2020, the Interreg programme contributed around EUR 278 million to the implementation of projects in the region. For the period 2021-2027, the Interreg Baltic Sea Region programme will have a budget of EUR 259 million.












3.1.3.


In 2021, the EUSBSR Action Plan was revised. The number of actions was reduced, a system to facilitate closer cooperation between stakeholders (including economic and social partners) was introduced, and a new tool — the Baltic Sea Strategy Point (BSP) — was established to provide administrative and technical support for managing, developing and communicating the strategy.












3.1.4.


The EUSBSR has supported the regions involved in achieving the sustainable and smart growth targets set. Despite the fact that suspending cooperation with Russia and Belarus following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has created an obstacle to solving the main problems in the region, the strategy has the potential to address emerging challenges.




3.2.   The European Union Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR)









3.2.1.


The EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR), launched in December 2010 and updated in 2020, includes 14 countries (9 EU Member States and 5 non-EU countries) and is structured around four main pillars: (1) connecting the region; (2) protecting the environment; (3) building prosperity; and (4) strengthening the region. These four objectives are further divided into 12 priority areas.












3.2.2.


As regards funding, during the 2014-2020 period, primary support was provided by the Interreg Danube Transnational Programme amounting to a total of EUR 231 million. For the period 2021-2027 however, the programme is providing a total of EUR 213,1 million.












3.2.3.


In 2020, the Action Plan was modified to put its activities on a strategic footing and reorganise the objectives. The purpose of the update was three-fold: to streamline the actions by reducing the number of them from 137 to 85; to make the action plan a document that provides strategic guidance for the implementation of the EUSDR; to make the action plan more consistent with other financing programmes and instruments, in particular with cohesion policy programmes, but also other EU funding programmes and instruments, and with national, regional and local funding from Danube countries. The revision of the action plan aligned the actions provided for by the EUSDR with the EU’s new priorities, including the European Green Deal. Considerable steps have been made through youth involvement activities and strengthening cooperation with EU funds.












3.2.4.


Nevertheless, despite this update, the Danube macro-regional strategy faces a number of issues that are slowing down its implementation: tangible socioeconomic differences across the Danube region, a lack of financial resources and weak political commitment among the countries involved. Moreover, participating countries have to contend with broader global challenges such as the post-pandemic recovery, climate change and the digital transition, all of which could divert their attention from their efforts to improve the implementation of the EUSDR.




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









3.3.1.


Launched in 2014, the EUSAIR brings together ten countries (four EU Member States and six non-EU countries). The strategy is built on four main pillars: blue growth; connecting the region; environmental quality; and sustainable tourism. The EUSAIR Facility Point provides operational support for coordination and implementation.












3.3.2.


With regard to funding for the 2014-2020 period, the Interreg ADRION programme made EUR 118 million available to finance projects under the four EUSAIR pillars, including support for EUSAIR governance under priority axis 4. For the period 2021-2027, EUR 136,7 million will be available under the Interreg Adriatic-Ionian programme.












3.3.3.


The EESC notes with satisfaction the efforts in the EUSAIR for the set-up of a Youth Council in this strategy. It calls on the other MRS to strengthen the functioning of Youth Councils. It calls on all MRS to empower the Youth Councils and institutionalise the dialogue with them, probably in the framework of the annual fora.












3.3.4.


In November 2021, the EU reshaped the EUSAIR brand identity through the ‘Report on the repositioning of the European Union Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR)’, with the aim of making it more comprehensible to its target audience. It recommends further aligning EUSAIR with the EU’s political priorities such as the European Green Deal and the digital transition, while placing civil society and young people at the centre of its own priorities.












3.3.5.


With reference to the progress EUSAIR has made, despite the results achieved in terms of stability in the region and convergence between countries, there are still some untapped opportunities for achieving synergies with other multilateral initiatives in the macro-region, and disparities between the EU and non-EU countries. The strategy encompasses too many dimensions, covers a very complex and diverse geography and has too many objectives.




3.4.   The EU strategy for the Alpine Region (EUSALP)









3.4.1.


The macro-regional strategy for the Alpine region (EUSALP), launched in 2015, is the most recent strategy to be approved by the EU. It involves seven countries, of which five are EU Member States and two are non-EU countries. The strategy has three thematic areas: economic growth and innovation; mobility and connectivity; and environment and energy. The three thematic areas are complemented by a cross-cutting policy on governance which aims to provide a sound macro-regional governance model for the region.












3.4.2.


As regards funding from 2014-2020, the Interreg Alpine Space programme made EUR 139 million available for the region, while for the period 2021-2027, a total of EUR 107 million is available for four priority areas aimed at achieving a climate-resilient, green and carbon-neutral Alpine region.












3.4.3.


Despite the clear divide between urban and rural mountainous areas, the macro-region has a strong socioeconomic interdependence. Some of the countries participating in EUSALP (Germany, Italy, Austria, and Slovenia) are involved in other macro-regional strategies, which has led to challenges. More engagement in governance processes is clearly needed to transform overlaps into complementarities.












3.4.4.


Compared to the other macro-regional strategies, the EUSALP is well structured. This is due to the fact that the Alpine region has a structured, institutional fabric and a long-standing tradition of cooperation through the Alpine Convention and other initiatives such as Arge Alp, Euromontana, Alliance in the Alps (local authorities), ALPARC (network of protected areas) and the International Scientific Committee for Research in the Alps, as well as other organisations operating in the region. The two non-EU countries, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, have a high institutional and administrative capacity that enables them to cooperate with the EU Member States at the same level.




4.   The macro-regional landscape and the war in Ukraine









4.1.


The macro-regional strategies have been directly and indirectly affected by the war in Ukraine. The EU macro-regional strategies’ cooperation activities have had to focus on solidarity initiatives to jointly address the effects of Russia’s unjustified military aggression against Ukraine.












4.2.


Of the four macro-regional strategies, the EUSDR and the EUSBSR are the ones that have definitely had a ‘direct’ influence on the implementation of cooperation activities;






—


the EUSDR and the EUSBR (including their CSOs and social partners), have played an important role in supporting Ukraine since the war, helping to increase links between Ukraine and the EU. The activities have focused on the integration of Ukrainian refugees and on creating safe freight corridors. This commitment was strongly demonstrated by the Ukrainian presidency of the Danube Strategy in 2022. Despite the war, Ukraine has considerably increased its involvement in all priority areas of the Danube Strategy;










—


the EUSBSR has suspended all cooperation with Russia and Belarus. This is also why the strategy is now moving in the direction of further strengthening its role as a strategic interface for cooperation between the EU Member States, Norway and Iceland.
















4.2.1.


Nevertheless, although the long-term orientation of macro-regional strategies should not be easily adjusted, specifically, the structural changes in the global geopolitical scene — the war in Ukraine is a main incident in this frame — affects the content of all four MRS, since they reinstate the significance of cross-regional/cross-border cohesion and collaboration in Europe itself, and the Eurasian space as well.




5.   The role and impact of the macro-regional strategies in the implementation of the green, digital and social transition processes









5.1.


Despite the fact that the four macro-regional strategies (MRS) support the achievement of the targets set for the EU’s green, digital and social transitions, it is clear that the implementation process varies between the various MRS because of different levels and capacities for sectoral policy implementation (environment, digital/innovation and social) and non-EU countries’ level of preparedness for dealing with the challenges of the ‘transitions’.












5.2.


It should be pointed out that if such differences are not addressed through specific support and funding measures, especially with regard to the MRS in most difficulty, then something that has the potential to drive economic competitiveness and social cohesion risks turning into something problematic that will lead to bigger gaps between regions that are more ‘developed’ and those that are less so. This is also challenging in case of the peripheral or remote regions that are always disadvantaged compared to central, urban or metropolitan-region ones. Here the support and incentives for regional, cross-border cooperation can be very beneficial.












5.3.


A close look at the 4th report, and an analysis of the projects funded by Interreg programmes active from 2014-2020, reveals that there is a close link between the green and digital transitions. Various projects were launched and implemented, but it is not clear whether these initiatives were actually effective in bringing about change. The EESC believes that the results achieved should be capitalised on through the opportunities available under 2021-2027 Interreg programmes.












5.4.


For the EESC, where all MRS fall short is the fact that the green and digital transition processes are less linked to the social ones, limiting, in many cases, the social dimension to forms of involvement and participation of groups that do not fully represent the needs and interests of civil society and social partners. In its exploratory opinion on Towards a better economic convergence and competitiveness within macro-regions, such as the European Strategy for the Danube region — the role of transnational clusters (1), the EESC pointed out that performance, in terms of reducing social and spatial disparities and boosting environmental sustainability, remains modest, most likely due to the complexity of governance and intergovernmental arrangements, the level of bureaucracy, the lack of cross-regional homogeneity and the insufficient involvement of social partners, socioeconomic agents and civil society organisations.












5.5.


The aim of the green and digital transition strategies is to shift the focus from producing ‘more’ to producing ‘better’. Although this approach is correct and in line with the EESC’s guidelines, it poses problems that, if not addressed, could transform added value into something detrimental. Employment levels and tax revenues are closely related to GDP growth; if GDP shrinks, it is more difficult to fund health, education and social justice.












5.6.


The EU’s response to this paradox is the European Green Deal, a set of measures to support sustainable economic growth, taking account of the environment, natural resources and social cohesion. Despite the strategic nature of the European Green Deal, there are many factors that could jeopardise its success to support the transitions. The reduction in available human resources and the increase in health and pension expenditure risk reducing the resources needed to support investments in the ‘green and digital transitions’ in the MRS.












5.7.


The twin transitions (green and digital), especially at MRS level, risks being a necessary but inadequate tool that requires additional measures to achieve the holistic, sustainable economic development of society alongside economic growth.












5.7.1.


Smart specialisation and clusters are important for the twin transition: (i) promoting networking and establishing clusters amongst companies has been one of the most successful ways to support innovation and development among SMEs; (ii) intermediation in the form of consulting and administrative services (through regional development agencies, chambers of commerce, cluster managers, etc.) boosts the effectiveness of networking and clustering (compared to the content of the EESC exploratory opinion (2)).












5.8.


Additionally, the EESC supports the fact that in order to help transform the digital and green transitions from challenges into real opportunities, we have to strengthen the social transition, creating co-development platforms where civil society and social partners are given a leading role, so that social and economic partners’ needs and issues can be at the core of development and cohesion choices.












5.9.


The MRS should be used as test platforms for shaping innovative instruments such as ‘sustainable taxation and incentives systems’ initiatives, or the creation of a tax system that helps to provide for society’s needs, even in the face of weak or negative economic growth. Such measures are evolved forms of resilience that are capable of anticipating crises, which now regularly affect the regions of the MRS.












5.10.


MRS should be used as tools to support ‘cultural change’, to plan strategies and implement measures that can help to achieve cohesion policy and Agenda 2030 objectives. In this regard, the EESC highlights the low level of cooperation between the various MRS and, consequently, the need to strengthen and promote trans-macro-regional capacity building tools.












5.11.


In order to adapt to the digital transition especially, MRS should be supported, mainly through the supply of proper and thorough education and training. Given the variety of MRS participating countries (EU Member States, candidate countries, etc.), there is a need to close the gap between them with respect to this. In his exploratory opinion (3), the EESC supports that, in the future, MRS will significantly benefit from efficient networks for educational activities with respect to the digitalisation of production, as well as from initiatives towards effective interregional research and innovation ecosystems, in basic and applied R & D activities.




6.   The territorial dimension of macro-regional strategies and the involvement of civil society and social partners









6.1.


Although the macro-regional strategies are aligned with the overall objective of cohesion policy, the EESC believes that in order to help boost economic, social and territorial cohesion, bottom-up initiatives need to be consolidated and improved. This especially concerns programming and planning activities, such as setting up implementation tools for indirectly managed EU funds.












6.2.


The EESC believes that the territorial approach should become the focus when implementing MRS, in contrast to certain situations where MRS seem to be the tool for applying European strategies at regional and local level. Rather, European strategies should be the receptacles for launching initiatives similar to CLLD (Community-led local development) so that measures can be identified on the basis of the territories where action is needed.












6.3.


Citizens’ involvement, ownership and motivation can be enhanced by stronger involvement of local and regional governance and by small regional or cross-border regional projects where the results are direct and visible. Good examples are the health-emergency and hospital urgency cooperation projects or the similarly structured catastrophe-defence cooperation project facing the same type of problems to solve, but also providing similar benefits.












6.4.


In addition to strong political support, the challenges that macro-regions have faced, including COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine, and those that they will have to face in the coming years, require the greater involvement of civil society and social partners in the governance and implementation process, as well as a business system boosted by measures to help the competitiveness of SMEs.












6.5.


While initiatives have indeed been carried out in each of the MRS, it is clear that whatever has been done must be implemented so that each of the MRS can be given a real cross-cutting dimension (participation of civil society) that complements and enhances the ‘vertical dimension’ (participation of regions and local bodies) and the multilevel governance in full compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, to avoid the objectives of individual States and regions prevailing over common interests.












6.6.


The EESC believes that the broadest possible process for training, discussion and sharing of economic, social and environment choices concerning the macro-regions, should be promoted at regional and local level. This could be achieved using certain methods already tested in other contests, based on engagement between local bodies, social and economic partners and other civil society organisations.












6.7.


Each MRS should ensure the launch of a civil society and social partners forum whose work should dovetail with that of other stakeholder platforms and develop within an operating model that enables the real involvement of representatives of economic and social partners in implementing the strategies at macro-regional, regional and local level. Annual fora of this type may ensure continuity of the MRS, offer opportunities for new innovative ideas as well as for business to business (B-2-B) meetings. Finally, they shall enhance the visibility and communication of the MRS and strengthen the cooperation among macro-regional strategies through the exchange of good practices, primarily among neighbouring ones. The EESC proposes that the specific forums be hosted on rotation in different locations in the regions participating in MRS, and states its willingness to actively support these specific events.












6.8.


It is crucial to promote capacity-building activities to support both regional and local authorities, and enhance the proactive participation of organised civil society and social partners in the development processes of MRS. In this context, the partnership principle should apply to SMR projects to ensure local stakeholders are able to actively participate. This should also support awareness-raising and increasing knowledge among citizens of the main topics and activities concerning the MRS.












6.9.


In particular, the EESC proposes establishing a system for the short- and medium-duration exchange of civil servants between the regions of the MRS, similar to the Erasmus programme, and expresses its willingness to be one of the facilitators of this initiative. We strongly believe that this will considerably help capacity building and awareness raising, and also help to gradually overcome the bureaucratic issues resulting from the various cross-country disparities.




7.   Other priorities for improving the effectiveness of macro-regional strategies









7.1.


Ensuring that MRS are consistent with and aligned to cohesion policy and the 2030 Agenda is a priority to ensure that specific interests do not prevail over common ones. While consistency with cohesion policy priorities is an obligation in the planning and development process of MRS, some MRS have limited alignment with the 2030 Agenda.












7.2.


As regards the consistency and complementarity of macro-regional strategies with the 2030 Agenda, a positive trajectory has been embarked on by the EUSBSR, through the ‘Baltic 2030 — Bumps on the Road’ initiative. As well as identifying the SDGs that are most consistent with the macro-regional strategy’s priorities, this initiative has established an effective system to support the planning of initiatives and measurement of performance.












7.3.


Aligning the MRS with the objectives of the 2030 Agenda, and creating complementarity with those of the 2021-2027 cohesion policy, is most certainly a strategic activity that can make the macro-regional initiatives more effective. The following SDGs should be taken into consideration, as a priority: 
3. Good health and well-being; 4. Quality Education; 5 Gender equality; 7. Affordable and clean energy; 8. Decent work and economic growth; 9. Industry, innovation and infrastructure; 11. Sustainable cities and communities; 12. Responsible consumption and production; 13. Climate action; 14. Life below water; 15. Life on land
.












7.3.1.


Taking into account, however, the high number of areas to address, as well as the limited available resources, a reasonable prioritisation of tasks is advisable along two main distinctive aspects:






—


Sequencing by actuality, urgency and leadtime.










—


Ranking by the most value-added expected from the macroregional approach.
















7.4.


The success of macro-regional strategies is clearly linked to their ability to ensure that EU, national, regional and other public and private funds can fund the priorities of the MRS, by supporting projects. It is clear that this priority will need to be strengthened by complementary plans and by synergies between the various financing opportunities, encouraging, where possible, the integration of transnational and cross-border funding with government and regional funding, including through a multi-sectoral approach.












7.5.


The direction taken in all MRS, as well as networks of dialogue and cooperation, should be promoted between the managing authorities of the European Social Fund (ESF), the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF), in order to identify problems and opportunities concerning specific topics that can be addressed through different sources of funding.












7.6.


Finally, the real involvement in the MRS of local key drivers for development (SMEs, existing industrial clusters, local bank, social enterprises, trade union, academia, NGOs, and the others CSOs), and of multinational corporations and international financial institutions and banks, is crucial. In the context of MRS, the adoption of the partnership principle should be fully implemented with the full involvement of the stakeholders concerned.












7.6.1.


For SMEs, the problem is the limited ability to get the relevant information and the lacking technical ability to utilise the resulting opportunities. Development of business to business and business to governance clusters could be a way to overcome the issue.




8.   The way forward









8.1.


The future has tougher challenges in store for MRS; if they are not properly addressed at territorial level, they could quickly turn into problems. The EESC takes account of the fact that civil society organisations and social partners play a key role in contributing to improving the decision-making process, particularly by bringing local and regional communities closer to the macro-regional strategies and encouraging Member States, but also the European Commission, to involve civil society and social partners even more, to boost the sense of belonging to the programmes.












8.2.


The EESC recognises the fact that macro-regional strategies deal with issues that require multi-country cooperation based on an intersectoral and multi-level governance approach. Macro-regional strategies should enhance the identity of their areas by increasing the responsibility and active involvement of citizens. Although the ‘soft’ nature of MRS cooperation should be considered an advantage in that it opens up solutions that are often difficult to achieve in more formalised contexts with competing national interests, in reality this is not the case. National and centralised authorities are responsible for the implementation of macro-regional strategies, which leads to bureaucratic and complex procedures and ultimately makes macro-regional strategies less attractive.












8.3.


The EESC welcomes the initiative to set up an institutional citizens’ dialogue between the macro-regions, and considers that it could be useful in this regard. It is also important for the EESC, the home of organised civil society, to play a more active role and be part of the management boards of all macro-regional strategies. Thus, synergies and collaborations can become more effective.












8.4.


The EESC suggests that a different approach be considered in the governance of macro-regional strategies. Since the political level is represented by the foreign affairs ministers, the operational level should be boosted through enhanced cooperation with the ministries of EU affairs and EU funds. Involving regional authorities by empowering their administrative capacity is also crucial for the implementation of macro-regional strategies.












8.5.


The EESC believes that there should be more interconnection between the energy/digital transition and the social dimension of EU policy. Given that 2023 is the European Year of Skills, more focus should be given to how the energy transition can be achieved through the development of workers’ skills and competencies.












8.6.


MRS stakeholders are encouraged to run closer follow-ups, set less abstract and more targeted projects, programs and actions with measurable starting and resulting points, thus monitoring the progress made between them.












8.7.


The EESC notes that the European Commission has made considerable efforts to raise the profile of macro-regional strategies. However, better communication is not just down to one key player, but also depends on the Member States and the macro-regional strategies. In this regard, the EESC can help through the involvement of civil society and social partners, which could be crucial.












8.8.


The EESC believes that macro-regional strategies play an important role in the social, territorial and economic cohesion of the regions, but also contribute to the European integration of neighbouring countries. In this context, there needs to be more emphasis on transforming macro-regional strategies so that they can become leaders for change, inspire trust and promote European values. Moreover, sustainability, continuity and interrelation of cross-regional and cross-border initiatives and projects have to be enhanced. In this vein, other types of institutionalised cross-regional and cross-border cooperation like EGTCs and Euroregions should be used in a comprehensive way, in line with the scopes of macro-regional strategies.












8.9.


In terms of the environment, it will be crucial to boost the operational capacity of MRS to support the fight against climate change, providing civil society with useful tools to deal with risks and adopt sustainable lifestyles.












8.10.


With regard to the economy, supporting a change in economic model at territorial and local level, with a view to reducing consumption of natural resources and raw materials, will be a priority. It will be necessary to support the shift towards initiatives on zero emissions, sustainable mobility, the circular economy, sustainable tourism and boosting the local economy.












8.11.


In order for technological innovations such as digitalisation, robotisation and biotechnology to be promoted and made available to all, upskilling, more investments in safe and sustainable digital infrastructure, and support initiatives for businesses, public administration and citizens are needed, especially in view of the digitalisation of public services.












8.12.


Demographic and social trends are mutually reinforcing. Ageing populations, as well as internal and intra-European migration, the falling birth rate and decline in families, pose challenges for welfare systems and local and regional development. These demographic trends have serious social implications, including increasing social exclusion and inequalities, as well as economic implications, including a shortage of workers in labour-intensive sectors such as tourism. A stronger focus on quality of life, decent work, well-being and youth involvement is another challenge of primary importance.












8.13.


With the approval of the Report on the role of Cohesion Policy in addressing multidimensional environmental challenges in the Mediterranean basin (2022/2059(INI) by the Regional Development Committee of the European Parliament, the EESC believes and hopes that the conditions for the implementation of an MRS will also mature in the western Mediterranean regions.






Brussels, 14 June 2023.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE
            





(1)  
            OJ C 282, 20.8.2019, p. 14.

(2)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee ‘Towards a better economic convergence and competitiveness within macro-regions, such as the European Strategy for the Danube region — the role of transnational clusters’ (exploratory opinion) (OJ C 282, 20.8.2019, p. 14).

(3)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee ‘Towards a better economic convergence and competitiveness within macro-regions, such as the European Strategy for the Danube region — the role of transnational clusters’ (exploratory opinion) (OJ C 282, 20.8.2019, p. 14).