The EUSDR Process/Implementation Evaluation, conducted by M&E Factory from March 2024 to March 2025, has been finalised. The evaluation report may be downloaded here.

The EUSDR Process/Implementation Evaluation assessed the Strategy’s implementation from 2020 to 2024, aiming to identify implementation challenges and best practices, and recommendations for improvement. Utilising an impact model to analyse the causal steps toward achieving EUSDR objectives, the evaluation focused on six aspects: the political commitment to the EUSDR, governance, technical implementation and cooperation among core stakeholders, funding, policy impact, and external factors influencing its implementation.

The main findings and conclusions include:

Political commitment

Political commitment to the EUSDR has generally improved or remained stable since 2020, particularly in EU candidate countries, which view the EUSDR as a pathway to EU accession. However, some stakeholders perceive a decline due to the Strategy’s comparatively long existence, inconsistent engagement from key decision-makers at a national level, and a prioritisation of other EU and national priorities over the EUSDR´s priorities. Best practices for enhancing EU and national political commitment include EUSDR Presidencies that focus on long-term objectives, engaging EUSDR Annual Forums, regular ministerial meetings and national coordination platforms. The EUSDR Action Plan remains relevant but requires flexibility to respond to current and future developments and challenges, such as the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine and future EU priorities.

Governance

EUSDR core stakeholders face challenges in fulfilling their roles and responsibilities due to limited time, staff, financial resources and staff fluctuations. Some key positive governance aspects include the development of the EUSDR Governance Architecture Paper as a crucial tool for understanding roles and responsibilities among key stakeholders, the long-term focus of EUSDR Presidencies, the support of the Danube Strategic Point, written procedures, and capacity building for newcomers. However, improvements are needed, such as simplifying the EUSDR Governance Architecture Paper and better illustrating the linkages between stakeholders, streamlining communication and information sharing among core stakeholders, increasing engagement from higher-level EC officials, and more effectively involving Danube Youth Council (DYC) members across the Priority Areas. The Danube Youth Organisation Network (DYON) is expected to enhance youth participation, but it requires a clear definition of its role and adequate funding.

Technical implementation and policy coordination

Stakeholder engagement within the EUSDR has improved since 2020, but national-level coordination and information sharing between the NCs, PACs, and SGs members require further enhancement. National inter-institutional coordination platforms for the EUSDR (and other macro-regional strategies) are considered a beneficial approach to enhance coordination at the national level and align national priorities with the EUSDR’s objectives. Similarly, cooperation with external stakeholders, including EU institutions and civil society, has progressed, but needs further strengthening, particularly with line DGs and regional/local actors. Technical implementation of the EUSDR faces challenges such as low SG involvement, staff turnover, financial constraints, PACs focusing on project implementation over coordination due to the financing structures and their requirements, and difficulty in translating the EUSDR Action Plan into concrete actions. Communication of the EUSDR has improved in recent years, but reaching the political level remains a challenge, necessitating active involvement from core stakeholders, especially NCs, and leveraging national coordination platforms for wider information dissemination.

Funding

The EUSDR’s initiatives are primarily funded through the Interreg DRP, alongside other EU programmes. While Interreg DRP is generally accessible, administrative burdens persist. A more precise articulation of benefits and specific demands or projects for these funding programmes is needed to enhance support for EUSDR initiatives. Despite the availability of various EUSDR embedding tools, awareness and utilisation among programmes remain low. EUSDR Managing Authority (MA) networks facilitate cooperation and information exchange. However, while some EUSDR MA networks, such as the ESF MA network, function effectively, participation in other programmes remains inconsistent. Future collaboration with the programmes is crucial, particularly in developing their post-2027 programme strategies, joint calls and result capitalisation. The EUSDR Action Plan and actions align with EU Cohesion Policy, but must in the future adapt to post-2027 frameworks. Horizontal collaboration across PAs requires improvement. Enhanced information flow on strategic projects and processes across all PAs is essential for effective implementation and increased synergies.

Policy impact

The EUSDR has contributed to various strategic outcomes, including enhanced networking and knowledge exchange, increased political attention to key topics, and support for EU enlargement. Tangible achievements include unified border procedures, infrastructure projects, and cross-border healthcare services, among others. However, concerns persist regarding the EUSDR’s potential shift towards a project-oriented focus or the perception of a few PACs as being excluded from funding discussion on national, regional and EU levels. Moreover, soft outcomes (e.g., platforms for cooperation between EU and EU candidate countries on equal footing, networking, improved information exchange, exchanges on policy developments) are also vulnerable to staff changes and inconsistent interaction between EUSDR core stakeholders.

External factors

The EUSDR’s implementation has been influenced by various external factors, primarily the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, which highlighted the need for strategic flexibility. The pandemic disrupted in-person meetings but also accelerated the use of written procedures and online participation. The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, while devastating, underscored the importance of macro-regional cooperation among EUSDR stakeholders.

To view the recommendations and additional details, please download the EUSDR Process/Implementation Evaluation here.