EUSAIR ETC survey – ESP Community

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.

Respondent and Programme - Section 1 of 5

Section 1 — Respondent and Programme

1.1 Name of current programme (2021–2027) and, if already defined, working title of the 2028–2034 successor programme: *

1.2 Name of institution (Managing Authority / Joint Secretariat / other): *

1.3 Respondent name and role:

name *

role *

1.4 Respondent e-mail address: *

1.5 Type of programme: *

Transnational (e.g. Interreg IPA ADRION, Interreg Euro-MED)
Cross-border between EU Member States
Cross-border with candidate countries (IPA/Global Europe)
Other (ie. Interreg Europe, Interact, Central Europe, etc.)

1.6 EUSAIR partner countries covered by the programme: *

Section 2 — Embedding the 2025 Action Plan into 2028–2034 Programming

2.1 What stage has your programme reached in preparing the 2028–2034 successor programme? *

Not yet started
Internal scoping under way
Waiting for the adoption of the 2028–2034 legal framework before starting
Draft programme being prepared (programming committee/task force set up)
Under negotiation with the European Commission
Adopted
Other

2.2 When do you expect the main milestones of the 2028–2034 programming? (indicative) *

Programming committee or task force set up (month/year)
Submission of the draft programme to the European Commission (month/year)
Not yet known

2.2 month/year *

2.3 Are EUSAIR structures (National Coordinators, Pillar Coordinators or Thematic Steering Group members) involved, or could they be involved, in the preparation of the 2028–2034 programme (e.g. programming committee, task force, future monitoring committee)? *

Yes, already involved
Not yet, but their involvement would be useful
No
No, we don’t know how to involve them
Not sure

logic) is: When

Please specify, if useful:

2.3 Please specify, if useful:

2.4 Do the emerging 2028–2034 programming documents (draft programme, strategy or intervention logic) explicitly reference EUSAIR priorities or align with them? *

Yes
Under discussion
Not yet considered
Don’t know
No

2.5 Which elements of the Action Plan is your 2028–2034 programme likely to cover? Please tick one option per row. If a draft programme is already available, you may also indicate the corresponding priority, objective or measure (optional):

Action Plan element *

	Yes	No	Unsure
Pillar 1 — Blue Sustainable Economy	YesPillar 1 — Blue Sustainable Economy Yes	NoPillar 1 — Blue Sustainable Economy No	UnsurePillar 1 — Blue Sustainable Economy Unsure
Pillar 2 — Connecting the Region (Transport)	YesPillar 2 — Connecting the Region (Transport) Yes	NoPillar 2 — Connecting the Region (Transport) No	UnsurePillar 2 — Connecting the Region (Transport) Unsure
Pillar 2 — Connecting the Region (Energy)	YesPillar 2 — Connecting the Region (Energy) Yes	NoPillar 2 — Connecting the Region (Energy) No	UnsurePillar 2 — Connecting the Region (Energy) Unsure
Pillar 3 — Environmental Quality	YesPillar 3 — Environmental Quality Yes	NoPillar 3 — Environmental Quality No	UnsurePillar 3 — Environmental Quality Unsure
Pillar 4 — Sustainable Tourism	YesPillar 4 — Sustainable Tourism Yes	NoPillar 4 — Sustainable Tourism No	UnsurePillar 4 — Sustainable Tourism Unsure
Pillar 5 — Improved Social Cohesion	YesPillar 5 — Improved Social Cohesion Yes	NoPillar 5 — Improved Social Cohesion No	UnsurePillar 5 — Improved Social Cohesion Unsure
Horizontal priority — Enlargement	YesHorizontal priority — Enlargement Yes	NoHorizontal priority — Enlargement No	UnsureHorizontal priority — Enlargement Unsure
Horizontal priority — Capacity Building	YesHorizontal priority — Capacity Building Yes	NoHorizontal priority — Capacity Building No	UnsureHorizontal priority — Capacity Building Unsure
Horizontal priority — Research, Innovation and Development	YesHorizontal priority — Research, Innovation and Development Yes	NoHorizontal priority — Research, Innovation and Development No	UnsureHorizontal priority — Research, Innovation and Development Unsure
Cross-cutting theme — Circular Economy	YesCross-cutting theme — Circular Economy Yes	NoCross-cutting theme — Circular Economy No	UnsureCross-cutting theme — Circular Economy Unsure
Cross-cutting theme — Green Rural Development	YesCross-cutting theme — Green Rural Development Yes	NoCross-cutting theme — Green Rural Development No	UnsureCross-cutting theme — Green Rural Development Unsure
Cross-cutting theme — Digitalisation	YesCross-cutting theme — Digitalisation Yes	NoCross-cutting theme — Digitalisation No	UnsureCross-cutting theme — Digitalisation Unsure

Corresponding priority, objective or measure (optional – only if a draft programme is available)

Pillar 1 — Blue Sustainable Economy

Pillar 2 — Connecting the Region (Transport)

Pillar 2 — Connecting the Region (Energy)

Pillar 3 — Environmental Quality

Pillar 4 — Sustainable Tourism

Pillar 5 — Improved Social Cohesion

Horizontal priority — Enlargement

Horizontal priority — Capacity Building

Horizontal priority — Research, Innovation and Development

Cross-cutting theme — Circular Economy

Cross-cutting theme — Green Rural Development

Cross-cutting theme — Digitalisation

2.6 Among the elements listed above, which (maximum three) offer the greatest potential for macro-regional cooperation within your 2028–2034 programme? For each, please explain briefly the added value of addressing it at the macro-regional level:

1. Element *

1. Macro-regional added value:

2. Element

2. Macro-regional added value:

3. Element

3. Macro-regional added value:

2.7 Which EUSAIR Flagships, if any, does your programme support now or intend to support in 2028–2034? *

For example: Pillar 1-Blue Sustainable Economy: Quadruple Helix Ties in Marine & Blue Bio-technologies, Sustainable Maritime Governance & Space Planning; Pillar 2-Connecting the Region: The Adriatic-Ionian Multi-modal Corridors; Green Energy Network Integration; Pillar 3-Environmental Quality: ASOSCoP (Adriatic Subregional Oil Spill Contingency Plan); PET HAB ECO-Establishing green corridors and protective frameworks for terrestrial habitats and transboundary biodiversity; Pillar 4-Sustainable Tourism: Green Mapping for the Adriatic-Ionian Region; The MEDDIET Flagship; Pillar 5--Improved Social Cohesion: Human Capital & Youth Employment Ecosystems; EUSAIR Community of Practice for Enlargement.

2.8 Through which mechanism does or will your programme support EUSAIR? (select all that apply) *

A priority or specific objective explicitly linked to EUSAIR
Selection criteria or bonus points for contribution to EUSAIR
Targeted calls on EUSAIR themes or strategic/Flagship projects
Support to EUSAIR governance and stakeholder engagement
Provides support to participants from EUSAIR countries
None so far
Other

2.8 other *

Section 3 — Coordination and Capitalisation

3.1 Does your programme coordinate with other cooperation programmes covering the Adriatic-Ionian Region (e.g. on themes, calls or project pipelines)? *

Yes, in a structured way (e.g. agreements, joint events, shared monitoring)
Yes, informally
No
Not sure

Please specify, if useful:

3.1 Please specify, if useful:

3.2 Would your programme be interested in joint or coordinated calls (e.g. synchronised calls, capitalisation calls) with other programmes in 2028–2034? *

Yes
Possibly, depending on theme/partner programme
Possibly, depending on the funding resources available
No
Not sure
We are already doing this.

Please specify call or activity:

3.2 Please specify call or activity: *

3.3 Are the results of EUSAIR-relevant projects financed by your programme being taken up, continued or scaled up by mainstream programmes (ERDF/CF, ESF+, IPA III)? *

Yes, systematically
Yes, in individual cases
No
Not sure

Please specify:

3.3 please specify: *

3.4 What could facilitate the transfer of the above results to future NRPPs and Global Europe during 2028-2034? (select all that apply) *

Direct contacts with mainstream Managing Authorities working on the same themes
Capitalisation calls or dedicated follow-up funding in mainstream programmes
Recognition of Interreg results in mainstream selection criteria
Joint meetings between the two EUSAIR Managing Authorities Networks
Other

3.5 Is your programme also involved in other EU macro-regional strategies or in their networks of programmes? (select all that apply) *

EUSDR (Danube)
EUSALP (Alpine)
EUSBSR (Baltic Sea)
None

If yes, which experiences or themes could be shared across strategies?

3.5 If yes, which experiences or themes could be shared across strategies? *

Section 4 — Engagement with Financial Institutions

4.1 Is your programme currently involved in any co-financing, blending or complementary financing arrangement with a national promotional bank (for example CDP in Italy, HBOR in Croatia), an International Financial Institution (e.g. EIB, EBRD) or a similar mechanism (e.g. the Western Balkans Investment Framework – WBIF)? *

Yes
No
Not sure

4.2 If yes, please specify the institution(s) and the nature of the arrangement (e.g. co-financing agreement, joint call, informal exchange, other):

4.3 Do projects financed by your programme (e.g. studies, pilot actions, investment preparation) lead to follow-up investments financed by national promotional banks or International Financial Institutions? *

Yes, systematically
Yes, in individual cases
No
Not sure

Please specify:

4.3 Please specify: *

4.4 In your experience, would closer coordination between Interreg funding and financial-institution-backed instruments make it easier to turn EUSAIR-related cooperation results into investments? *

Yes
Possibly
No
Not sure

Please explain briefly, if useful:

4.4 Please explain briefly, if useful:

4.5 Any observation you would like to share, from your programme’s perspective, on how financial institutions could better support the embedding process going forward?

(open — optional; if your programme has more detailed views on the design of a future EUSAIR Financial Facility, we would welcome a separate conversation outside this survey)

Section 5 — The EUSAIR Interreg & Territorial Cooperation Programmes Network

Note: the questions below aim to collect feedback on the existing network and on how it should evolve in the 2028–2034 period, also in relation to the new Managing Authorities Network -- Mainstream Programmes.

5.1 How would you assess the added value of the network so far? *

Limited
Moderate
High
Not able to assess

Please explain briefly:

5.1 Please explain briefly: *

5.2 What should be strengthened or added for the 2028–2034 period? (select all that apply) *

More regular exchanges on calls and project pipelines
Joint capitalisation activities
Coordination with the new Network for Mainstream Programmes
Joint input to the post-2027 programming process
Good practices and knowledge exchanges
Dialogue with international financial institutions
Other

5.2 other *

5.3 The current frequency of network meetings is: *

Adequate
Should be increased
Should be reduced
No opinion

5.4 Preferred mode: *

In person
Online
Hybrid
No preference

5.5 Any additional comments or suggestions: