MEDGOVERNANCE PROJECT

ACTIVITY 3-1: ANALYSIS OF EURO-MEDITERRANEAN GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK

MEDITERRANEAN GOVERNANCE REPORT

TOWARDS AN EFFECTIVE CONTRIBUTION OF REGIONAL AUTHORITIES TO EURO-MEDITERRANEAN POLICIES

April 2010

Report coordinated by Jean-Claude Tourret and Vincent Wallaert, Institut de la Méditerranée

This activity has received a subsidy from the ERDF through the MED Programme MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AER: Assembly of European Regions ANGED: Tunisian National Agency for the Management of waste ARLEM: Euro-Mediterranean Assembly of Local and Regional Authorities CBC: Cross-border cooperation programme CeSPI: Centre for International Studies CoR: Committee of the Regions CONST: Thematic commission of the Committee of the Regions devoted to Constitutional Affairs and European Governance COPIL: Steering Committee for the implementation of Natura 2000 areas in France COPPEM: Permanent Committee for the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership COTER: Thematic commission of the Committee of the Regions devoted to Territorial Cooperation CPMR: Conference for Peripheral and Maritime Regions DEVE: Thematic commission of the Committee of the Regions devoted to Development DG: Directorate General of the European Commission DG REGIO: Directorate General for Regional Policy DG RELEX: Directorate General for External Relations DG TREN: Directorate General for Transport and Energy ECBCG: European Cross Border Cooperation Groupings EDUC: Thematic commission of the Committee of the Regions devoted to Education and Life-long Learning EFRD: European Regional Development Fund EFFIS: European Forest Fire Information System ENPI: European Neighbourhood and Policy Instrument ESF: European Social Funds EU: European Union EUFFTR: European Union Forest Fire Tactical Reserve EUSBSR: European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization FEC: Moroccan Fund for Communal Facilities IMC: Inter-Mediterranean Commission of CPMR IMF: International Monetary Fund INCENDI: European project for developing common guidelines for the definition of regional forest fire prevention policies INTERREG: Community initiative for stimulating interregional cooperation. It is financed under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) MEDA: the main financial instrument of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership

Institut de la Méditerranée 2 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

MEMA: Master in Euro-Mediterranean Affairs MOS: Motorways of the Sea MoU: Memorandum of Understanding MP: Member of Parliament NGO: Non-Governmental Organization NUTS: Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics NSRF: National Strategic Reference Framework (cohesion policy and structural funds) OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development PACA: Provence Alpes Côte-d’Azur (region) PARM: Action Plan of Mediterranean Regions RAM: Rete Autostrade Mare, Italian company in charge of the development of Motorways of the Sea REGLEG: Association of European regions with legislative powers RIM: Network of Mediterranean Institutes SAC: Special Area of Conservation (SAC) SPA: Special Protection Areas (Natura 2000) SRU: French law for Solidarity and Urban Rehabilitation adopted in 2000 TEN-T: Trans-European Networks for Transport UCLG: United Cities and Local Government UNDP: United Nations Development programme UFM: Maritime and Fluvial Union of Marseille-Fos UpM: Union for the Mediterranean

Institut de la Méditerranée 3 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background: the MEDGOVERNANCE project The MEDGOVERNANCE project was implemented in the framework of the MED interregional cooperation programme, gathering together 6 regions (Andalusia1, Catalonia2, PACA, Piedmont, Lazio, Tuscany) with their respective research and training institutes (Three Cultures Foundation, Seville; IEMed, Barcelona; Institut de la Méditerranée, Marseille; Paralleli, Turin; CeSPI, Rome; MAEM/MEMA, Florence) and the Inter-Mediterranean Commission of the CPMR. These were assisted in technical matters by Plural (Florence) in putting together policy recommendations on how to best integrate regional authorities in the development and implementation of Mediterranean policies. The project started in 2009 with a diagnosis phase analyzing the governance framework for the preparation and the implementation of major policies affecting the Mediterranean region in five policy fields: transportation; competitiveness and innovation; environment; culture; and migration. For each of these fields, the issue of “multilevel governance” and, more particularly, of the actual contribution of regions to these policies was investigated. Each research institute participating in the MEDGOVERNANCE project coordinated the preparation of Thematic Reports through transnational working groups involving stakeholders actively engaged in the specific policy fields. The Institut de la Méditerranée has made a transversal analysis of the contributions prepared by it and its project partners, contributions that are presented in this Mediterranean Governance Report (hereafter “Report”).

The emergence of multilevel governance The first section of the Report describes the slow emergence of multilevel governance in the Euro-Mediterranean area. Multilevel governance is caught between two different historical dynamics: on the one hand, the progressive recognition of regions in the European policy- making process and, on the other hand, the establishment and the transformation of the Euro- Mediterranean partnership from the Barcelona Declaration (1995) to the Union for the Mediterranean (UpM, 2007). Generally speaking, the empowerment of territorial actors at the national and international level means an important change in the way public policies are understood, analyzed, framed and summarized in the concept of governance. The notion of governance emerged in the 1980s. It highlighted the growing complexity in the economic, social and political environment, the empowerment of new actors and the interaction of local and national levels with the international. In this context, classical policies were questioned: in particular their ability to coordinate collective actions and to address the new challenges faced by territories, notably trade globalization and the communication and information revolution, were debated. More recently, the concept of multilevel governance has emerged. Multilevel governance highlights new relations between national authorities and so-called “sub-national” actors in the preparation, in the implementation but also in the evaluation of public policies and, more generally, collective actions. Territorial entities are widely recognized as being at the right level to address development issues and particularly to integrate the various competences, skills and resources that contributes to the overall “welfare” (or life quality) of a given area.

1 Autonomous Government of Andalusia or Junta de Andalucía. 2 Generalitat of Catalonia or Generalitat de Catalunya.

Institut de la Méditerranée 4 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

Researchers, academics, experts and politicians have thus increasingly used the term “multilevel governance” to describe these changes. Initially conceptualized within the academic world, multilevel governance has progressively been endorsed as a model of governance by European and international institutions. This “change of paradigm” has also resulted in the mobilization of local and regional authorities in promoting multilevel governance. This process has meant a more important policy-making role for territorial actors and particularly for regional authorities. International organizations (such as the World Bank and the UNDP) have played a key role in the promotion of multilevel governance, offering it up as a key for understanding the difficulties of traditional Governments in handling public policies, but also as an ideological tool able to influence the reorganization of public authorities in both developed and developing countries. The emergence of multilevel governance in academia has been accompanied by a slow internal transformation in policy-making with a greater role for local and regional authorities in the Euro-Mediterranean framework. The EU has made an important contribution to the emergence and empowerment of regional government in Europe. Different factors have figured in the empowerment of territorial actors within EU policies, including the ever more important “susbidiarity principle”, the shift in the EU policies from a sectorial to a territorial approach (notably the integrated maritime policy) and the political and administrative decentralization experienced by several European countries. The management procedure of Structural Funds has clearly been a powerful factor in the regions’ empowerment within the EU’s institutional framework. With the creation of the Committee of the Regions, the Treaty of Maastricht formally recognized the emerging role of regions within the European Union and has created an official representative body for local and regional authorities at the very heart of EU policy-making. Similarly, since the creation of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership, local and regional authorities have shown a strong interest in participating in its ambitious goals and have asked for a greater role in defining its priorities and its implementation. This strong interest has undeniably affected the Euro-Mediterranean governance framework, from the intergovernmental Barcelona process, to the greater recognition of territorial actors within the Neighborhood Policy (and notably the Cross Border Cooperation Programme), to the Union for the Mediterranean (UpM) and the creation of the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Mediterranean Assembly (ARLEM). During the last twenty years, most EU countries devolved public functions: central government progressively surrendered power over political economy to both supra-national and sub- national institutions. In Italy, France and Spain, radical decentralization took place over three to four decades: the three countries saw national policies giving way, to some extent, to decision- makers at the regional and local level. A similar process, though one that has been implemented at a much slower pace, is also to be observed within the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries. Most countries in the Maghreb and Mashrek have had regional or sub-regional authorities, e.g. Muhafazat, for several decades. Furthermore, most of these countries also have local authorities such as the Qada’a or, in some cases, their municipalities.

Institut de la Méditerranée 5 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

The regional contribution to Euromed policy making The second section of the Report assesses the effective weight of Mediterranean regional authorities in the first stages of the decision-taking process, namely in agenda setting and policy definition. Among the most striking elements presented in this document, there is an account of the limited impact of the influence tools employed by the regions since the 1970s and the consequent difficulties for regional authorities in benefiting from multilevel governance as it emerged as a European model. Analyzing the case-studies identified within the first phase of the MEDGOVERNANCE project gives a preliminary view of the intrinsic complexity of the European policy-making process, often compared to a “jigsaw puzzle”. Before assessing the effective impact of regions within EU institutions and procedures, it is necessary to understand how these institutions and procedures are actually being implemented. European policies are more than just the end result of formal decision-making processes. They actually involve a complex range of public and private stakeholders, stakeholders who compete with one another. Some basic assets play a key role in the influence of stakeholders over European policy-making: e.g. political will, time and availability, technical expertise and direct relationships with decision-takers within the different European institutions. Most of the Mediterranean regions are fully aware of this competitive context and have therefore developed professional influence tools and strategies. A multiplicity of specific networks, organizations and initiatives have emerged, to improve the influence of local and regional Mediterranean authorities. Different networks and organizations representing local and regional Mediterranean organizations may be mentioned, from bodies open to all kind of local authorities like the Mediterranean Commission of the United Cities and Local Government (UCLG), to more specific organizations including Arco Latino (gathering provincial authorities) and Medcities (gathering local authorities and municipalities). These different tools and organizations have achieved significant results in influencing European policy-making. For example, on transport issues, the CPMR has influenced European policy making on two specific topics: the inclusion of the Motorways of the Seas (MoS) in the financial regulation of the Trans-European Networks - Transport (TEN-T) programme: and the establishment of a European coordinator specifically dedicated to the MoS. In both contexts, the CPMR’s lobbying was effective. Nevertheless, it seems that Mediterranean regions still need to professionalize their lobbying instruments. Moreover, the difficulty in reaching a consensus on common strategic goals also undermines the regions’ influence.

The regionalization of Euromed policies The third section of the Report is devoted to the evaluation of the effective role of Mediterranean regional authorities in the implementation of European and Mediterranean policies. The broad diffusion of the principles of multilevel governance within EU institutions and national governments has reinforced the regions’ participation in what is sometimes called “top-down” policies. Regional authorities have become recognized as relevant implementers for European and national policies. In this framework, different contributions and positions are to be observed depending on the region. There are regions that directly manage in a style reminiscent of “centralized” governments; and there are other regions that are satisfied to act as catalysts in governance, sharing responsibilities between local, regional and national stakeholders. Another interesting trend is the empowerment of regions in policy fields traditionally dominated by central government, e.g. migration.

Institut de la Méditerranée 6 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

Beyond the empowerment of regional authorities, the implementation of more multilevel governance involves the increased participation of civil society actors in European and national policy realisation. This evolution echoes the call for a more “horizontal society” less dominated by centralized institutions be they European, national or even regional bodies. The case-studies have shown how “horizontal actors” from the private sector and from civil society are being actively involved in the implementation of the policies and projects analyzed during the first phase of the MEDGOVERNANCE project. However, the implementation of actual horizontal decision-making processes is still limited. In some case, incomplete or immature decentralization processes hold back development – this is typical of European but even more of Eastern and Southern Mediterranean countries. In the different national contexts found in the cases studies, the regions’ roles depends on the maturity of the decentralization process. In Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries, decentralization and regionalization are still in their infancy. In other cases, as in Italy or Spain, where decentralization seems to be more mature, regional and local authorities nevertheless show only limited achievements in terms of participative programming and budgeting. The implementation of public policies through multilevel governance remains very superficial and central States are still the key players in territorial development.

New opportunities for enforcing Euromed regions The last section of the Report is devoted to the exploration of possible paths for a strategic regional initiative, paths based on the conclusions offered above. Here, different processes already underway in the higher reaches of decision making are creating a favorable background for a regional initiative. In 2010, the European Commission will launch its consultation process on the 2014-2020 budgetary period. This consultation will involve a discussion on the Commission’s proposals on a wide range of policies, instruments and funding including the question of structural funds and territorial cooperation. Among the documents and guidelines supporting the consultation process, the European Commission has already published a strategic document called EU 2020. The last decade has been characterized by massive disillusionment with intergovernmental decision-making processes and their ability to address transnational issues such as the future of the Mediterranean region or global warming. There are also the repeated failures of intergovernmental processes (UpM or negotiations on climate change) that saw key Mediterranean issues on top of the political agenda, while a political vacuum developed below, a vacuum that gave regions the opportunity to engage in policy fields that are traditionally dominated by the State and by international bodies. This inability of States to co-operate on common issues opens the way for autonomous initiatives on the part of local and regional authorities. Another significant trend is the development of macro-regional processes and notably the elaboration and adoption of the Baltic Strategy in 2009. Such processes are clearly giving a new impetus to the debate on Mediterranean cooperation. The development of macro-regional strategies in different contexts (in the Baltic Sea or in the Danube region) provides a renewed framework for structuring European cooperation and structural funds in regions cutting across national boundaries. The preparation of the next EU budget period constitutes an opportunity for Mediterranean regions to take the initiative on operational cooperation initiatives in the Mediterranean region, initiatives that would take regional cooperation to a new level: beyond present day transnational and cross border matters. The priority is to engage Mediterranean regional

Institut de la Méditerranée 7 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT authorities in large-scale initiatives. Here a meaningful common initiative might be the preparation of a Mediterranean macro-region strategy along the lines of the Baltic Strategy officially endorsed by the European Commission in September 2009. A Mediterranean approach has to be designed, taking into account the lessons learned from the preparation of the Baltic Strategy and taking into account too the specificity of the Mediterranean context. In this framework, the following elements might be picked out as methodological principles for the preparation of a macro-regional strategy for the Mediterranean area: - Inclusion of Southern territories: though still weak and under State control, local and regional authorities are gaining influence in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean and they have been formally recognized within Euromed policies since the creation of the ARLEM; in parallel, the Union for the Mediterranean increasingly promotes a territorial dimension in its projects. - A step-by-step approach: a regional cooperation process will not realistically include, from the offset, all the regions in all 44 countries participating in the UfM. Rather they should begin with a core group of pioneer regions, a group that would be progressively enlarged; - A limited set of issues and policy fields: in order to be efficient and visible the future cooperation framework should not aim at covering a wide range of policy fields. On the contrary, it should be clearly focused on a limited set of core issues. Here, climate change could give grounds for interesting cooperation projects; - The three NOs: “no additional institutions, no additional regulation, no additional funding”. This principle has clearly favoured support to the Baltic Strategy on the part of European institutions and could, therefore, be usefully endorsed by the Mediterranean regions in the preparation of their cooperation framework; - A participatory and multilevel dimension: the preparation and the management of any cooperation framework for the Mediterranean regions should be based on multilevel governance. The Baltic Strategy would be a good model for the preparation and implementation of a transnational participatory process involving many different stakeholders including local and regional authorities. These processes effectively identify the region’s priority areas and projects from each country. As for its management, the Mediterranean regions will have to innovate and create the conditions for shared horizontal governance involving regional authorities together with member States and European institutions. Moving towards a macro region will mean “upgrading” the regions’ influence capacities and tools. The Committee of the Regions and the newly-created ARLEM will be important in communicating and interfacing with the European Commission. But they will not lead by themselves to better strategic coherence in the Mediterranean regions. New institutional and technical tools need to be developed for this, tools that can take into account those tools that are already present (such as the Intermed Commission of the CPMR) so regions ultimately have more influence with the Commission.

Institut de la Méditerranée 8 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

CONTENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 4

INTRODUCTION ...... 11

Background ...... 11

The elaboration methodology: a collaborative enquiry ...... 12

I. THE EMERGENCE OF MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE IN THE EURO- MEDITERRANEAN REGION ...... 14

Historical and theoretical background ...... 14

From the academic world to policy papers ...... 15

The increasing integration of regions within the Euro-Mediterranean policy framework...... 16

The political and administrative decentralization of Euro-Mediterranean countries...... 20

II. THE CONTRIBUTION OF REGIONAL ENTITIES IN MEDITERRANEAN POLICY MAKING...... 24

Regional authorities in the “jigsaw puzzle” of European policy making...... 24

The mixed influence of the regions’ strategies and organizations...... 29

III. THE REGIONALIZATION OF THE GOVERNANCE OF MEDITERRANEAN TERRITORIES ...... 34

The regionalization of European and national policies...... 34

The participation of civil society: towards a horizontal society?...... 36

Difficulties and limits in the implementation of the regions’ policies ...... 37

IV. NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENFORCING MULTILEVEL MEDITERRANEAN GOVERNANCE...... 40

A challenging new Euro-Mediterranean context ...... 40

ANNEXES ...... 46

Annex 1 – Executive summary of the Transport Report ...... 46

Annexe 2 – Executive summary of the Environment Report...... 49

Annex 3 – Executive summary of the Migration Report ...... 53

Annex 4 – Executive summary of the Competitiveness and Innovation Report...... 55

Institut de la Méditerranée 9 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

Annex 5 – Executive Summary of the Culture Report...... 57

Annex 6 – Stakeholders interviewed in the case-studies analysis...... 60

Annex 7 – Pillars, priority areas and projects identified within the Baltic Strategy ...... 63

Institut de la Méditerranée 10 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

INTRODUCTION This document sets out the conclusions of the 3-1 activity of the MEDGOVERNANCE project analysing the Euro-Mediterranean governance framework. It is based on the investigation of European policies and programmes implemented in five fields: transport; competitiveness and innovation; the environment; culture; and migration. The present document aims at describing the contribution of Mediterranean authorities in the preparation and the implementation of European policies. Beside its analytical dimension, the report sets out a possible route for a regional strategic initiative in the Euro-Mediterranean context.

Background

The MEDGOVERNANCE project The MEDGOVERNANCE project was carried out in the framework of the MED interregional cooperation programme, gathering together 6 regions (Andalusia3, Catalonia4, PACA, Piedmont, Lazio, Tuscany) with their respective research and training institutes (Three Cultures Foundation, Seville; IEMed, Barcelona; Institut de la Méditerranée, Marseille; Paralleli, Turin; CeSPI, Rome; MAEM/MEMA, Florence) and the Inter-Mediterranean Commission of the CPMR. These were assisted in technical matters by Plural (Florence) in setting out political recommendations on how to better integrate regional authorities into the development and the implementation of Mediterranean policies. The project started in 2009 with a diagnosis phase in which the governance framework for the preparation and the implementation of major policies affecting the Mediterranean region in the five policy fields was analysed: namely, transportation, competitiveness and innovation, environment, culture and migration. In each of these fields, the issue of “multilevel governance” and, more particularly, of the actual contribution of regions to these policies was investigated.

The 3-1 activity: investigating the Euromed governance framework The 3-1 activity “is aimed at defining a common analysis of the systems of Euromed governance through the creation of 5 interregional and multilevel working groups. A case study methodology is applied to the following priorities: Environment, Innovation, Competitiveness, Transport & Energy, Migration & Mobility and Culture”. Further “in this phase, the project will concentrate on Mediterranean projects initiated at the EU or transgovernmental state level (top-down approach)”. Governance can be defined as coordination between government, local and regional authorities, multilateral organisations but also private actors, companies and NGOs, coordination that results in public policies, decisions and projects. Coordination between this plurality of actors can either be institutionalized or governed by procedures and even informal rules. This Report will thus investigate the contribution of the regions at different stages of the policy- making process: agenda setting, policy formulation, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination. To this end the report will take a close look at both the vertical and the horizontal dimension of multilevel governance. In its recent working report on the issue of climate change, the OECD stated that the “vertical dimension of multilevel governance recognises that national governments cannot effectively implement national climate strategies without working closely with regional and local governments as agents of change ”. On the horizontal axis, “there is increasing evidence of multi- level patterns of governance and transnational networks on climate change and other global environmental issues where actors work across organisational boundaries to influence outcomes ”. But horizontal coordination at the local level “is not just about the international associations of

3 Autonomous Government of Andalusia or Junta de Andalucía. 4 Generalitat of Catalonia or Generalitat de Catalunya. Institut de la Méditerranée 11 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT local authorities. Above all, it concerns different forms of coordination among local jurisdictions that belong to the same urban metropolitan area or the same rural area or between urban and rural areas” 5. To be exhaustive, the evaluation of horizontal governance should include the analysis of cooperation activities implemented by the Mediterranean regions. It is important to note that within the MEDGOVERNANCE work programme, this assessment of interregional cooperation (such as the INTERREG and MED programmes) will be made the subject of a separate “benchmarking” activity.

Preparing Phase 2 of the MEDGOVERNANCE Project As stated in the project handbook: “MEDGOVERNANCE is not only a research project; it is intended as a contribution to policies, and the new role of Regions in the Mediterranean and global context”. Resting on the common knowledge base built up during Phase 1 (activities 3-1 and 3-2), Phase 2 of the MEDGOVERNANCE project aims at developing a “contribution to policies”. Beyond its cognitive dimension, the present Report will also propose an ambitious integrated strategic framework for cooperation among the Mediterranean regions that might also define the milestones in the second phase of the MEDGOVERNANCE project and, more particularly, of the 4-1 (Master Classes) and 4-2 (Thematic Seminars) activities.

The elaboration methodology: a collaborative enquiry The 3-1 activity relied on a case-study approach: in each defined priority6, each research institute analysed case-studies, meaning in vivo experiences that highlighted the main characteristics of the relative governance system: policy objectives, multi-actor, multilevel, internal and external relationship structure, topics/contents, organisation and procedures, budget/financing etc. This case- study approach is thus also a collaborative approach involving all the partners in the Project: each research institute contributed to each priority, not only to “their” priority. The 3-1 activity has also allowed the involvement of case-study stakeholders in the overall MEDGOVERNANCE process. These stakeholders are key actors at the local, regional, national and transnational level in each Priority. More specifically, the putting together of this report involved the implementation of the following three steps.

5 Corfee-Morlot, Jan, Lamia Kamal-Chaoui, Michael G. Donovan, Ian Cochran, Alexis Robert and Pierre- Jonathan Teasdale (2009), ― Cities, Climate Change and Multilevel Governance, OECD Environmental Working Papers N° 14, 2009, OECD publishing, © OECD. 6 The 5 priorities defined in the MEDGOVERNANCE application form and the Priority Leaders (PL) are the following: environment (PL: CeSPI); culture (PL: Tres Culturas); transport (PL: Institut de la Méditerranée) ; competitiveness & innovation (PL: IEMed); migration (PL: Istituto Paralleli). Institut de la Méditerranée 12 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

Step 1 - Identification of case-studies and stakeholders As stated on the MEDGOVERNANCE application form, the case-studies should be “Mediterranean projects initiated at EU or transgovernmental state level (top-down approach).” They should also share the following characteristics if selected: they should be top-down policies initiated at the national or European level; they should have a Mediterranean dimension; they should take place on the ‘meso’ scale; and, most importantly, they should have a multilevel governance framework. Based on these criteria, the following case-studies were selected. The selected case-studies7 - Transport: implementation of Motorways of the Sea; development of cross-border passenger trains; - Environment: implementation of Natura 2000; governance of the fight against forest fires; - Competitiveness and Innovation: implementation of the Euro-Mediterranean Higher Education and Research Area; - Migration: region-state-EU dialogue on migration and mobility; Co-development projects between regions and “origin territories”; - Culture: historical Centres Network of Islamic Influence.

Step 2 – Case-study analysis The objective of the case-study analysis was both to highlight the regional governance framework for each priority and to involve key stakeholders at different levels: local-regional, national, European-multilateral. To this end the research institutes implemented individual interviews with stakeholders on the basis of a standard questionnaire (prepared by the Institut de la Méditerranée). Analysis and interviews implemented in each region by research institutes resulted in the preparation, for each case-study, of a Regional Case-Study Report. On the basis of the Regional Case-Study Report prepared in each region, each Priority Report developed a thematic transregional analysis that was embedded in a Thematic Report. The Executive Summary of each Thematic Report is to be found in the annexes of this Report.

Step 3 – Mediterranean integration The Institut de la Méditerranée has made a transversal analysis of the contributions made by it and its project partners, one that is also presented in this Report.

7 See in Annexes a summary presentation of each case-study

Institut de la Méditerranée 13 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

I. THE EMERGENCE OF MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE IN THE EURO- MEDITERRANEAN REGION The first section of the Report describes the slow emergence of multilevel governance in the Euro- Mediterranean area. Multilevel governance there is caught between two different historical dynamics: on the one hand, the progressive recognition of regions in European policy-making and, on the other, the establishment and the transformation of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership from the Barcelona Declaration to the Union for the Mediterranean (UpM). Generally speaking, the empowerment of territorial actors at the national and international level results in a radical change in the way public policies are understood, analyzed, framed and summarized in the concept of governance.

Historical and theoretical background The notion of “governance” emerged in the 1980s. This notion highlighted growing complexity in the economic, social and political fields, the empowerment of new actors and the interaction of local and national levels with the international. In this context, classical policies were questioned: in particular their ability to coordinate collective actions and to address the new challenges faced by territories, notably trade globalization and the communication and information revolution, were debated. Researchers, academics, experts and politicians have thus increasingly used the word “governance” in order to reflect these changes.

“Governance”: a polysemic word In institutional economics, governance reflects an effort to describe, in the urban context, a growing complexity in the organisation of local power in relation to the transaction and coordination costs deriving from the numerous requests and demands expressed by public and private stakeholders. For some, governance involves a democratization of public authorities and so opens the way to new initiatives and to citizen participation. For others, governance means stressing the dominant role of economic actors and debating public interventions. All in all, governance highlights the plurality of stakeholders, each stakeholder (companies, public authorities, NGOs…) having their own vision, all participating in collective processes. It emphasises the increasing blurring of different levels of action (multilevel governance). It substitutes authority and hierarchy with trust and cooperation. Governance favours participation, negotiation and coordination: it often involves notions such as projects, partnership and consensus.

Multilevel governance: a territorial approach to development The notion of local governance is essentially about public authority reform on the part of central government, something typical in Western Europe since the 1980s. This notion promotes the idea of sharing competences and skills, but also the resources of the State and of other public and private stakeholders, be they governmental or non-governmental. Just like good governance, urban governance implies a fading of the boundaries between the public and private sectors. In France for example, the development of strategic planning and contractualization for local development at the city or even the neighbourhood level, has enlarged the scope of negotiation between the State and local authorities so as to include NGOs and companies. The notion of local governance has also spread to developing countries, thanks to international programmes8. More recently, the concept of multilevel governance has been used to highlight the development of

8 In Brazil for example, participatory approaches to the elaboration of municipal budget have been tried out. This approach consisted in having the population participating in trade-offs concerning public investment at the city level. Institut de la Méditerranée 14 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT new relations between national authorities and so-called “sub-national” actors in the preparation, the implementation but also in the evaluation of public policies and, more generally, collective actions. Multilevel governance is about local and regional authorities being empowered while governance is about the growing influence of civil-society actors such as private companies and NGOs. In this framework, territorial entities are widely recognised as a good organising level for development issues and particularly for integrating the various competences, skills and resources that contribute to the overall “welfare” (or life quality) of a given area. This kind of a territorial approach to development is gaining popularity, particularly with the concern over environmental issues and sustainability. The introduction of sustainable development as the defining aim of public action has simultaneously increased the need to acknowledge the complexity of the decision- making processes and also the strong interactions between the local, regional, national and international.

From the academic world to policy papers Initially a product of the academic world, multilevel governance has moved into the practical sphere, becoming a model of governance for a growing number of European and international institutions. This process has opened the way to a greater policy-making role for territorial actors and, above all, for regional authorities.

At the global level: recognition by international institutions International organizations have played a key role in the promotion of governance and multilevel governance. These institutions have been at the vanguard, pushing these concepts as keys for understanding the limits of traditional governments in handling development policies, but also employing these concepts as ideological tools in the reorganization of public authorities in both developed and developing countries. At the end of the 1980s, experts in international organizations (the World Bank, the UNDP, the OECD etc.) advocated a reduction in the Welfare State, a more careful targeting of social policy beneficiaries and the privatization of public services. They promoted “good governance” that is a new public management based on the principles of private management. The implementation of good governance was accompanied by the redefinition of relations between public authorities and the public. Indeed, the public were increasingly considered as consumers rather than citizens. In developing countries, the notion of governance has been introduced by international organizations. In 1989, the World Bank described Africa as having a crisis in governance and thus recommended the more efficient and transparent management of public services. As described above, multilevel governance is “accompanying” the current concern over climate change and the development of policies for reducing the emission of greenhouse gases and for reducing the impact of climate change, especially in hot spots. A high number of report and policy papers are therefore advocating the adoption of a “place-based approach” to sustainable development (e.g. the 2009 World Bank annual report) or calling for a new model of governance to face the challenge of climate change as it is understood in the OECD working papers issued in 20099.

Strong recognition at the European level European institutions have also been front-runners in the adoption of multilevel governance for policy making.

9 Corfee-Morlot, Jan et al., op. cit... Institut de la Méditerranée 15 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

2001: THE WHITE PAPER ON GOVERNANCE FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION In its 2001 White paper on Governance, the European Commission acknowledged the legitimacy of local and regional authorities on the European scene by stressing the need for consultation with the same. The Commission supports a culture of dialogue and the participation of subnational communities in the development mechanisms for Community policies and laws: e.g. the organization of public consultations in answer to Green Papers; the elaboration of draft policies proposals; and the installation of structured dialogue with local and regional community associations. 2009: THE WHITE PAPER ON MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE These reflections on European governance were reinforced in a subsequent work from the Committee of the Regions, and the adoption of a “White paper on multilevel governance”. This concept is set out as follows: “A coordinated action of the Union, the Member States and of regional authorities and local, founded on partnership and aiming to prepare and to implement the policies of the European Union. It induces the shared responsibility of the various levels of capacities concerned and based on all the sources of democratic legitimacy and on the representativeness of various implied actors”. The role of territorial collectivities in Europe, their economic and financial importance and their political role within the Member States and in the European Union were thus recognized. Indeed, with this document, the Committee of the Regions demanded a commitment on multilevel governance from the upper echelons of community life, notably from the Commission. To this end, the Committee of the Regions launched a consultation on the White Paper in 2009.

The increasing integration of regions within the Euro-Mediterranean policy framework The emergence of multilevel governance in academia has been accompanied by a gradual, internal transformation in policy-making with a greater role for local and regional authorities in the Euro- Mediterranean framework.

At the European level The EU has clearly contributed to the emergence and the empowerment of the regions in Europe. Different factors have made the empowerment of territorial actors within EU policies possible including the “susbidiarity principle”; the progressive shift in EU development policies from a sectorial to a territorial approach (notably the integrated maritime policy) and the political and administrative decentralization experienced by several European countries (see supra). However, the bases of regional empowerment within the EU policy framework are both the management framework of the Structural Funds and the Committee of the Regions.

Institut de la Méditerranée 16 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

STRUCTURAL FUNDS: A REGIONALIZED POLICY European regional policy, in particular since the introduction of European Funds for Regional Development (EFRD) in 1975, has helped build a strong partnership between the European Commission and regional authorities. It has done so by giving the regions a key role in the management of the EU financial system. In the new Member States, the need for managing structural funds contributed, in no small part, to the emergence of a new regional level of governance. This policy contributes to the increased visibility of regional communities that, during the last years, have become central actors in the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. The backing of the policy of cohesion found in the Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategies illustrate this reality. Since the 1988 reform of the Structural Funds, regional authorities have been at the centre of planning and running EU cohesion policy. Indeed, operational programmes set out regions’ priorities in spending EU Structural Funds. The defined priorities must of course be consistent with their relevant National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) and operational Programmes have to be adopted by the European Commission before implementation. This methodology has contributed to promoting regions in decisions on and for the implementation of European policies. THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS: THE REGIONS WITHIN THE EUROPEAN LEGISLATIVE PROCESS The Committee of the Regions was established in 1992 by the Treaty of Maastricht as a ‘”representative body with advisory status”. Creating the Committee of the Regions meant providing European local and regional authorities with a representative body and an official position at the heart of the European legislative process. Indeed, the Treaty of Maastricht defined policy fields where consultation by the Commission with the Committee of the Regions is mandatory10. Cooperation between the Committee of the Regions and the Commission was formalised in 2001 with the adoption of a Protocol establishing a mechanism of advanced cooperation between the institutions during consultation. In particular, it provided a special unit in the Commission Secretariat General that would coordinate the work of the units in the Commission’s DGs and the respective thematic commissions of the Committee in any consultation work on the legislative proposals of the Commission. Moreover, the Commission has pledged to respond regularly to the Committee on any opinions that are submitted according to the procedure of mandatory consultation and to explain whether and why the contributions of the Committee have or have not been taken into account. In addition to this rather “reactive” consultative role, the Committee is also endowed with a more “proactive” power. It can offer opinions on its own initiative that enables the regions to draw the attention of the Commission, the Council and the Parliament to their policy priorities. Beyond these representative and advisory functions, some regions have also looked forward to having a body with legislative powers along the lines of the German Bundestag. Up to now, the idea of obtaining actual decision-making powers and repeating the European Parliament’s success story is still in the mind of many Committee members, who note that initially the Parliament also had limited advisory competences. And the adoption and entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty may constitute a major step forward in the regions’ participation in the European legislative process by allowing the participation of regional governments, along with the representatives of their respective central Government, in Council meetings dealing with the regions’ competences.

10 Education, youth and vocational training, public health, economic and social cohesion policies and certain aspects of structural funds. The Amsterdam Treaty added five new policy fields in 1997: cross-border cooperation, trans-European networks and some other transport, employment, social and environmental issues. Institut de la Méditerranée 17 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

The progressive recognition of regions in Mediterranean policies The Euro-Mediterranean partnership is first of all an intergovernmental framework, resting on inter- state cooperation. However, local and regional authorities have always expressed a strong desire to participate in the partnership’s ambitious goals and have asked for a greater role in the definition of its priorities and in its implementation. This has been evident in EU countries, but also in Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries. THE PROGRESSIVE RECOGNITION OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL AUTHORITIES Since the Barcelona Declaration and since 2007 with the Neighbourhood Policy and the launching of the Union for the Mediterranean (UpM), the position of regional and local authorities within the Partnership has evolved from a largely declamatory to a more operational form of participation. Local and regional authorities in the Barcelona Declaration of 199511 In the framework of the economic and financial partnership, partner countries are committed to “encourage cooperation between local communities in order to favour territorial planning”. In the framework of the social, cultural and human partnership, partners countries agree on the need to “reinforce and/or implement requested instruments for a decentralized cooperation enhancing exchanges between the actors of development in the framework of national legal frameworks”. In order to follow-up the Barcelona Conference “contacts at the level of Parliaments, regional authorities, local communities and social partners will be encouraged”. In the work programme attached to the Barcelona Declaration, it is specified that “[t]he actions undertaken (within the Partnership) can concern States, their local and regional entities and actors of civil society”. An important moment in this process was the organisation of the Forum of Local and Regional Authorities organized by the Mediterranean commission of the UCLG and held in Marseilles in June 2008 on the eve of the Union for the Mediterranean Summit in Paris. In the final Declaration, participants called for “the enforcement of the role of territorial government, respecting local autonomy and their responsibility on the definition and implementation of territorial policies, through the development of decentralization policies, deconcentration and the support to local democracy in the Mediterranean countries”. They added: “this will should be translated at the institutional level. A system of formal recognition of territorial authorities must be urgently created in order to involve these in the planning and the implementation of the principal policies and to allow a growing role to infra-national governments in the modernization of public policies with regard to their proximity to citizens, and to rely more and more on multilevel governance and territorial approaches to development”.

11 See Barcelona Declaration: http://www.medea.be/index.htm?doc=261

Institut de la Méditerranée 18 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

THE CREATION OF THE ARLEM The creation of the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Mediterranean Assembly (ARLEM) as a representative body for regional and local authorities constitutes an achievement for the process of involvement started in 1995. This assembly is made up of a number of members of the Committee of the Regions, representatives of European and international associations engaged in Euro-Mediterranean cooperation, and an equal number of representatives of regional and local authorities from the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean. As such it is a permanent platform for dialogue, exchange and cooperation. It calls for its recognition as a consultative body within the governance of the Union for the Mediterranean (part of the Barcelona Process). The total number of ARLEM members is 80 (40 from the EU and 40 from Mediterranean partner countries). In the EU, associations of regional and local governments will designate the CoR as well as members of the ARLEM. The 40 seats set aside for regional governments from the Mediterranean Partner Countries will be chosen, instead, by the relevant national governments. Every country that is part of the Union for the Mediterranean can appoint 3 regions to ARLEM: while Egypt and Turkey can appoint 4 regions each, since their populations are substantially larger than those of other partner States. The inaugural meeting of the ARLEM took place in Barcelona on 21st January 2010. In the conclusions, the participants emphasised the role of the newly created assembly in order to “represent the Euro-Mediterranean regions' and local authorities' dimension in order to enhance the sub-national contribution to the reinvigorated Euro-Mediterranean partnership”. This statement is reinforced in the conclusions of that meeting in the evident willingness to shape the agenda of those interministerial meetings set out within the UpM 2010 work programme. Extract from the conclusions of the ARLEM inaugural meeting Therefore: I. Call on the co-presidency of the Union for the Mediterranean to invite the ARLEM as observer to the UfM meetings; II. Announce that in 2010 the ARLEM will particularly deal with urban and territorial sustainable development, the decentralisation process, information society, small and medium enterprises, local water management, cultural cooperation as well as migration and integration; in this context its members and their regions or local administrations will foster twinning and decentralised cooperation for projects dealing with these topics; III. Call on the Spanish presidency of the EU to open its ministerial meeting on territorial development in March 2010 to include UfM representatives for regional and urban development and the ARLEM co- presidents; IV. Ask the ARLEM co-presidents to forward these conclusions to the co-presidency of the Union for the Mediterranean, the Heads of State and Government meeting at the bi-annual summit in June 2010 in Barcelona, and the European Union institutions.

Institut de la Méditerranée 19 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

THE CBC MED PROGRAMME: A POTENTIALLY POWERFUL TOOL The European Neighbourhood Policy started in 2005 as the new framework for bilateral cooperation between the EU and neighbouring countries, including the Mediterranean Partner Countries. Its financial dimension, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Policy Instrument (ENPI), replaced, in 2007, previous geographic and thematic programmes of the European Union, such as MEDA and TACIS, carried out in neighbouring countries and hence also all the funding of Euro-Mediterranean regional programmes. The ENPI contains a new and innovative cross-border cooperation component with sizeable resources specifically designed to support the involvement of regions and other local actors in the management of EU border and cross-border flows. The CBC programme aims at strengthening cooperation between territories located on the EU’s external borders: in other words, between members States and partner countries that share common maritime or land frontiers. Here two types of programmes exist: bilateral programmes for land borders or short sea crossings, and multilateral sea-basin programmes for maritime borders. Fifteen programmes have been approved within the framework of the ENPI Cross-Border Cooperation Programme (Strategy Paper 2007-2013). They have a total budget of 1.13 billion for 2007-2013. These programmes will be managed using the methodology applicable to the structural funds, though this methodology is slightly simplified. They will be employed to finance cooperation projects managed by local and regional authorities, as well as by other local actors and social partners such as universities, trade unions, employer organisations, NGOs and chambers of commerce. The Mediterranean Partner Countries take part in three of these programmes: the Spain- Morocco programme, the Italy-Tunisia programme and the Mediterranean Sea Basin programme. As for the Mediterranean Sea Basin, the eligible territories comprise 117 regions from 19 countries, on both sides of the Mediterranean; the EU financial contribution amounts to 174 million euros for 2007-2013. The programme is giving a new impetus to territorial cooperation in the Mediterranean area.

The political and administrative decentralization of Euro-Mediterranean countries During the last twenty years, most EU countries recorded double devolution in public functions: central governments are progressively reducing control over political economy in favour of both supra-national and sub-national institutions. A similar process, though being implemented at a slower pace, is also to be observed within the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries.

The decentralization of European countries In France, Spain and Italy, decentralization has been a theme of the last three decades. In that period, the three countries experienced the remodelling of national policies with stronger decision- making power emerging at the regional and local level. FRANCE In France, decentralization took place following political changes in the early 1980s. The then Socialist government initiated a radical reorganization of the competences of State administrations and local collectivities. It also created Regional Councils as directly elected territorial collectivities. Following this first round of decentralization, regional competencies and resources have been progressively enlarged and strengthened, notably since 2003 with the adoption of a new decentralization law. SPAIN In Spain, the autonomy of regional communities was recognised in 1978 with the adoption of a new constitutional framework in the Kingdom after the end of the centralist period (1939-1975). The democratic parties did not have a clear-cut model though for a particular type of decentralized State. Institut de la Méditerranée 20 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

As a result the 1978 Constitution created a new democratic and decentralized State called Estado de las Autonomías. This ambiguous wording affirmed the prominent role of the Autonomous Communities in the country’s institutional architecture. More specifically, the Constitution made it possible for Communities to be self-governed, if the inhabitants of said region or their political representatives so wished. The Spanish Constitution does not include the word “federal” in any of its provisions. Nevertheless, the Estado de las Autonomías is often referred to as a “devolutionary federalism”12. ITALY Despite a strong legacy of municipal autonomy and prosperity, post-Fascist Italian democracy relied on a centralised State. In its fundamental principles (art.5, Titolo V and art. 117), the 1948 Constitution had already created the conditions for greater local autonomy, by defining both central policy fields that could not be transferred or delegated and also policy fields that could be decentralized and regionalized13. The Constitution allowed the creation of Regions. Nevertheless, until the 1970s, only five regions with Special Statutes were actually created: Sicily, Sardinia, the Aosta Valley, Trentino-Alto Adige and Friuli. The introduction of “ordinary” regions was delayed until 1975-1977. Special statute regions enjoyed a greater autonomy in terms of competences and legislative power. Although endowed with legislative powers in many important policy fields as provisioned by the Constitution, “ordinary regions” were undermined by mismatches between their actual competences and their limited ability to raise taxes. Since the 1990s, Italian regions and the other local authorities in the country have assumed new functions and responsibilities as originally provisioned in the Constitution. Regions thus obtained a good deal of autonomy, including numerous aspects “except [the ones] for the determination of the fundamental principles which represent the legislative prerogatives of the State”. (Italian Constitution, article 117). With the latest constitutional reform, adopted by referendum in 2001, Title V of the Constitution was revised. Italian regions now have absolute legislative power in all issues except a handful where the central State retains a monopoly such as defence and foreign policies. A fiscal federalisation process is presently underway with the approval of law n°42, 5th May 2009. The Italian regionalization process was accompanied by the establishment, in 1997, of the State- Regions Conference where regions interact with national Government on an official and regular basis. This body was created in order to deal with the problems arising from the devolution of power to the regions. This body became more important after 2001 when it turned into the leading Constitutional coordination mechanism between State and regional government.

12 See Moreno, Luis, “Decentralization in Spain”, Regional Studies, Vol.364, pp. 399-408, 2002. 13 See Raimondo “Le processus de decentralisation en Italie: regard sur les gouvernements régionaux”, septembre 2001 Institut de la Méditerranée 21 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

Decentralization and regionalization in Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries The concept of decentralisation is not new in Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries. On the contrary, most of the countries in the region have had regional or sub-regional authorities, often referred to as muhafazat, for several decades. Furthermore, most countries also have local authorities such as qada’a or, in some cases, municipalities. DIFFERENT “WAVES” OF DECENTRALIZATION Municipalities are therefore relatively well-established institutions in the region as they were 14 introduced at the time of the Tanzimat , the reform and modernisation movement within the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century. This tier of public authority was, from the 1920s, then taken up and strengthened by the governments of the mandate-holding powers. The form of colonial rule experienced by most southern and eastern Mediterranean countries thus led to the implementation of a form of administrative organisation in the Maghreb and Middle-Eastern territories that was directly inspired by French or British models. Morocco, for example, gained a municipal charter in 1917. In this context, local government is based on two basic levels of representations: - Governors or walis representing the central State at local level. - Local elected representatives sitting on municipal councils. In almost all cases, this administrative structure was taken up by the States that emerged on independence between 1950 and 1960. In most of the countries in the region there are, therefore, three tiers of public authorities: national, regional (governorships or wilayahs depending on the national context) and municipal. The existence of local institutions has, however, not prevented central governments in the region from centralising power. In most countries in the region, only towns have a degree of political autonomy with representatives elected by universal suffrage. With the exception of Morocco, a State representative appointed by the government governs regional authorities, where these exist. Attempts to relaunch the decentralisation process in the southern and eastern Mediterranean have been made over the last decade. In most of these countries, States are finding it increasingly difficult to carry out their duties and to deliver a certain number of basic public services: e.g. healthcare, education, water and security. In this context, decentralisation often becomes a priority, and is supported by international institutions (the World Bank, the IMF, the UNDP, etc.) that see the devolution of State powers to local and regional tiers as an important ingredient in good governance. Throughout the Mediterranean, there is a commitment from public authorities to decentralise. So, in Morocco, the Municipal Charter adopted in 2002 is currently under review, in an attempt to strengthen the autonomy and power of local authorities.

14 The tanzimat (“reorganization” in Turkish) refers to a period of reforms of the Ottoman Empire’s State apparatus lasting from 1839 to 1876. Institut de la Méditerranée 22 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

THE SPECIFIC PROGRESS OF REGIONALIZATION Morocco is the only country where genuine regionalization is underway, with regional elected presidents. But there is a trend towards an increase in power for regionally elected representatives, for instance, in Tunisia and Egypt. In Jordan, in 2005, King Abdullah himself announced the implementation of unprecedented measures to further political and fiscal decentralisation in the Kingdom, through the establishment of a number of regional assemblies equipped with many powers previously held by the parliament and central government. Another example is the Egyptian government’s reform project that planned the decentralisation of a number of governmental powers. This project was withdrawn in 2005. Regionalisation, albeit limited regionalisation, is the most marked phenomenon in the wave of decentralisation that has spread over the southern countries in the last decade. Meanwhile, there is also evidence of a consolidation in municipal power, particularly by means of the increasing opportunities that authorities are given, especially in Tunisia, Jordan and Lebanon, to form intermunicipal groupings in order to increase the efficiency of their public-service provisions. In much of the region, such decentralization has been accompanied by local fiscal reform with a view to increasing the resources of local and regional authorities and to enhancing their financial autonomy.

Institut de la Méditerranée 23 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

II. THE CONTRIBUTION OF REGIONAL ENTITIES IN MEDITERRANEAN POLICY MAKING This section assesses the influence of Mediterranean regional authorities in the first stages of the decision-making process, namely agenda setting and policy definition. Among the most striking elements presented in this document is an account of the limited impact of the influence tools employed by the regions since the 1970s and the consequent difficulties for regional authorities in benefiting from multilevel governance as it emerged as a European model.

Regional authorities in the “jigsaw puzzle” of European policy making Analyzing the case-studies identified within the first phase of the MEDGOVERNANCE project gives a preliminary view of the intrinsic complexity of the European policy-making process, often compared to a “jigsaw puzzle”. Before assessing the effective impact of regions within EU institutions and procedures, it is necessary to understand how these institutions and procedures work. European policies are more than just the end result of formal decision-making processes. They involve a complex range of public and private stakeholders, stakeholders who compete with one another. As highlighted by the in-depth analysis of the case-studies, some basic assets play a key role in the influence of stakeholders over European policy making. Most Mediterranean regions are fully aware of this competitive context and have, therefore, developed professional influence tools and strategies.

The European policy making as a “competition” The analysis of policy making through the selected case-studies has shown how the European Commission is relying heavily on external stakeholders in drafting its policies. Beside formal consultation channels and procedures – the mandatory consultation of the Committee of the Regions by the European Commission and the consultation of other stakeholders through Green Papers – lobbies, national administrations, local and regional authorities are constantly asked by the DGs for their opinions, reviewing but also drafting preparatory documents, including Green Papers, and documents such as terms of reference, calls for projects, vademecum, etc. Analysing the case-studies it quickly becomes evident that European policy making could be compared to a market and more particularly an “oligopsony”, that is a market with very few buyers. The “few buyers” in this case are the Europeans institutions (mainly the Commission and the Council) while the number of sellers is far larger: individual member States, official consultative bodies (Committee of the Regions, Economic and Social Committee), private lobbies, local and regional authorities, regional organisations…

Institut de la Méditerranée 24 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

Key assets affecting European policy making European policies then is a competitive game among a wide range of stakeholders. In most cases, this competition is governed by the following key assets: time and availability, technical expertise, and direct relationships with decision-takers in the different European institutions. POLITICAL WILL Case-studies demonstrate the importance of regional political will in influencing the decision- making process. For example, Italian regions are involved in a formal and regular dialogue with the central State (within the Conferenza Stato-Regioni) to decide together policies of concurrent competence (see environment case-studies in Annex 2). Single regions (and presidents of regions as “entrepreneurial politicians”) take the lead in discussing and lobbying on relevant policy initiatives (see the Liguria Region and the Motorway of the Sea) at community and national levels. Regions support representative bodies (see CRPM) and political initiatives (see PARM and RIM) to influence and propose changes in community policies. TIME AND AVAILABILITY Having staff available is clearly an important asset for competing on the market of European policies. Preparation time with opinion pieces and documents – formal or informal – for the European Commission often have to be prepared in a brief time window, which leaves the regional organizations little time to consider and prepare amendments. To be successful then, staff and budgetary resources are required. More generally, the follow-up to policy preparation is particularly time-consuming since informal contributions from stakeholders are constantly solicited by Commission’s DGs for a wide range of documents. Moreover, following the intricacies of European policy making also requires continuity in staff since it takes several years to implement the different policy-making stages from agenda setting to project implementation. For instance, the Motorways of the Sea were introduced officially in the Commission’s paper in 2001, while the White Paper on transport and the first Mediterranean connections is still under preparation, in the framework of the call for projects issued in 2009 within the Medwest corridor initiative15. TECHNICAL EXPERTISE A further key criterion of influence on the European policy-making “market” is the ability of actors to mobilize high-level technical expertise. European policies rely heavily on technical and scientific expertise. Efficient lobbying involves the mobilisation of specific technical but also legal and economic competences. On the particular issue of MOS and short sea shipping, technical expertise was required in order to address demands for keynote and strategic papers being drafted by the European Commission. For example, different stakeholders carried out various studies in order to compare the contributions to climate change and more generally to their interpretation of likely environmental and social impact. The technical complexity of general transport issues and of Motorways of the Sea projects provides private lobbies with a strong competitive advantage particularly over regional organizations that lack sufficient technical and scientific expertise to affect major decisions on transport infrastructures. These studies naturally produce different conclusions according to the types of factors that are integrated16. Influencing European and national authorities on environmental issues

15 See summary of transport thematic report in Annex 1.

16 For instance, along with greenhouse emissions, noise pollution could be considered a major environmental Institut de la Méditerranée 25 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT also requires the mobilization of high-quality technical expertise. In this context, local authorities have often been disadvantaged by the heavy scientific and technical background required to enter the decision-making process that, in the case of France for example, gave the initiative to other actors such as environmental NGOs. DIRECT RELATIONSHIPS WITH DECISION-TAKERS A further key asset in the struggle for influence is the question of linkage with the final decision- takers, namely the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Member-States on the European Council. The European Commission is, of course, the core target for regional attempts to influence European institutions. Thanks to its initiative-making prerogative, the Commission still plays a crucial role in the European legislative process. A direct relationship with European civil servants is thus a basic asset for all Brussels lobbyists. To this end, the Committee of the Regions and other regional organizations have, over the years, developed close relations with the Commission. As noted by many of the interviewed stakeholders, DG REGIO, the unit responsible for regional policy and much of the structural funds, has been the champion of regions within European institutions and thus the main interlocutor of the regions within the Commission. The Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions (CPMR) has been particularly successful in developing dialogue and even understandings with DG REGIO. As the ultimate decision-taker in the legislative process, the European Council is the second key target for regional organizations. Quality relations with Member-State representatives is thus another key dimension in any European influence strategy. The role of the EU presidency in Council agenda setting has increased the need to build strong alliance with national decision-takers. Direct relations between both levels of action may have been fostered by the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty that encourages the participation of regions in Council meetings. In Italy, the State- Region Conference (see above) provides the Italian regions with a formal body that can enter into dialogue with national administrations on a wide range of policy fields. The Conference provides Italian regions with an official tool of influence in the fight to leave their mark on European policy making. Influencing European decision-making also involves good contacts in the European Parliament with its decision and co-decision powers over a wide range of policy fields. The role of the Parliament will be significantly reinforced by the extension of the co-decision procedure provided for by the Lisbon Treaty.

impact of road transport: not only in terms of life quality but also in terms of infrastructure investments required to mitigate this kind of pollution. Institut de la Méditerranée 26 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

Development of the regions’ influence tools In parallel to the progressive opening of European institutions and decision-making to the participation of territorial actors, regions have also adapted themselves to the competitive nature of European policy-making and have introduced professional competences and resources in their European activities, in line with their national-level competences, capacities and resources. DIVERSITY OF REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS In the highly-competitive context described above, numerous organizations have thus been created in order to foster the regions’ influence in European decision-making, to work as much as possible with the European institutions at the beginning of the decision-making process, in particular with the European Commission because of its initiative-taking role. According to Committee of the Regions officials, the Committee’s has a political hinterland made up of more than 300 different regional organizations including various generalist organizations gathering municipalities or regions, thematic organizations, projects (structural funds or interregional cooperation) delegations in Brussels, network delegations…. A specific survey would be necessary to identify and analyse the different regional organizations involved in the European policy-making process. However, a representative sample will be found in the present document, and this sample includes the CPMR and REGLEG. The Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions (CPMR) was created in 1973 and today includes around 161 Regions from 28 countries. CPMR is a major tool in the regions’ influence over EU policies. It routinely elaborates policy recommendations and visions. Its basic goals at the European level are the preparation of structural fund applications for maritime and peripheral regions and, more generally, the defense of regional policies and structural funds. Although not formally embedded in the European decision-making process, the CPMR is seen by stakeholders as an effective lobbying tool. Mediterranean regions being both peripheral and maritime areas, CPMR has become a very important influence tool there. This strong Mediterranean dimension was subsequently reinforced with the creation of a specific Inter-Mediterranean Commission (IMC) in 1990. Today, the IMC has fifty member regions in 10 different countries (Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Portugal, Spain and Tunisia). It aims to be open to all the sub- national levels in these Mediterranean countries. Many stakeholders commented on the decline of “collective” strategies and organizations and the growing autonomy of ad hoc organizations. In this perspective, regions with legislative powers are increasingly developing their own autonomous strategies. REGLEG is a political network for EU regions with legislative power. It comprises representatives of regional governments, who work together on issues of common concern. At present there are 73 EU regions with legislative power spread across 8 Member States: Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the UK. Participation in REGLEG is open to any of these regions.

Institut de la Méditerranée 27 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

THE CREATION OF DELEGATIONS IN BRUSSELS In addition to “collective” or ad hoc tools developed to influence EU institutions, many European regions have developed purely “individual” tools and have decided to establish delegations in Brussels to strengthen their “physical” presence at the point where the key decisions and policies are being prepared and adopted17. In most cases, the creation of a regional delegation provides support in terms of information and regional sensitizing on European policies – those being enacted and those under preparation. Thanks to their physical proximity to European decision-making centres, the delegations thus give voice to their region’s priorities, practices and projects, within European institutions as well as within other key EU policy stakeholders thus better integrating themselves into the European system.

Specific networks and initiatives from the Mediterranean regions As noted above, the CPMR plays a major role in representing and defending the interests of the Mediterranean regions within European institutions and decision-making processes. Nevertheless, a diversity of specific networks, organisations and initiatives have emerged, to improve the influence of Mediterranean local and regional authorities. Several different networks and organizations representing Mediterranean local and regional organizations may be mentioned here, including bodies opened to all kinds of local authorities. These include the general, e.g. the Mediterranean Commission of UCLG, and the more specific, e.g. Arco Latin (provincial authorities) and Medcities (local authorities and municipalities). Alongside the institutional organizations and networks, there are also different strategic initiatives launched by territorial actors willing to develop their own vision of the future of the Mediterranean and of the specific role of local and regional authorities in the governance of the region. This ambition was at the heart of the Mediterranean Regions Action Plan (PARM) published in November 2006. The elaboration of this plan came about through the work of research institutes from several Southern Europe regions (PACA, Andalusia18, Catalonia19, Piedmont, Tuscany and Lazio) that would later come together for the Réseau des Instituts de la Mediterranée (RIM - Network of Mediterranean Institutes), today a key partner of the MEDGOVERNANCE project. Another interesting initiative has been the preparation of the New Euro-Mediterranean Alliance for Peace, Employment and Sustainable Development. This document, endorsed in 2008 by the IMC of the CPMR, has been innovative in the promotion of a genuinely Mediterranean cohesion policy involving a transfer to Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries of the financial and cooperation instruments developed and established for Eastern and Central European applicants.

17 See Boni, Ana Lisa, “L’Europe dans les regions, les regions dans l’Europe” in Décentralisation et Fédéralisme October-November 2009 18 Autonomous Government of Andalusia or Junta de Andalucía. 19 Generalitat of Catalonia or Generalitat de Catalunya. Institut de la Méditerranée 28 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

The mixed influence of the regions’ strategies and organizations Assessing the direct impact of the regions’ organizations on EU policy decisions is a difficult task. Given the multitude of stakeholders that are consulted and solicited by the Commission during the legislative process, the regions’ input cannot always be traced. A more meaningful methodology would be an assessment of the long-term effects of the regions’ presence in EU institutions and decision-making procedures as well as the “informal” outcomes of their lobbying activities.

The Regions’ influence in analyzed policy fields The influence of regional authorities over national and European policy making varies according to the policy field in question. As emphasised in the 5 Thematic Reports produced during the first phase of MEDGOVERNANCE, the selected case-studies have highlighted contrasting levels of regional influence from transport issues to cultural strategies, via environment and innovation policies. TRANSPORT Regional authorities have become major stakeholders in transport policies, thanks particularly to the development of proactive tools and strategies in influencing national and European strategies on this issue. For example, the creation of a specific transport commission has enabled the CPRM to build strong expertise capacities on transport issues and to build confident relations with European institutions and, above all, with the DG TREN at the European Commission. Several concrete examples of CPMR’s strong lobbying capacity concerning the Motorways of the Sea (MoS) may usefully be noted. Among other things, CPMR has directly affected the Commission’s decision on the issue of the establishment of a European coordinator specifically dedicated to MOS. Here the lobbying role of CPMR was effective. For the most important projects identified within the TEN-T programme, a European coordinator may be established in order to allow a high-level political follow-up and the promotion of the implementation of the project. Every year, the European coordinator publishes an annual report evaluating the progress achieved in her/his field of competence. Initially, the European Commission had not envisaged establishing a coordinator for MOS. CPMR lobbied hard. A meeting was thus organized in 2005 with Jacques Barrot, Commissioner for Transport, in order to discuss the issue. Here again, this intervention had practical outcomes with the decision to establish a European coordinator for MOS and with the choice of Luis Valente de Oliveira as coordinator20. Nevertheless, the influence of regional authorities on transport policies is limited by their lack of human resources and technical expertise. Mediterranean regions suffer from a serious lack of specific representation here since their organisations and networks are either generalist lobbies or “subsidies” of European lobbies. For instance, there is no transport commission within the Mediterranean Commission of UCLG. The Inter-Mediterranean Commission of CPMR has created a working group devoted to transport which depends on the goodwill and mobilization of its members and which has no human resources.

20 Mr Valente de Oliveira is a former president of CPMR and is very sensitive to the role of the regions in the governance of European policies. Institut de la Méditerranée 29 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

ENVIRONMENT Regional authorities have increased their role in policy decisions and policy making on environmental issues. Regions today participate in decision-making at the national level. They decide the Sites of Community Importance, conservation measures, the incidence evaluations, and the management plans in the Natura 2000 network. They designate the management bodies and try to develop a participative approach to involve civil-society organisations – though a NIMBY21 attitude can still be detected. In Italy and Spain regions issue laws and strategic frameworks according to national guidelines and EU directives. In France the process is driven by the central administration. However the steering committee named COPIL, managed and coordinated by a local authority chosen by the préfet, involve local actors in the process. As for forest fires, regional authorities decide on regional plans for the prevision, prevention and active fight against forest fires, participating in multilevel coordination. In Italy and Spain regions issue laws and plans and coordinate regional systems with diverse actors. In Italy some of them are deconcentrated bodies, like the State Forest Service and the National Forest Brigade. In Spain competences are transferred to the autonomous Communidades that establish coordination mechanisms with the central State. In France, where forests are managed by the central State, regions like PACA jave demonstrated strong political will in influencing national policy-making. It adopted a forest strategy in 2005 providing guidelines and financing for Inter-communal Forest Clearing and Development Plans, the main local strategic programming tool for the prevention and fight against forest fires. COMPETITIVENESS AND INNOVATION Regions have a decisive say in designing new policies on regional innovation systems22. They coordinate diverse actors, from universities to agencies and small and medium enterprises, and they are beginning to implement evaluation measures in order to improve their general approach. In most cases, central States still have sole competencies for activities in the field of research and, therefore, national science and technology policies play a formative role through the valorisation and exploitation of these investments in knowledge capital. However, regional authorities play an increasing role in the shaping of research and innovation policies in Southern European countries. In Spain, this empowerment is particularly notable in higher education. In spite of strong national regulations, autonomous regions can design, to a very large extent, their own higher-education systems. In Catalonia, higher education and research have become a regional priority in recent years and a number of important initiatives have set apart Catalan’s higher-education system from other regions in Spain. MIGRATION On migration policies, regional and local authorities are the protagonists in promoting integration measures. Problems though arise at the national/central State level. The central State has sovereignty and exclusive competence in setting migration control and security measures. It establishes migrant inflow rules with the scarce participation of regions and local authorities. In 2003 for example, responsibility for welfare policy was devolved to the Italian Regions, with each receiving a budget from the State for social policy. As a consequence, it is up to them to develop immigrant policy. The few existing studies show considerable differences among the regions: only a handful still have a specific budget for immigrant integration, Piedmont being one of these.

21 Not in My Back Yard. 22 See the Competitiveness Thematic Report and the study implemented in 2007 by CesP on regional innovation policies in the Mediterranean area: http://www.cespi.it/innovMED.html Institut de la Méditerranée 30 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

CULTURE Regions in the Mediterranean have a long tradition and a rich experience of action in the field of culture. However, despite their sizeable resources, administrative capacities, and political competences here, their participation in formulating cultural policies and strategies at the EU level (European Agenda for Culture) and all the more at the Euro-Mediterranean level (EuroMed heritage, Euro-Mediterranean Cultural Strategy or Anna Lindh Foundation) is very limited. Regions in the Mediterranean often restrict their cultural action to events and activities. This is detrimental to their natural role as planning and strategic formulation bodies within their territories. In turn, this focus on activities is detrimental to the contribution of culture towards territorial development. Most Mediterranean regions do not have cultural strategies as such for their own territories. But regions cannot claim participation in the cultural agenda setting and policy formulation at the State, EU or Euro-Mediterranean level if they do not, in turn, consult and involve sub-regional actors. So far, networks of regional authorities are mainly generalist, with weak technical and lobbying capacities. They focus, instead, on declaratory activities or on attracting and managing funds from States or international organizations. In order to be more effective, these networks should be thematic and specialized. TERRITORIAL COOPERATION Apart from the 5 policy fields analyzed within MEDGOVERNANCE, there is also territorial cooperation where regional authorities have developed major influence capacities at the European level. The elaboration and implementation of European Cross Border Cooperation Groupings (ECBCG) is a good illustration of what the Committee of the Regions can concretely achieve. The adoption of this regulation has involved many different high-level European decision-takers from the Commission (Michel Barnier), from the Parliament, from the Committee of the Regions (Mercedes Bresso). Their convergence on a common vision of regulation has opened the way to the initial proposal of the Commission that was characterized, according to the Committee, by the following weaknesses: o Government authorities were not considered as full participants in the grouping which was an important issue in a context where regions do not have uniform competences and resources in the different member States; the initial project did not include multilevel governance. o The Grouping was open solely to the NUTS III regions. o The area of activity only concerned cross-border cooperation and was not open to transnational cooperation. At the end of the decision-making process, the regulation was opened up: to central authorities, to NUTS II regions and to transnational cooperation. To achieve this, the Committee of the Regions and the European Parliament worked hard to influence the Commission and the Council. And to this end, different levers were used, in particular the lever of national policies: different heads of region put pressure on national government to change the regulations. The political context within the Council was favourable, since Austria held the presidency of the European Union during the months where the regulation should have been adopted. Austria is, indeed, a federal State, highly sensitive to the interests of regional authorities. Moreover, the rapporteur of the Committee of Regions on this regulation was Austrian. This was a coincidence but it made pushing the position of the Committee and the adoption of an alternative version of the regulation a good deal easier.

The regions in Brussels: a lack of resources and a consequent lack of influence Over the last decades, the regions have developed a dense set of networks, organisations and tools Institut de la Méditerranée 31 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT in order to influence European institutions and Member States. But to what end? As described above, regions have become a major actor in European policy making. But what has been the effective contribution of the tools and organizations established by regional institutions in this evolution? As noted by Ekatarina Domorenok, from the University of Padua, in a recent paper on the Committee of the Regions23, there was much initial enthusiasm over regional participation in the European political arena in the early 1990s. At that time the creation of the Committee was “the most striking and important expressions of the new salience of regions in Europe”. But this attitude has now been replaced by a more balanced one. GENERALIST TOOLS WITH WEAK TECHNICAL CAPACITIES As illustrated in the case-studies, technical expertise constitutes a major asset in influencing EU policy-making processes. Regional authorities are represented for the most part by generalist organizations: Committee of the Regions, CPMR, UCLG, COPPEM... The representatives of the regions in these organisations are often officers from international relations departments and seldom from operational departments. However, some “evolutions” take place with the creation of thematic commissions and committees within the largest organizations such as the Committee of the Regions or CPMR. Today, the Committee of the Regions has six thematic commissions: COTER (territorial cohesion policy), DEVE (sustainable development), EDUC (culture, education and research), RELEX (external relations) and CONST (constitutional affairs and European governance). Moreover, commission meetings have become more regular and the organization of their work has greatly improved. Similarly, the CPMR is endowed with numerous thematic working groups24, some of them having built up significant relations with their relevant DGs: for example, the transport working group described earlier in this Report. Still, these networks have weak technical expertise and lobbying capacities and focus on declaratory activities and attracting and managing funds from State or the European Union. They do little coordination and lobbying work. For example, the case-studies have highlighted the low level of visibility of the Committee of Region outside the sphere of EU institutions. The Committee was very seldom mentioned by interviewed stakeholders as an effective lever of influence on the legislative processes or one able to influence the selected case-studies. For many observers, the Committee was seen as an “opinion factory” with little impact on the final decision-takers. Likewise, despite its strong contribution to EU policies, the CPMR suffers from a lack of technical expertise and a lack of human resources generally. Another weakness of the CPMR is that its member regions do not have proactive involvement in lobbying activities. Available technical expertise and capacities are still weaker in the case of Mediterranean tools such as the Inter- Mediterranean Commission of the CPMR or the Mediterranean Commission of UCLG that cannot rely on a thematic sub-commission or working group. WEAK RELATIONS WITH NATIONAL DECISION-TAKERS AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT As well as this structural weakness, the influence capacity of the Committee’s activities is aggravated by its relations with two major EU institutions, the Parliament and the Council, relations that have developed at a much slower speed than the Committee’s relations with the Commission. The European Parliament, for example, has always been extremely cautious to preserve its own representative political function. The challenge for the Committee of the Regions is thus to build

23 See Domorenok Ekatarina, “The Committee of the Regions: in Search of Identity” in Regional and Federal Studies, 19, (March 2009), 143-169. 24 Aquamarina, employment and training, energy, external cooperation, fisheries, innovation, research, social inclusion, sustainable tourism, TEN-T and territorial cooperation. Institut de la Méditerranée 32 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT cooperative relations with the Parliament strengthening its own institutional position without arousing the jealousy of its partner. For years, the Council’s position towards the Committee was described as that of “relatively benign indifference”. It is only recently that the Committee showed itself willing to change the situation. Dialogue between both institutions to set up a framework for operational cooperation started in 1999. Since then, some improvement have taken place such as the regular presence of the Committee president at Council meetings and the regular participation of the Council presidency in the Committee’s plenary assembly. Another step forward was accomplished in 2003 with the adoption of a Council declaration on “The role of the Regions in the European Union” in which was stressed the “advantages of the increased participation of regional and local authorities in the process of the European integration… and the important role of the Committee of the Regions as an institutional representative of regional and local authorities in the context of the Union”. Nevertheless, direct cooperation between the Council and the Committee during the legislative process remains rare and superficial. THE HETEROGENEITY OF REGIONAL AUTHORITIES Another weaknesses in regional organizations is the heterogeneity of their memberships in terms of demography, economy and competences. For example, the Committee of the Regions gathers together presidents of German Länder and the Spanish Autonomous Communidades – with their wide legislative competencies – along with mayors from small towns. This variety may create conflicts between members; and the situation is then further aggravated within Mediterranean networks where European regions come together with local and regional authorities from Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries, countries where towns, provinces and regions are still under the strict control of States and their central administrations (see next section). THE HEAVY WEIGHT OF PRIVATE LOBBIES Given the objective of the 3-1 activity, emphasis was put on top-down cases, meaning policies initiated by European and/or national institutions: Motorways of the Sea, Natura 2000, the prevention of and the fight against forest fire, migration policies… All these policy fields do not belong to the “traditional” regional policy agenda. These cases are also characterized by the importance of private lobbies, be these lobbies in the industrial sphere (as in the case of the Motorways of the Sea) or be they “environmentalist” (Natura 2000). For example, in the transport policy field, private actors have set up numerous associations and organizations that are very influential within the European Commission and notably within DG TREN. Their influence is based on many factors including frequency of contacts and their capacity to react promptly to Commission solicitations (green papers and the like). These organizations are reactive and enjoy strong expertise capacities. They have greater capacities than regional organizations such as CPMR and their influence lies in their capacity to provide decision-takers from the European Commission, the Parliament or even the European coordinator with key-note papers embedding reliable technical expertise, while respecting the fast pace of the European consultation process.

Institut de la Méditerranée 33 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

III. THE REGIONALIZATION OF THE GOVERNANCE OF MEDITERRANEAN TERRITORIES This section of the Report is devoted to an evaluation of the role of Mediterranean regional authorities in the implementation of European and Mediterranean policies. The case-study approach has highlighted how European “mainstream” policies (transport, competitiveness, environment) and national “State-owned” policy (migration) are being implemented. The rich analytical material has also allowed the report to identify the progressive regionalization of the implementation of European and national policies. Another meaningful change is the increasing participation of civil- society components in policy implementation. Such trends though should not mask the difficulties still encountered by regional authorities in the implementation of European and national policies.

The regionalization of European and national policies The broad diffusion of the principles of multilevel governance within European institutions and national governments has reinforced the regions’ participation in the implementation of what are often called “top-down” policies. Regional authorities have become recognized as relevant implementers of European and national policies. In parallel, the increasing involvement of regional authorities in the implementation of EU policies has created favourable conditions for the development of the concept of multilevel governance. Different types of contributions and the different positions of regions are observable. These range from the direct management of activities by regions in a “centralized” governance framework, to regions who act as a catalyst, sharing responsibilities between local, regional and national stakeholders. Another interesting trend is the progressive empowerment of regions in policy fields traditionally and exclusively governed by central administrations such as migration.

Regions as new “central” authorities Case-studies have, therefore, highlighted different contexts where competences are transferred towards “subnational” levels of actions, levels of action that result in the complete regionalization of various EU-led policies. The analysis conducted aimed at understanding to what extent and for what reason top-down movements have promoted the role of the regions in these two governance systems. In this regard, it is worth bearing in mind the differences between two case-studies: Natura 2000 and the Prevention and Fight against Forest Fire. Natura 2000 is a top-down governance system, having being designed at the European level with the intention of creating a coherent network of protected areas in the EU. In both the case-studies, the Spanish and Italian regional authorities are the main actors. They are responsible for the implementation of the Natura 2000 network, in coordination with central government (Ministries of the Environment), whose responsibilities mainly concern the supervision and harmonization of the implementation process. In the prevention and fight against forest fire, subsidiarity is the guiding principle in the division of competences between the regions and the centre. Regional authorities are at the forefront in prevention activities, but also in the active fight against those forest fires occurring in their territory, with the central level only intervening when local capabilities are overwhelmed. Contrast this with France where the central level is the main actor, while regional authorities play a marginal role in both case-studies, owing to competences but also to regional interests. The example of the implementation of Natura 2000 areas shows that top- down governance systems with strong territorial dimensions can have a direct impact on the role of regional authorities, increasing their responsibilities and competences. In Italy, decentralization led to a change in the subdivision of competences between the central and the regional, with the former assuming a role of coordination and harmonization and the regions taking on the implementation of the network. Contrast this with more centralized countries like France, where Natura 2000 has not

Institut de la Méditerranée 34 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT led regional authorities to acquire more responsibilities and competences, the implementation process being under the control of centre or its local representatives (“deconcentrated” authorities).

The regions as catalysts In some other contexts, such as transport, and more particularly the development of MOS, and cultural policies, regional authorities share responsibilities, competences and financial contributions with other stakeholders. In this context, different types of behaviour are observable ranging from proactive catalysts, or facilitators, to more passive postures. TRANSPORT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF MOS Stakeholders interviewed within the MOS study often underlined the potential leadership of regions in MOS projects. This position is grounded on the competences of regions that, in most European member States, are consistent with the categories of actions that are requested by MOS projects: transport, spatial planning, economic development… In this framework, the actual role of regions in these projects varies wildly according to national contexts. In Italy, regions are, in general, catalysts in the creation of MOS, since they are in charge of approving the port-planning schemes, submitted by the Port Authority in the framework of national legislation. Regions are also in charge for territorial planning. In 2007 a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed between the Liguria Region, the Ligurian Port authorities and the RAM Company in order to give impetus to MOS in the framework of a funding programme that would have been allocated in the near future. The Region can contribute in reducing bottlenecks, strengthening “info mobility”, i.e. the information flow from port to carriers. In France, since 2000 and the SRU law25, regional councils also have full authority over public transport. Within the regional boundaries, they are considered as the regulatory authority for train passengers, meaning that they are responsible for defining all the elements of the service: the stops, the schedules, prices, frequency… Despite this key competence, French regions do not appear as leading actors in the development of MOS projects. In contrast with the MoU signed between the Liguria Region, the Ligurian Port authorities and the RAM, the PACA region has not so far joined public initiatives supporting MOS projects. The technical contribution of regions in the implementation of European and national policies is often accompanied by a financial contribution. There are very few projects that are implemented today without regional co-financing. CULTURAL POLICIES Regional authorities do generally have competences in the field, often overlapping with other public authorities, and sharing financial resources to fund their own policies. They also tend to have specific public institutions (institutes, foundations…) that are active in the field of cultural action and international cultural cooperation and a wide portfolio of cultural activities and projects. In quantitative terms, the situation varies greatly across regions, depending on the level of decentralization in every country and the distribution of competences in the field of culture. But despite experience in the cultural field, regions often act more as service providers and activity organizers, at times in competition with other levels of governments, than as policy-makers capable of establishing a strategic link between the territories and the State and international levels of governance.

Regions and “exclusive” central State competences The analysis of migration policies has also demonstrated the empowerment of regional actors within policy fields traditionally dominated by central State administrations. In this perspective, the

25 Solidarity and Urban Rehabilitation. Institut de la Méditerranée 35 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT initiative undertaken by regions on migration issues are particularly representative of this new trend of regional empowerment in relation to European and national policies. In Spain and Italy, regional authorities increasingly intervene on migration issues. For example, the Andalusian Autonomous Government (Junta de Andalucía) was the first Spanish autonomous community to elaborate an Integral Immigration Plan that allowed the coordination of all the policies related to foreign workers and their families, policies which until then had been dispersed among different local councils. The Andalusia Integral Plans for Immigration have meant a considerable systemization and coordination of immigration-related activities that different organisms carry out. The creation of the General Direction of Migratory Policy Coordination also contributed to that goal. Although coordination of the second Integral Plan corresponded with the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Labour is currently responsible for immigration-related matters.

The participation of civil society: towards a horizontal society? Beyond the empowerment of regional authorities, increasing multilevel governance involves the growing participation of civil-society actors in the implementation of European and national policies. This kind of evolution echoes the claim for a more “horizontal society”, with less dominant centralized institutions be these European, national or even regional bodies. The case-studies have highlighted how “horizontal actors” from the private sector and from civil society are being actively involved in the implementation of policies and projects analysed during the 3-1 activity of the MEDGOVERNANCE project. In the case of Natura 2000, for example, the participation process differed from case to case. In France, participation has been formalized in the framework of the COPIL. In Italy, though no formalized mechanisms have been put in place, horizontal actors – for the most part academics, NGOs and experts – have been actively involved. Interviews also stressed how horizontal actors are more likely to be involved when external expertise is required to integrate the competences of regional authorities. Indeed, unless involvement is justified by strict formal requirements, participation remains weak. Consequently, the weak involvement of the local population and, in many cases, of the local authorities represents one of the major problem in the implementation of the Natura 2000 network both in decentralized countries (e.g. Italy) and centralized countries (e.g. France). Most of the time the local population ignores the existence of Natura 2000 or does not understand the peculiarities of this kind of network. At other times, the implementation of Natura 2000 caused complaints from local populations, who reacted against its implementation. However, it is worth stressing the very proactive role of horizontal actors, especially environmental NGOs, in the governance process of Natura 2000. Environmental NGOs monitored the implementation of the network, exerting control at territorial level, not least by denouncing cases of non-fulfilment of directives requirements. These denunciations explain some of the infringement procedures opened against Italy by the European Commission. On the other hand, the prevention and fight against forest fires is based on a more formalized form of multilevel governance. In the case of Italy, for example, all the intervening horizontal actors involved in the active fight against forest fires (e.g. fire brigades, State forest services, and volunteer organizations) have established contractual relations with the regional authorities so as to guarantee a clear division of tasks and responsibilities. In the context of highly complex and technical projects such as the implementation of MOS, one also observes the increasing participation of stakeholders from the “private sphere”. Public authorities themselves may trigger this participation, often in the framework of Steering Committees settled in order to assess the feasibility of connections. Autonomous initiatives from private actors, gathered within “clusters”, “competitiveness poles” or other professional

Institut de la Méditerranée 36 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT organizations are also common. Innovation policies provide another meaningful illustration of the “horizontalization” of regional policies. There is an increasing consensus that the current technology-driven approach towards R&D needs to be complemented with a focus on territorial and regional development. More specifically, innovative methodologies like the Living Lab approach are employing user-driven methodologies in the development of new technologies, notably new ICT products and services. In this framework, innovation derives from a co-creation process involving broad partnerships going beyond universities, research centres and industry to include territorial stakeholders, local authorities and associations, NGOs and citizens. Regional innovation strategies are increasingly adopting such approaches particularly in the Mediterranean area. For example, the PACA region has launched the PACA Lab programme, based on the Living Lab methodology, to promote projects involving innovative technologies or services in which the R&D phase is over, giving a central position in these to citizens and potential end-users26.

Difficulties and limits in the implementation of the regions’ policies The implementation of horizontal decision-making processes is still limited. The major limit lies in incomplete or immature decentralization processes in both European and Eastern and Southern Mediterranean countries.

A learning process In the different national contexts investigated in the different case-studies, the role of the regions depends on the maturity of the decentralization process. In the case of a top-down led governance system such as Natura 2000, in the absence of a requirement for regional authorities to have a stronger role, domestic legislation applies. Natura 2000 directives do not contain any requirement in this sense, but simply ask for a participatory approach to be put in place. Thus, in principle, from the community point of view, regional authorities are not very different from other territorial actors at the vertical and horizontal level. First, one needs to take into account the maturity of decentralized governance in Mediterranean countries, a maturity that cannot reasonably be compared to countries in Northern Europe such as Germany, Belgium or the Netherlands. In the Mediterranean countries, the massive devolution of State competences to local and regional authorities is a relatively recent phenomenon. Paradoxically, countries such as Spain or Italy, known for the high level of autonomy among their regional authorities, have a long tradition of administrative centralism. In Italy, the regionalization of public administration is recent having begun only in 1970 as noted above. In Spain, the actual level of regional autonomy varies from one region to another. These political disparities mirror deep economic disparities between the various comunidades autónomas. In France, regionalization is often described as an unachieved transformation. Regional authorities suffer from an extreme fragmentation of their competences and also from the absence of authority over the sub-regional communities such as the departments (provincial level) and the municipalities.

The limits of decentralization in Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries In the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries, decentralization and regionalization is still in its infancy. The implementation of multilevel governance over public policies remains superficial and central States remain key players in territorial development.

26 The MedLab project, co-financed by the MED programme, is gathering the main initiatives and projects for integrating the Living Lab approach within regional innovation strategies: see www.medlivinglab.eu Institut de la Méditerranée 37 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

THE LEGACY OF CENTRALISM Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries all share a strong centralising tradition. From independence until the 1980s, the central governments set themselves up as both protectors of the unity of their nations and as motors for economic development, while also being responsible for the provision of basic public services (education, health, water, security, etc.). This centralising tradition is common to all the countries of the Maghreb and the Middle East, irrespective of the type of regime in place: monarchy, socialist republic, lay republic, Islamic regime, etc. The State also has its roots in the extreme ethnic, religious and regional diversity of the nations that emerged in the region during the 1950s and the 1960s. In this context, the major reservations in the southern and eastern Mediterranean with regard to the prospect of decentralised government are understandable. For many players in national political life, “local” autonomy represents first and foremost the danger of disintegrating national unity, the perceived cost of local and regional particularism. As a result, central administrations and more particularly Ministries of the Interior play a key role in controlling local and regional authorities in the various countries. These sub-national authorities are more often than not subject to prior control over their decisions, even for the most routine management operations, such as the replacement of retired civil servants. Furthermore, local public services are frequently administered by central government departments, public companies and national agencies such as the National Agency for Waste Management (ANGED), which is responsible for managing domestic waste landfill sites throughout most of Tunisia, or the Ministry for Water and Irrigation, which still has direct responsibility for water supplies in Jordan. The low profile of local and regional authorities is reinforced by a chronic failure to equip them with sufficient human, technical and financial resources to fulfil their tasks. Mediterranean local and regional authorities therefore suffer from a severe deficit in management capacity, which casts doubt on their ability to become driving forces for development in their areas. The main internal inadequacies affecting local and regional authorities in the southern and eastern Mediterranean include inadequate staff training and, in particular, inadequate support and a rigid framework for managing local staff. Permanently under-equipped local and regional authorities are a factor that exacerbates their lack of autonomy. A STRUCTURAL WEAKNESS: LOCAL FINANCES The main hindrance to effective decentralisation in Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries are the inadequate financial resources made available to local and regional authorities. Despite progress in local taxation, the revenue of towns, provinces and regions, remains extremely limited. State transfers still account for most authorities’ resources. This situation is often made worse by a poor rate of recovery in local taxes. More often than not, these transfers are carried out in the absence of pre-established redistribution rules on a strictly ad hoc basis. Local finances therefore remain under the tight and sometimes discretionary control of the central State. This situation results in chronic financing problems for local and regional authorities. As their management costs rise more quickly, they are faced with unavoidable expenditure that limits their room for manoeuvre in terms of investment and local development. The considerable burden of staff costs in authority expenditure is a matter of both quantity and quality in human resources, a result of both over-staffing and staff profiles not matching job descriptions. Improvements are gradually being made, but they are not being implemented effectively. In the case of Morocco, cities’ borrowing capacities in the Municipal Fund (FEC) is theoretical such are the number of State controls. Local and regional authorities do not have the technical and financial autonomy and local spending continues to account for only a small share of public expenses. Mediterranean peoples and regions pay a high price for this overall lack of power, as they suffer from a severe lack of investment in basic public services and facilities: drinking water provision and sewage treatment, waste management, social housing, public transport, etc.

Institut de la Méditerranée 38 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

The lack of transnational activities From the case-studies, a common need emerges: regions participate in multilevel decision-making but true transnational coordination is still in its infancy. As noted by one of the interviewees, the sum of regional and national plans, even if inside a community framework of subsidiarity, would not necessarily lead to coherent and coordinated networks and policies at the transnational level. Notwithstanding the implementation of many Interreg projects, sub-national levels have not consolidated a concrete transnational governance structure. Thus a strengthening of transnational cooperation between regional (and national) authorities is needed, not to mention stronger linkages between similar or interdependent areas, through, for example, joint management plans.

Institut de la Méditerranée 39 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

IV. NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENFORCING MULTILEVEL MEDITERRANEAN GOVERNANCE This last section sets out a possible route for a Euro-Mediterranean regional strategic initiative taking into account the main conclusions from the analysis offered above. Ongoing processes at the higher decision-making levels are creating a favourable background for a regional initiative. The redefinition of European policies, instruments and funding for the future EU budgetary period (2014-2020) is one interesting element. Another opportunity are the various failed intergovernmental processes (Union for the Mediterranean, negotiations on climate change and others) that put key issues for the Mediterranean region at the top of the global political agenda, while creating a political vacuum and empowering regions in the policy field where central States and international organisations typically dominate. Along with this political vacuum there is also the need to upgrade transnational governance as indicated in the case-studies. Regions as well as nations/central States should improve the integration of their policies at transnational level. Macro- regional approaches (the Baltic, the Danube, the Balkans) offer an innovative and multilevel governance cooperation framework. In this context, a Mediterranean macro-regional strategy deserves to be investigated and tried out, provided, of course, that regional authorities commit to such an approach.

A challenging new Euro-Mediterranean context Many stakeholders have outlined the unfavourable context that has undermined the regions’ influence within European institutions in the last decades. The hegemony of a liberal vision of policy development and its implementation within the European Commission has not only limited the scope of action of central States. It has also slowed down the development of territory-based policies. This context was aggravated by the decline in DG REGIO’s political leadership during the present budgetary period (2006-2013). As noted previously, DG REGIO has always been a promoter of regional policies and a champion of the regions’ autonomy and influence within EU institutions.

The redefinition of the cohesion policy In 2010, the European Commission will launch its consultation process on the 2014-2020 budgetary period. This consultation will involve a discussion of the Commission’s proposals concerning a wide range of policies, instruments and funding including the question of structural funds and territorial cooperation. Among the documents and guidelines supporting the consultation process, the European Commission has already published a strategic document called EU 2020. THE STAKES OF THE 2014-2020 BUDGET A key milestone for regions is the preparation of the next EU budgetary period (2014-2020) that will be launched by the European Commission in the next months. For Mediterranean regions, the stakes are particularly high since crucial components of the EU’s regional policy and instruments might be redefined there. A “non paper” of the Commission has already raised concerns from the regions’ organizations concerning future cohesion policy. One element in the Commission’s communication touches on an overall decrease in the funds dedicated to the richest regions: the objective would be to focus the available funds on the less developed regions (objective “convergence”). Another issue for the regions is the renationalization of the cohesion policy and the concentration of cohesion funds (notably the ESF) on strategic projects. The strong reaction from the regions also depends on an absence of dialogue and coordination between the Commission and the regions on the communication project. Letters sent to the Commission by the Assembly of European Regions (AER) or CPMR all insist on the same principle: the cohesion policy should be elaborated with the input of the regions.

Institut de la Méditerranée 40 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

THE ELABORATION OF A NEW EUROPEAN STRATEGY In November 2009, the European Commission launched a consultation on its future strategy called EU 2020. This strategy would replace the existing Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies. EU 2020 aims at delivering “greener and socially inclusive growth”. Indeed, the consultation paper issued by the Commission sets out a vision of recovery from the present economic crisis, help in preventing a similar crisis in the future and details on three thematic objectives: value through knowledge; empowering people in inclusive societies; and creating a competitive, connected and greener economy.

Deadlocks in intergovernmental negotiations The last decade has been characterized by massive disillusionment with intergovernmental decision-making processes and their ability to address transnational issues such as the future of the Mediterranean region or global warming. This inability of States to co-operate on common issues calls for the development of autonomous initiatives on the part of local and regional authorities. THE DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN INTERGOVERNMENTAL DECISION-MAKING Since 1995 and the adoption of the Barcelona Declaration, the Euro-Mediterranean partnership has been driven by intergovernmental cooperation and particularly by the support of heads of State and Government. The Union for the Mediterranean project initiated by the French authorities in 2007 is based on the fact that political and institutional methods did not manage to reach announced objectives and so, it was argued, should be replaced by a more flexible approach based on the implementation of concrete projects. It seems though that the UpM is now facing the same difficulties as the former Barcelona process, namely the difficulty of reaching agreement at the intergovernmental level. Today, intergovernmental dialogue within the UpM is apparently blocked by internal difficulties (e.g the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), as well as external geopolitical uncertainties (e.g. the negotiations over Iranian nuclear facilities). As a result, Interministerial meetings have been regularly postponed since the inaugural conference of 13th July 2008 in Paris. The establishment of the Secretariat General in Barcelona has also been delayed and the launching of concrete projects (water, energy, transport) on the part of the heads of State and Government have still not begun. Similarly, though on a more international scale, negotiations on climate change during the Copenhagen United Nations Conference in December 2009 demonstrated the difficulties of achieving consensus on an operational action plan through “pure” intergovernmental decision- making.

Institut de la Méditerranée 41 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REGIONS IN NEED OF TRANSNATIONAL COOPERATION? The difficulties encountered by States in reaching an agreement in the context of the UpM or the Copenhagen negotiations on climate change had a similar paradoxical effect. In a way, these processes succeeded since both issues (the future of the Mediterranean region and climate change) were at the top of the political agenda. Simultaneously, the failure of ministerial meetings has created a political vacuum that could benefit local and regional authorities. And local and regional initiatives are already emerging. For example, the President of the Assembly of European Regions (AER) has expressed the willingness of European regions to take the initiative on climate change regardless of the difficulties encountered at higher decision-making levels: “Aware of the inertia prevailing today, regions are not waiting for global governance to integrate requirements of equity and solidarity between developed countries and developing countries. European regions are already cooperating, beyond North/South boundaries, for the diffusion of resources, ideas and practices. They shall not hesitate to bring the necessary financial support that require Southern countries to implement those ideas and practices, by joining the UNDP in order to launch Territorial Climate Plan in developing countries? But we, the Assembly of European Regions, also know that the great transformation that requires the mitigation of global warming involves gathering all actors that are able to produce such a transformation. The mobilization of industry and private actors is necessary to change production modes. Thus, members of the Assembly of European Regions have decided to share their experience with GE Energy in order to initiate a dialogue between local governments and the economic actors, to find shared solutions for technological innovation, employment and, in the end, for sustainable development. This new partnership logic shall notably be expressed in the framework of an action tank that, here again, will aim at breaking with a system that produces discourses and not change.27”

The main lessons from the “macro-regional” challenge Another significant trend has been the development of macro-regional processes and the elaboration and adoption of the Baltic Strategy in 2009. Such processes are clearly giving a new impetus to the debate on the future of Mediterranean cooperation. The development of macro-regional strategies elsewhere (Baltic, Danube, Balkans…) provides a renewed framework for structuring European cooperation and structural funds for areas cutting across national boundaries. THE CONCEPT OF MACRO-REGION The definition of “macro-region” given during the preparation of the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) was the following “an area including territory from a number of different countries or regions associated with one or more common features or challenges.” This carries no implication of scale: however, in an EU context a macro-region will involve several regions in several countries while the number of Member States will be significantly lower than in the Union as a whole. The definition for a macro-regional strategy used in the EUSBSR is “[a]n integrated framework that allows the European Union and Member States to identify needs and allocate available resources thus enabling the Baltic Sea Region to enjoy a sustainable environment and optimal economic and social development.” This formulation incorporates the ideas of integration and facilitation: namely that all relevant policy areas should be included, and that the

27 See Le Monde, 29th December 2009, “Réchauffement climatique, les regions veulent avancer” (translation by the Institut de la Méditerranée). Institut de la Méditerranée 42 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT strategy should facilitate, but not impose, ways of better addressing them. LESSONS TO BE DRAWN FROM THE BALTIC STRATEGY For a regional strategic initiative in the Mediterranean area, different lessons can be drawn from other regions and particularly from the putting together of the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region that was announced by the European Commission in June 2009. The Baltic Strategy was an interesting departure and offers challenging perspectives for the development of a Mediterranean macro-regional approach, though it is hardly a model. Two different macro-regional contexts Both macro areas are very different from one another. The policy challenges faced by the Mediterranean territories cannot be compared to the ones identified within the Baltic Strategy. For example, the issue of climate change and, more specifically the need to address the impact of climate change, constitute a core issue for the Mediterranean area that is regularly considered as one of the main hot spots of global warming; whereas this issue appears to be a secondary matter in the agenda set up by the Baltic countries. The institutional frameworks of both regions are also radically different with 44 countries, including 16 outside the EU in the Mediterranean case and 9 countries of which only one is outside the EU (Russia) in the Baltic macro area. The governance challenge in the Mediterranean is also characterized by the difficulties of envisaging a classical intergovernmental process as was privileged during the creation of the Baltic region. In the Mediterranean region, a multilevel governance framework does not yet exist. The three NOs The communication of the European Commission concerning the Baltic Strategy clearly underlines the principle of the three NOs: “no additional institution, no additional legislation, no additional funding”. The European Parliament was in favour of a more ambitious financial framework, including the creation of a dedicated budgetary line supporting the implementation of the strategy through the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). A multilevel and participatory preparation process The preparation of the Baltic region has been a multilevel process with a very strong commitment on the part both of central States and local and regional actors. The Baltic Strategy was implemented through a transnational participatory process involving many different stakeholders from each country including local and regional authorities. These processes made it possible to identify priority areas and projects for this future region. In this bottom-up approach, regions had an important and active role.

Institut de la Méditerranée 43 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

The public consultation organized for the Baltic Strategy28 The public consultation process that took place between August 2008 and February 2009, intended to gain substantial input for the direction and structure of the strategy, in turn yielding increased legitimacy once adopted (and also smoothing the adoption process itself). In addition to input by member states and regions, a number of non-governmental organizations and international governmental organizations, and also individuals, have contributed propositions and opinions regarding the strategy. A total of 109 interventions have been made, in the form of position papers and opinions at two stakeholder conferences (Stockholm August 2008 and Rostock February 2009) and four round-tables (in Kaunas, Gdansk, Copenhagen and Helsinki), at a youth conference in Hamburg, and through an on-line consultation forum in November and December of 2008. The consultation process allowed a number of conclusions shared by a majority of stakeholders29: • The absolute need for a strategy for the Baltic Sea region. • The need for an integrated approach to ensure impact. • An important role for the Commission in the actual working of the strategy. • A focus on concrete projects to gain impact on the ground. • No need to develop new institutions, against the background of the many organizations already in existence. • An ambition to move beyond empty declaration and rather work with designated lead countries and specific targets and deadlines.

The opportunity for a renewed Mediterranean regions’ cooperation framework The preparation for the next budget period constitutes an opportunity for the Mediterranean regions in putting together an operational cooperation initiative for the Mediterranean regions. To date, regional cooperation has been divided between technical and political activities; most of the time, technical activities lack political support and political initiatives lack an operational dimension without which they will, of course, have no significant impact on the ground. TOWARDS A MEDITERRANEAN “MACRO-REGION”? A meaningful common initiative would aim at the preparation of a Mediterranean macro-region strategy taking into account the fortunes of the Baltic Strategy officially endorsed by the European Commission in September 2009. A Mediterranean approach should also though remember the specificity of the Mediterranean context. In this framework, the following elements might be picked out as methodological principles in the preparation of a Mediterranean Macro-Region: Inclusion of Southern territories: though still weak and under State control, local and regional authorities are gaining influence in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean and they have been formally recognized within Euromed policies since the creation of the ARLEM; in parallel, the Union for the Mediterranean increasingly promotes a territorial dimension in its projects. A step by step approach: a regional cooperation process will not realistically include, from the offset, all the regions in all 44 countries participating in the UfM. Rather they should begin with a core group of pioneer regions, a group that would be progressively enlarged. A limited set of issues and policy fields: in order to be efficient and visible the future cooperation framework should not aim at covering a wide range of policy fields. On the contrary, it should focus on a limited set of core issues. Here, climate change could be interesting for cooperation projects.

28 Bengtsson, Rkard, An EU strategy for the Baltic Sea Region: good intentions meet complex challenges, European Policy Analysis 9-2009 29 See Commission 2009c, Hübner 2009

Institut de la Méditerranée 44 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

The three NOs: “no additional institutions, no additional regulation, no additional funding”. This principle has clearly favoured support to the Baltic Strategy on the part of European institutions and could, therefore, be usefully endorsed by the Mediterranean regions in their cooperation framework. A participatory and multilevel dimension: the preparation and the management of any cooperation framework for the Mediterranean regions should be based on multilevel governance. As for its preparation, the Baltic Strategy is a good model for the implementation of a transnational participatory process involving many different stakeholders including local and regional authorities. These processes effectively identify the region’s priority areas and projects from each country. As for its management, the Mediterranean regions will have to innovate and create the conditions for shared horizontal governance involving regional authorities together with member States and European institutions. UPGRADING REGIONS’ TOOLS FOR INFLUENCE ON EURO MEDITERRANEAN POLICIES Moving towards a macro region will mean “upgrading” the regions’ influence capacities and tools. The Committee of the Regions and the newly-created ARLEM will be important in communicating and interfacing with the European Commission. But they will not lead by themselves to better strategic coherence in the Mediterranean regions. New institutional and technical tools need to be developed for this, tools that can take into account those tools that are already present (such as the Intermed Commission of the CPMR) so regions have ultimately more influence with the Commission. The following actions can be envisaged: o The development of a partnership between the ARLEM and the Inter Mediterranean Commission of CPMR (IMC) with the signature of a MoU including a joint work programme. o The creation of a Network of the Delegations of the Mediterranean Regions in Brussels. Such a network would allow: o The increased impact of the Mediterranean regions in policy-making processes. o The development of collective Mediterranean strategies on key policies affecting Mediterranean territories. o Representation and information for Southern and Eastern Mediterranean regions’ on European and Mediterranean policies via existing delegations in Brussels. o The creation of a Network of Mediterranean MPs within the European Parliament. o The promotion of multilevel governance and particularly of the regions’ integration within European regulations. o The enhancement of the Mediterranean regions’ expertise capacities through: o The development of Mediterranean networks of research institutes on specific topics (e.g. transportation, environment, etc.) in order to improve the skills and expertise available to the Mediterranean regions. o New institutes from Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries being brought into RIM. o The consolidation of RIM as a recognized scientific help for the regions, duly integrated with the regions’ developed influence toolkit.

Institut de la Méditerranée 45 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

ANNEXES

Annex 1 – Executive summary of the Transport Report

The broad policy framework Since being introduced in European policies in the early 2000s, MOS has raised strong expectations and even strong enthusiasm, notably from regional authorities. In fact, through their organizations such as CPMR (and its transport commission) and various interventions, the regions have been influential in the definition and the elaboration of European policies on MOS. At first, MOS was defined and promoted within EU transport policies and notably in the framework for the development of a trans-European transport network. Rapidly, the success of MOS has allowed this concept to travel far beyond the boundaries of European transport policies and to become a key element in, among others, the European Strategy for Sustainable Development, the European Integrated Maritime Policy and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. MOS address both the Lisbon and Gothenburg European strategies. Nonetheless, this plurality of policies also leads to misunderstandings between the numerous stakeholders involved in the implementation phase. Initially, MOS was introduced within the 2001 European white paper on transport: “European transport policy for 2010: time to decide”. The White Paper advocated that “certain shipping links, particularly those providing a way around the bottlenecks in the Alps and Pyrenees, should be made part of the trans-European network, just like motorways or railways.” Originally, the European Commission envisaged MOS as a solution to address “bottlenecks” in specific “hot spots” in the European transport network. The main issue at stake here was the fluidity of transport goods within the European single market: MOS is Priority 21 of the TEN-T policy. The adoption of Article 12a of the TEN-T guidelines, 29th April 2004 by the Council and European Parliament, gave a legal framework for funding MOS30. The “success” of MOS goes far beyond the TEN-T policy. It is promoted as a crucial element in European maritime policy, but also as a key topic for the Euro-Mediterranean partnership, notably in the framework of the Union for the Mediterranean. The European call for developing MOS was not accompanied by any specific tool or guidelines. Even the definition of MOS had remained quite vague. European guidelines on TEN-T having an optional (and not compulsory) statute, Member States were prudent: MOS was recognized and sometimes supported but did not radically change national transport policies. This innovative and cheap transport concept seemed to address different issues: the need to develop additional transport infrastructures in order to face the expected growth in merchandises flows; the congestion of existing main road corridors; the need to lessen the environmental impact of transport policies; the need to revitalize port activities... Mediterranean regions, where road congestion is a major challenge to life quality, have shown a particular enthusiasm for MOS. These regions are concerned by transport issues for different reasons: first, transport is a key competence of regions in Spain, Italy but also in France; second, these regions are often consider to be poorly integrated in European transport policies (such as TEN-T) which jeopardize their participation in the European market, as well as in global trade flows and thus their sustainable economic development. European MOS policies were thus closely followed by the regions as soon as the European White Book on Transport in 2001 came out and the TEN-T policy was publicised. Classic channels were

30 See text of the article 12-a of TEN-T guidelines in Annex 2. Institut de la Méditerranée 46 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT used such as the Committee of the Regions that sent advice and contributions on the green papers put out by the European Commission. These reactions have often been produced by individual regions, but also by groupings and networks of regions, in the perspective of structural funds. The CPMR has affected European policy-making on two specific topics: first, the inclusion of MOS in the financial regulation of the TEN-T programme; and, second, the establishment of a European coordinator specifically dedicated to MOS. The lobbying role of CPMR has then been quite effective.

The regions in the implementation phase During the implementation phase, regions also had an important role in the technical and financial dimension of the MOS project. Nevertheless, the implementation phase is characterized by its complexity and is described as a “jigsaw puzzle” by many interviewed stakeholders. It involves many stakeholders, belonging to both the public and the private “sphere”, attempting to cooperate notwithstanding their different cultures, different strategies and different constraints. Public actors represent a major set of stakeholders in the implementation of the MOS project – a result, for the most part, of public voluntarist policies. Within the public sphere there are different systems with different visions and involving different kinds of stakeholders at different levels of actions. As previously presented, MOS is strongly supported by the European Union through two different programmes. Each programme has its own financial system and its specific eligibility criteria. Both systems are managed by independent European agencies that take care of the organization of the calls for projects and for the management of subsidies after the project selection process. Many interviewed stakeholders underlined the complexity of the TEN-T procedures for MOS that are the only TEN-T project to “benefit” from such a two-step process. Stakeholders also stressed the bureaucratic difficulties in the submission procedures for the European MOS call for projects. Member States are considered as key actors in the implementation of MOS projects. Central States are a major partner in the European call for projects and are implementing their own financial systems. Stakeholders often underline the potential leadership of the regions in MOS projects. This position is grounded in the competences of regions that, in most member States, are consistent with the categories of actions that are requested by MOS projects: transport, spatial planning, economic development… In this framework, the actual role of regions in MOS projects depends on the national contexts. In Italy, regions are, in general, key in the creation of MOS, since they are in charge of approving the port-planning schemes, submitted by the Port Authority in the framework of national legislation. Regions are also in charge of territorial planning. In 2007 a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed between the Liguria Region, the Ligurian Port authorities and the RAM Company in order to give impetus to MOS in the framework of a funding programme that would have been allocated in the near future. The Region can contribute in reducing bottlenecks strengthening “info mobility”, that is the information flow from port to carriers.

Private companies constitute the other main category of stakeholders in MOS projects. Indeed, MOS projects should be regarded as a “complete service offer” involving the widest range of stakeholders across the logistic chain: producers, road-transport companies, freight brokers, shipping companies, port authorities and the various other port stakeholders (dockworkers, crane operators…). Each of these actors has its own strategy and constraints. Despite their apparent simplicity and cheapness, MOS projects represent a kind of “revolution” in the organization of the logistic chain. Such a “revolution” involves close cooperation between actors that are more used to Institut de la Méditerranée 47 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT competing with one another.

MOS and regions: great expectations dashed? So far very few concrete MOS projects have emerged. European and national funding systems promoting the development of such projects have had little effect and have generally failed to initiate change among private actors in the logistic chains, that are the end-users of MOS and the ultimate decision-takers in these projects. Such disappointing results along with the sorry experiences (from the regions’ point of view) of projects such as the Fos/Savone connection and the Toulon/Civitavecchia connection, mean that enthusiasm has progressively given way to scepticism. MOS are increasingly considered as complex projects, dependent on too many external factors (industrial strategies, oil prices, global market evolutions…) over which regions have little or no control. In the short and mid term, MOS could not be competitive with road transport and thus is not economically sustainable; more seriously, some experts have expressed doubts over the positive environmental contribution of MOS. Despite all these difficulties, expectation among the regions for MOS are still very high. MOS is still at the top of the European Union and the member States agenda, particularly in terms of their Euro-Mediterranean policies. For most experts, a radical change in transport modes still appears inevitable in Europe. The challenge for European, national and regional authorities is to anticipate and to smooth the way for this change. The role of regions is then clear: after all, they have all the required competences and legitimacy to take the initiative on MOS and any modal shift. Today, many stakeholders identify regions as a key actor in the MOS governance framework thanks particularly to their competences (transport, territory planning, economic development), all relevant to MOS projects. Despite this consensual claim, the case-study analysis has also highlighted various gaps that undermine regions’ and regional organizations’ autonomy in MOS development: I. An expertise gap in transport, logistic and modal shifts that amounts to a major blockage in regional influence on national and European-national and European policies; II. Alongside the scarcity of human resources devoted by regions to MOS projects, another issue is the lack of relations between regional actors and other MOS stakeholders, particularly stakeholders from the private sphere and those strung out along the logistic chain. Such a complex topic requires an in-depth knowledge and understanding of the strategies, constraints and projects of other key actors; III. The lack of expertise and the lack of dialogue with private stakeholders is made more critical by a lack of strategy in combining different issues such as transport with spatial planning and economic regional development.

Institut de la Méditerranée 48 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

Annexe 2 – Executive summary of the Environment Report The present document is the thematic report on the environment elaborated within the 3-1 activity of the MEDGOVERNANCE project. This report aims to present the contribution of regional actors in the “governance” of environmental policies affecting the Mediterranean territories. Governance can be defined as the coordination systems existing between various actors – government, local and regional authorities, multilateral organizations but also private actors, companies and NGOs – producing public policies, decisions and projects. Coordination between this plurality of actors can be either institutionalized or governed by procedures and even informal rules. In the thematic field of environment, two cases studies were identified and analysed: Natura 2000 and the governance of the prevention and fight against forest fires. These case-studies represent two interesting examples of coordination systems among actors at different levels (vertical and horizontal) and are particularly relevant for multilevel interactions. In all the MEDGOVERNANCE partners, analysis has shown that coordination exists between the central and the territorial level. The degree of regional involvement is linked to the level of decentralization in place. So, Spanish and Italian regional authorities are the main actors in both the case-studies. They are responsible for the implementation of the Natura 2000 network, in coordination with the central level (Ministries of the Environment), whose responsibilities mainly concern the supervision and harmonization of the implementation process. In the prevention and fight against forest fire, subsidiarity is the guiding principle in the subdivision of competences between the regional and central level. Regional authorities are at the forefront in prevention activities, but also in the fight against those forest fires occurring in their territory, with the central level intervening only when local resources are overwhelmed. In France, on the other hand, the central level is the main actor, while regional authorities play a marginal role in both case-studies, in terms of competences but also in terms of regional interests. The analysis aimed at understanding to what extent and in what ways the top-down level has promoted the role of the regions in these two governance systems. Here, it is worth bearing in mind the differences between the two case-studies. Natura 2000 is a top-down governance system, designed at the European level with the intention of implementing a coherent network of protected areas in the Union. The “Prevention and fight against forest fires” remains, on the other hand, a national competence and the input of the top-down approach has been, for the most part, addressed to the implementation of prevention activities (e.g. information production and sharing and financial resources) and to the encouragement of transnational cooperation in the active fight against forest fires. The analysis has shown that the top-down governance might have an influence on the role played by regional authorities and that it has strengthened the multilevel features of a governance system in a specific area, though some preconditions apply and limits persist. In particular, from the results of the interviews, several conclusions can be drawn. The analysis has stressed that the role of the regions depends on the decentralization process in place. In the case of a top-down led governance system like Natura 2000, in the absence of an explicit requirement for regional participation, domestic legislation applies. Natura 2000 directives do not contain any requirement in this sense, but simply ask for a participatory approach to be put in place. Thus, in principle, from a community-level point of view, regional authorities are not very different from other territorial actors (at the vertical and horizontal level). Nonetheless, in those domestic contexts where an advanced decentralization process is in place, Natura 2000 shows that top-down governance systems with strong territorial dimensions can have a direct impact on the role of regional authorities, increasing their responsibilities and competences.

Institut de la Méditerranée 49 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

In Italy, the deepening of the decentralization process led to a change in the subdivision of competences between the central and the regional level, with the former assuming a role of coordination and harmonization and leaving the main responsibilities on the implementation of the network to the regions. On the contrary, in more centralized countries such as France, Natura 2000 has not led regional authorities to acquire more responsibilities and competences, the implementation process being under the control of the central level or of its local representatives (de-concentrated authorities). In all Med-governance partners, the implementation process of Natura 2000 has had a positive impact on stimulating interactions between the competent authorities and horizontal actors (participation). The analysis has shown that competent authorities have actively involved horizontal actors. In the case of Natura 2000 the participation process is less structured and has acquired different features on a case-by-case basis. In France, participation has been formalized in the framework of the COPIL. In Italy, though no formalized mechanisms have been put in place, horizontal actors – mainly, academics, NGOs and, experts – have been involved. Interviews also stressed how horizontal actors are more likely to be involved when external expertise is required to integrate the competences of regional authorities. Indeed, unless the involvement is justified by strict formal requirements, participation remains weak. Consequently, the weak involvement of the local population and, in many cases, of the local authorities represents one of the major problem in the implementation of the Natura 2000 network both in decentralized countries (e.g. Italy) and centralized countries (e.g. France). Most of the time the local population ignores the existence of Natura 2000 or does not understand the peculiarities of this kind of network. At other times, the implementation of Natura 2000 caused complaints from local populations, who react against the implementation process. However, horizontal actors, especially environmental NGOs, have played a considerable role in monitoring the implementation of the network, exerting control at territorial level by denouncing cases of non-fulfilment of directive requirements. Some of these denunciations were also at the root of the infringement procedures put in place against Italy by the European Commission. The prevention and fight against forest fires is based, instead, on a more formalized form of multilevel governance. In the case of Italy, for example, all the intervening horizontal actors involved in the active fight against forest fires (e.g. fire brigades, State forest services; and volunteer organizations) have established contractual relations with the regional authorities in order that a clear division of tasks and responsibilities is assured. In addition to this, the case-studies have shown that the top-down approach has given a valuable contribution to the governance systems that are in place. In the case of forest fires the Commission is fully committed to contributing to the prevention and fight against forest fires, as well as to restoring the potential of forests by means of several Community instruments. In particular, two main types of activities have been planned for: information production and diffusion (mainly on the part of the European Forest Fire Information System - EFFIS) and support for prevention-related activities through the implementation of structural measures, such as the creation of forest paths, water supply points and firebreaks. Measures of this kind can be seen in the Rural Development Plans, implemented in the framework of the European Policy on Rural Development. Furthermore, the EU research framework programme or the regional policy and the structural funds can also finance projects related to forest fires prevention. Where resources are scarce, many interviewees identify European funding, as the main financial resources for implementing Natura 2000. Interviews have not led to an estimate for these resources. However, it is worth noting that much of this funding comes from the resources for regional and rural development, which are, at least in Spain and Italy, directly managed by the regions. The interviews suggest that here there is a direct link between the decentralization process and the

Institut de la Méditerranée 50 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT importance acquired by European financial resources. One possible explanation is that in more decentralized contexts, regional authorities can define the strategy and then decide where resources should be concentrated. In France, however, the implementation of Natura 2000 is mainly financed by the national level. When analyzing the ways top-down governance can contribute to the strengthening of the role of the regions, transnational and interregional levels should also be taken into account. The assumption here is that top-down dynamics can contribute to governance by encouraging transnational and interregional linkages both politically (e.g political dialogue) and operationally (e..g. the exchange of practices and know-how) by fostering cooperation between stakeholders. In this regard, the analysis has shown that the top-down contribution to the promotion of transnational governance has different characteristics in the two case-studies. The top-down contribution to the development of the transnational dimension of governance is particularly relevant in the “prevention and fight against forest fires”. At the community level, transnational cooperation has been promoted in order to stimulate coordination and the exchange of opinions among Member States (within the Commission’s Expert group on Forest Fire) and contribute to enhancing preparedness (danger assessment and the exchange of fire-fighting means) when facing major forest fires. The Community Civil Protection Mechanism, established by Council Decision in 200131, is the main instrument that enhances Community cooperation in civil- protection matters. Furthermore, the transnational dimension has been considered as being particularly relevant in the case of the southern Member States, which are among the European countries most affected by forest fire. Several pilot projects with a clear Mediterranean dimension have then been implemented, such as the European Union Forest Fire Tactical Reserve – EUFFTR and “Fire 4”, which is likely to represent the basis for the establishment of an EU civil protection force. Moreover, since 1998 the Barcelona process has offered a framework for cooperation on civil protection with the aim of improving EU-Mediterranean cooperation in this area and of strengthening the network of civil protection agencies in partner countries. Further developments in this field will take place in the framework of the Union for the Mediterranean. In addition, at the multilateral level, FAO activities in Fire Management represent another interesting framework of cooperation with Southern Mediterranean countries. However, with the exception of few cooperation projects financed in the framework of the Interreg initiative (e.g. INCENDI), there is no analogous interest or effort in promoting dialogue and cooperation at the regional or local level. On the other hand, the interviews carried out with Italian regional stakeholders have stressed that cooperation is not considered a priority and sometimes not even an option, they being unaware of the opportunities and considering cooperation a matter for central authorities. With the Natura 2000 network, the transnational dimension has not been developed, the implementation process being demanding and unfinished. Interviews revealed that the lack of attention to the transnational dimension represents a point of weakness for the network. As noted by one of the persons interviewed, the sum of the management plans would not necessarily lead to the conservation of habitats and species. The objective for establishing a coherent network of protected areas would require the promotion of cooperation and the creation of interlinks among some of the areas, by creating, for example, joint management plans or the implementation of coordinated conservation measures. This is credible, for example, in the case of migratory birds; and would require the EU to define integration among Natura 2000 areas and to encourage and support cooperation and the exchange of practices, while giving a stronger role to the regions at the EU

31 See Council Decision of 5th March 2007 establishing a Civil Protection Financial Instrument and the Council Decision of 8th November 2007 establishing a Community Civil Protection Mechanism (recast). Institut de la Méditerranée 51 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT level. At present, at the EU level, harmonization efforts are carried out within the Habitat and Ornis committees established by the directives and made up of Member State representatives from the central level. No similar venues exist for regional authorities where they can enjoy dialogues, though some of them represent the ‘official Natura 2000 authorities’ in Member States. As far as cooperation is concerned, the Life programme represented a good window of opportunity for the exchange of practices for regional authorities within national borders, while Interreg has promoted territorial cooperation among European regions and territorial actors. However, the exchange of experiences between regional authorities and the national, European or Mediterranean level is sporadic. There are many possible reasons. These include the lack of awareness for cooperation. But there is also the difficulty of combining the complexity of participation in cooperation projects with the amount of work related to the implementation of the network. Moreover, interviews stressed that coherence among the different Natura 2000 areas is at stake even at the national level, between the different regions. Italy has shown that the coordination and harmonization effort carried out by the central level has not been sufficient to assure the coherence of the network as a whole. The guidelines prepared by the Italian Ministry of the Environment do not assure a sufficient degree of harmonisation in management plans. Their requirements being relatively broad, in the absence of supervision from the national authority, regional authorities benefit from a higher level of discretionality in the transposition of national guidelines into regional ones. This has created a lack of uniformity in the way that existing management plans have been defined.

Institut de la Méditerranée 52 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

Annex 3 – Executive summary of the Migration Report The present document is the thematic report on migration elaborated within the 3-1 activity of the MEDGOVERNANCE project. This report aims to present the contribution of regional actors in the “governance” of migration policies affecting the Mediterranean territories. Governance can be defined as the co-ordination systems existing between various actors – government, local and regional authorities, multilateral organizations and also private actors, companies and NGOs – allowing the development of public policies, decisions and projects. Co-ordination among this plurality of actors can either be institutionalized or governed by procedures or even informal rules. Even though relevant international laws and in particular EU directives frame integration policies, migrant integration has always been decided principally at the national level. At this level different typologies have been constructed. The most common (Zincone 1990; Rudiger and Spencer 2003) are based on three types: - An assimilationist Republican model that foresees generous provisions of individual rights: France. - A functionalist guest-worker model inserted into an ethnically defined nation State that gives immigrants cultural rights in order to facilitate their repatriation: Germany and Austria. - A multicultural and communitarian model – the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden – that gives cultural rights in the tradition of pluralistic societies. In recent years, huge policy shifts have detached national cases from the above models. In particular, the need to share common public values and master a vehicular language is becoming a dominant policy guideline in many EU countries, including those which used to adopt multicultural policies. The assimilationist Republican model has also faced many challenges, and has undertaken some important changes including the acceptance of reverse discrimination (Zincone 2006). These policy changes and revisions of national incorporation models came about both from the fear of political and cultural alienation, particularly dangerous given the threat of transnational terrorism, and the high rates of unemployment and welfare dependency among immigrant minorities, especially in some EU States, even in the second and third generations. After these revisions, nations can no longer be easily classified: and, in truth, even in the past they never perfectly matched the types. Some authors today question the utility of constructing and applying typologies (Freeman 2003; Joppke 2006). Besides mismatches and crises in traditional policy paradigms, relevant departures from the national models and policies and significant differentiations have always been observed at sub-national levels. The responsibility for implementing integration policies, often with remarkable degrees of discretionary power, is mainly attributed to regional and local authorities even in political systems not characterized by high levels of devolution. Local policy actors (public administrators and civil servants, elected politicians, union officials, employer confederations, NGOs and religious organizations) also produce practices and policies that are later embodied in national policies (Zincone and Caponio 2006). As a consequence, many challenges have to be faced directly by local and regional bodies. The efforts of local public authorities in facilitating the integration of immigrants have been complemented by the activities of a wide range of civil-society organisations. In fact, in many cases these organizations have proved to be the best positioned to provide immediate and concrete solutions to the problems commonly experienced by immigrants. In most cities, there is close cooperation between local government and the NGO sector on integration initiatives. This illuminates one of the main characteristics of Italian immigration policy: with a lack of activity on Institut de la Méditerranée 53 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT the part of central government, associations and the NGO sector have, to some extent, filled the vacuum. As a result, some needs relating to the increasing number of immigrants have been satisfied. The negative effect of this modus operandi is the fragility of these initiatives: they are carried out with annual funding, often without any continuity or final independent evaluation of their efficacy. In this framework, three specific case-studies have been selected to highlight the qualities and characteristics of the governance process, which is developed principally at local level, even when issues should be dealt with at the international level. Unaccompanied minors, trafficked women and labour migration policies are topics in which transnational cooperation is necessary. At the moment there seems to be a common thread in governance on specific immigrant target groups, particularly trafficked women and unaccompanied minors. Among all the MEDGOVERNANCE partners, analysis has shown that co-ordination exists between the central and local levels in the name of the subsidiarity principle: regulations, guidelines and funds coming from the EU are managed by national governments, that then, in turn, fund initiatives and projects at local levels. This process guarantees closer local co-operation and strong governance at local level. There is, on the other hand, a lack of efficacy at the international (and vertical) level of co-operation. Even in the case- study of REMI, the international network developed in order to help unaccompanied minors coming from Africa to Europe (mainly France, Spain and Italy), it is clear that this network achieves better results at the local level than could be achieved by the involvement of the three EU countries. This analysis has shown that the top-down approach does not influence the role played by regional authorities: governance at the local (sub-regional) level is more important than that at national level. All the cases mentioned above show how the focus on specific critical issues has been developed thanks to strong local networks. The availability of European Union funds addressed to specific migration topics – while in itself not sufficient – supports the development of projects in these fields. However, only where funds encounter institutions and civil societies ready to invest in these areas will projects and initiatives develop. The same is true of projects focused on economic co- operation among sending and receiving countries, e.g. the Italian initiative helping migrants living in Piedmont (especially in Turin) to set up businesses in their home countries.

Institut de la Méditerranée 54 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

Annex 4 – Executive summary of the Competitiveness and Innovation Report

In the Cairo declaration, Euromed partners affirmed their commitment to the objective of creating a Euro-Mediterranean area of higher education and research and clearly defined the guidelines for future cooperation among Euro-Mediterranean partners in this area. They also stated that cooperation in the field of higher education, research and innovation, technology transfer and information society should go hand-in-hand and that such cooperation should reinforce competitiveness and job creation in order to meet the challenges of globalisation. In this sense, all stakeholders – international organisations, such as the EU, national and regional governments, local authorities, civil society, private business and universities – should actively participate in the process. European countries have though, it must be noted, been reforming their higher education and research systems more rapidly than the south Mediterranean countries in line with the agenda designed to deal with the Bologna process. The European university landscape is primarily organized at the national and regional levels and is characterized by its heterogeneity, a fact reflected in its organization, governance and operating conditions. From a general point of view, regulation in the form of enhancing institutional autonomy has been one of the overarching governance trends in European higher education over the last two decades. At the first Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference on Higher Education and Scientific Research, held in Cairo on 18th June 2007, Ministers underlined the importance of Euro- Mediterranean cooperation in supporting development and modernisation in higher education, especially through the TEMPUS Programme, as well as fostering research, technology, development and innovation in cooperation with Mediterranean Partner Countries, in particular through the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. They also welcomed the Erasmus Mundus External Cooperation Window and the prospects offered by the Euromed scholarship scheme for university students and higher-education staff from partner countries, as endorsed by the Euro-Mediterranean Summit in 2005. All this should add to the existing funding opportunities offered by both European Union Member States and Mediterranean Partners. It is natural that there should be cooperation in higher education, research and innovation since they help along competitiveness in business, new job creation and prepare countries and regions to meet the challenges of globalisation. In this context, the importance of knowledge needs to be noted. Supported by the achievements of the information society, knowledge is the basis for faster development – nationally, regionally and internationally. In order to take a more active role in strengthening partnership and dialogue, Slovenia launched a specific initiative to establish a Euro- Mediterranean University in Piran. The formal inauguration of the Euro-Mediterranean University took place in Slovenia in June 2008. The main reason for establishing an international institution of this kind was the need to draw inspiration from the cultural, religious and human legacy of the Euro-Mediterranean area. The University has every prospect of becoming a meeting place for young people, researchers and academic staff from the entire Mediterranean. One of the emphases of this initiative is the promotion of multilingualism and intercultural exchanges between young people as a means of increasing their employability, mobility and social inclusion and, thus, promoting development.

The implementation of the Euro-Mediterranean Higher Education and Research Area is – despite these achievements – still though in its initial phase. Generally speaking, the government’s new role in Higher Education may be termed “facilitative” as

Institut de la Méditerranée 55 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT it attempts to create a viable service provision environment in which it controls outcomes at a systems level without detailed interference. But here again, new steering devices have been introduced where output funding and multi-year agreements with the (individual) higher education institutions provide illustrative examples. In effect, governments are not withdrawing from higher- education systems. Rather they are in search of new means of system oversight and performance- based steering of organizations. In some countries one can speak of the State as a “market engineer”, while emerging “quasi markets” still vary in the degree of competition and the extent to which they are regulated by the government. For example, the provision of continuing education or academic consultancy activities is largely unregulated in most countries because these activities are not perceived as core activities. Traditional academic programs and degrees are often still subject to governmental regulation and access to this market is frequently controlled by State authorities or authorities given this responsibility by the State. Competition on the research market is promoted by moving away from the tradition of institution-based research funding towards performance based funding, and the competitive funding of research projects through research councils or agencies at the national and international level. As far as transnational and transregional cooperation are concerned these seem to remain unimportant. In the last years, the consolidation of several Euro-regions fostered transborder and transregional cooperation in Europe. Among the different Euro-regions, there are several initiatives focusing on Higher Education and Research. For instance, Rhine-Waal, Helsinki-Tallinn, Galicia- Norte de Portugal and Nestos-Mesta Euroregions, focus respectively on qualifications and the labor market, innovation in arts and sciences, competitiveness and employment and technology transfer. Only the Euroregion Pyrenees-Mediterranean has a specific objective for higher education and research. A question that needs to be asked after this review of governance reform and change in the higher- education systems of the participating regions/countries is the following: is it possible to find a link between governance reform and the overall performance of higher-education systems that can also take into account the construction of a future Euro-Mediterranean Area of Higher Education and Research? The few policy initiatives since 1995 are not, in general, perceived as being very effective.

Institut de la Méditerranée 56 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

Annex 5 – Executive Summary of the Culture Report

Objectives of the Report This report undertakes to analyse the actual and potential contribution of regional authorities to cultural cooperation and policy formulation in the Euro-Mediterranean space. It has been developed in the framework of Activity 3.1. (Analysis of EuroMed Governance Framework) of the MEDGOVERNANCE project. This project aims to develop, the role and contribution of Mediterranean regions to major policies, including transport, competitiveness, environment, and culture. A case-study, the Network of Historic Urban Centres of Islamic Influence between Spain, Portugal, and Morocco, has been selected for an in-depth analysis in order to draw conclusions regarding the articulation between field projects and cultural strategies and policies regarding the institutional aspects of cultural cooperation. The conclusions and recommendations at the end of the report and in this Executive Summary aim to identify the options available for Mediterranean Region initiatives in the field of culture and to propose arrangements that could lead to the best use of these options. The report deliberately focuses on the cultural action of the regions at the Euro Mediterranean level, and hence does not address the main context factors of cultural development: freedom as a context requirement for culture, education as the main enhancing factor, language as a vehicle for communication in any cultural exchange (this often has a lot to do with the cultural actions of the regions), and mobility as a multiplier of culture. This is necessarily only a preliminary and very general approximation to the subject.

The Network of Historic Urban Centres of Islamic Influence Project The documentary analysis carried out on the “Network of Historic Urban Centres of Islamic Influence” project was clearly relevant and well designed and, after some initial difficulties, was implemented as planned, but its potential as a lever for territorial development and integration between the regions involved in Spain, Portugal, and Morocco, was not fully exploited. This was due mainly to three factors: a) insufficient integration of the project with other territorial development projects in the same regions; b) insufficient investment in the project’s dissemination and outreach to the populations involved; and c) a failure to follow-up. The “Creation of a project bank for interregional cooperation in the field of territorial planning and cultural heritage” which was mentioned in the original project plan (a workshop on this issue was scheduled) was never completed, and this probably prevented the lessons and experiences turned up by the project being used in other contexts by the partners involved or by other regions. This conclusion might be relevant for other similar projects of international cultural cooperation between regions (note that the other two projects described by partners of the MEDGOVERNANCE, “Mercator” and “Memory of the Alps”, are very similar in nature).

Main conclusions The documentary and case-study analysis conducted to prepare this report has led to the following main general conclusions (see a more developed version in Section 3): 1) Regions in the Mediterranean have a long tradition and a rich experience of action in the field of culture. However, despite their sizeable resources, administrative capacity, and political competences in the field of culture, their participation in formulating cultural policy and strategy at the EU level is very limited. 2) Regions in the Mediterranean focus their actions on events and activities. This is detrimental to their natural role as planning and strategic formulation bodies within their territories. In turn, this focus on activities is detrimental to the contribution of culture to territorial development.

Institut de la Méditerranée 57 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

3) Most Mediterranean regions do not have cultural strategies for their own territories. But regions cannot claim participation in the cultural agenda setting and policy formulation at the State, EU, or Euro-Mediterranean level if they, in turn, do not consult and involve sub- regional actors. 4) In the field of international cultural cooperation, the heterogeneity of competences and systems of regional governance in the Mediterranean is a serious obstacle to cultural cooperation between regional governments across the Mediterranean. But it may be an asset, too. It could contribute to the strengthening of regional authorities in those countries where they are less autonomous. 5) In any case, there is a huge inventory of projects and experiences to draw on, and a critical mass of regions with an extensive experience of international cultural cooperation. There is a long tradition of cultural cooperation between European regions, and the lessons learned could be usefully transferred to North-South Mediterranean cultural cooperation. 6) Nevertheless, the evidence shows that transnational projects are often not subject to any serious evaluation or impact assessment, and lessons are not drawn from the evaluations carried out. This means that a lot of good practices are lost. 7) In particular, within the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership framework, regions have not until recently played an effective role in Euro-Mediterranean cultural policy-making. 8) On the operational front, the Cross-Border Cooperation component of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument introduced in 2007, included an innovative and sizeable Mediterranean Basin Programme (one of the four priorities of which is culture, and a management methodology based on EU regional policy structural funds). But this risks failing because of political interference. Failure could have very negative consequences for the prospects of participation for the regions in policy and strategy making in the Euro- Mediterranean framework in all fields, including culture. 9) So far, networks of regional authorities have, for the most part, a generalist nature, with weak technical and lobbying capacities, and they focus on declaratory activities or on attracting and managing funds from States or international organizations. In order to be effective, these networks should be thematic and specialized.

Strategic Recommendations On the basis of these conclusions, the following preliminary recommendations for action might be formulated (see a more developed version in Section 3): 1) Mediterranean regions should invest in improving their own comprehensive territorial cultural strategies, and should not limit themselves to managing cultural activities. To formulate these strategies, they should consult sub-regional government and civil society actors in their territories, if they want to have a legitimate claim to their right to participate in EU and Euro-Mediterranean cultural policy-making. 2) Inter-regional international cooperation projects should try to involve territorial bodies of the same level as leading partners. When this is not possible, regional bodies should be associated with the projects so that the implementation of the projects at least contributes to their capacity building. 3) Culture should be mainstreamed into general territorial development strategies at all levels and, as this is increasingly a consensus position, regions should be mainstreamed into the cultural policy formulation process. It would, to this end, be useful to create a Network of Mediterranean Regions for Culture, bringing together regions from throughout the Mediterranean region and specifically focused on cultural and cultural cooperation issues. A limited but specialized and dedicated technical secretariat should be created in this framework.

Institut de la Méditerranée 58 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

4) Following the same rationale, a commission on cultural cooperation and intercultural dialogue should be created within the newly established Euro-Mediterranean Local and Regional Assembly (ARLEM). 5) Both instances should address the issue of how to associate regional authorities with the on- going formulation of a Euro-Mediterranean Cultural Strategy (the Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Meeting on Culture scheduled for the first semester of 2010 would be the right moment to bring up this involvement, and networks of Euro-Mediterranean regions should submit their claims and ideas to the Conference) and to the activities of the Anna Lindh Foundation for Dialogue between Cultures. 6) The success of the Cross-Border Cooperation Programme of the ENPI, and in particular of the Mediterranean Basin Programme, has strategic importance for the prospects of increasing the participation of the regions in Mediterranean policy-making in all fields, including culture. The credibility of the regions as fully-fledged partners in Euro- Mediterranean cooperation is at stake. So a top priority of all existing networks and regional authorities from the North and the South of the Mediterranean should be to solve current obstacles to success. 7) In line with the rationale of the European Neighbourhood Policy, EU programmes and agencies in the field of culture should invite participation of Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries. 8) International cooperation projects in the Mediterranean should invest more resources in a more systematic way in the dissemination of outcomes and results among the general public and in reaching out to civil society, with budget resources for this; integrating best practices and experiences from similar past projects into the project plan. 9) A systematic catalogue of international cultural cooperation projects in the Mediterranean (by similar categories of projects) and a synthetic brief of good and bad practices derived from them are necessary to ensure the valorisation of the rich experience regional authorities have accumulated in the field of international cultural cooperation (very often in projects with similar characteristics). 10) In the Mediterranean, specific strategies for cultural cooperation should be developed as standard “cooperation themes” (such as cultural heritage, youth or artists exchanges, cultural tourism…) as a guide and a framework for future action.

Institut de la Méditerranée 59 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

Annex 6 – Stakeholders interviewed in the case-studies analysis

Transport 1- Marc Vanderhaegen, DG TREN 2- Nadine Sulzer, French Ministry of Ecology 3- Jean-François Leydet, Regional direction for transport and ecology 4 - Philippe Mangeard, Cercle Européen de l’Optimodalité 5- Jean Marie Millour, Bureau de Promotion du shortsea shipping 6- François Michel Lambert, Jonction 7- Patrick Anvroin, CPMR, 8- Ricardo Roscelli, SITI (Turin) 9- Henry Roux Alezais, CMA CGM 10- Hervé de Tarade, CMA-CGM 11- Ariodente Valeri, GNV 12- Santiago Orduna, Euroferrys 13- Jose Luis Becerra Dominguez, FRS Iberica 14- Juan Trigo, Comarit Espana 15- Andrés Orellana, Comarit Espana 16- Loic Bezombes, GPMM, 17- Luigi Barone, Port of Genoa, 18- Angel Pulido Hernandez, Port of Seville 19- José Domingo Gil, Port of Algeciras, 20- Ana Arévalo, Port of Barcelona 21- Christelle Caso, PACA region 22- Pierre Lemery Peissik, PACA region 23- Riccardo Mollo, Liguria Region

Culture 24- Rosario Escobar Romero, Secretary of Research and Communication on Historical Heritage for the Department of Cultural Heritage) Historical Centres Network of Islamic Influence – coordinator of the project in Andalusia 25- Hafid Zouaki Historical Centres Network of Islamic Influence. Coordinator of the project in Morocco 26- Mayor of Almonaster la Real (Huelva). 27- Mayor of Olvera (Cadiz) 28- Director of the Faro Interpretation Centre (Algarve) 29- Director of the Silves Interpretation Centre (Algarve) 30- Thierry Arlandis, Direction for Culture and Heritage of the PACA regional council

Institut de la Méditerranée 60 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

31- Sylvaine Pontal, in charge of theatre and street arts at the Direction for Culture and Heritage at the PACA regional council established in Marseilles

Migration 32- Israel Adán Castilla, Directorate General for Coordination of Migration. Junta of Andalusia 33- Alberto Bitoden Yaka, CEPAIM Seville – Seville “Acoge” Foundation 34- José Domingo Gil, Port Authority of Bahía de Algeciras 35- Francisco Bellido, Migration Coordination Manager for the Chambers’ High Council 36- Cristina García, Peace Movement – MPDL 37- Piedad Pérez Arcos, UGT Trade Union 38- Rocío Palacios, Directorate General for Coordination of Migration, Junta of Andalusia. 39- Muriel Nabeth, Co-ordinator of REMI (Marseilles) 40- Enrica Gay, CNA (Turin) 41- Giorgio Garelli, Piedmont Region 42- Carla Martoglio, Piedmont Region 43- Marzia Sica, Area Operativa Politiche Socio, Compagnia di San Paolo

Environment 44- Elena Santini, Latium Region Enviroment directorate, Nature conservation area 45- Jacopo Sinibaldi, Biodiversity expert, Lazio Regional Agency for Parks (ARP) 46- Giovanni Ferrara Mirenzi, Responsible, Lazio Region, Civil protection directorate 47- Patrizia de Meis, Latium region, Civil protection directorate 48- Angela Farina, Regional Forestry Corps 49- Eugenio Dupre, Italian Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation service 50- Lorenza Colletti, Senior Forestry Officer. Corpo Forestale dello Stato, Divisione 5 51- Fabrizio Bulgarini, WWF – Italy, Responsible for biodiversity protection 52- Fotios Papoulias, Principal Administrator, Nature and Biodiversity – European Commission, Environment Directorate General 53- Thomas de Lannoy, Policy Officer, Civil Protection Unit – European Commission – Directorate General for Environment 543- Michal Bucki, Administrator, Agricolture, Forests, Soil – European Commission, Environment Directorate General 55- Mariam Sanchez Guisandez, Policy Officer, Nature and Bio-diversity – European Commission, Environment Directorate General 56- Pieter Van Lierop Forest Resources Development Forestry Department FAO 57- Denise Axfantidis, Association des Forêts Méditerranéennes 58- Valérie Martinez, PACA regional council, environment direction, natural areas unit 59- Céline Hayot, PACA regional council, environment direction, natural areas unit 60- Laure Moreau, Authority for the Development of the Durance Valley (SMAVD)

Institut de la Méditerranée 61 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

61- Piergiorgio Terzuolo, IPLA - Istituto per le piante da legno e l'ambiente 62- Marina Cerra, Piedmont Region – Environment Directorate – Planning and management of Natural Protected areas 63- Federico Pelfini, Piedmont Region, Forestry policies directorate 64- Cristina Ricaldone, Piedmont Region, Civil protection and forest fire fighting system (AIB) 65- Rosario Pintos Martín, Sierra Norte Natural Park 66- Maria Pérez, Sierra Norte Natural Park 67- Juan J. Negro, Researcher Doñana Biological Station 68- Javier Cobos, Head of the Coordination and Management Service for RENPA 69- Dolores Ayllón, Director of the Regional Operational Centre for the Plan INFOCA 70- Juan Cuesta, NGO Ecologistas en Acción.

Institut de la Méditerranée 62 MEDGOVERNANCE/MEDREPORT

Annex 7 – Pillars, priority areas and projects identified within the Baltic Strategy There is no standard definition for “macro-region”: the term has been used to describe both globally significant groups of nations (the EU, ASEAN etc.) and groupings of administrative regions within a country (e.g. Australia, Romania). The definition applied here, developed during the preparation of the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region will be “an area including territory from a number of different countries or regions associated with one or more common features or challenges.” This carries no implication of scale: however, in an EU context a macro-region will necessarily involve several regions in several countries, though the number of Member States should be significantly fewer than in the Union as a whole. Note that while the macro-region will maintain a consistency thanks to common features or challenges, it is not essential that the limits of the region be precisely defined. Following the principles of place-based policy in functional regions, the physical boundaries may vary according to the relevance of the policy area in question. Indeed functional regions may well overlap, so that a given location is in more than one region.

4 pillars and 15 priority areas Coordination Nb of actions I. To make the Baltic Sea an environmentally sustainable place 1. to reduce nutrient inputs in the sea to acceptable levels Poland/Finland 5 2. to preserve natural zones and biodiversity, including fisheries Germany 2 3. to reduce the use and impact of hazardous substances Sweden 3 4. to become a model region for clean shipping Denmark 2 5. to mitigate and adapt to climate change Denmark 3 II. To make the Baltic Sea region a prosperous place 1. to remove hindrances to the internal market in the Baltic Sea Estonia 6 2. to exploit the full potential of the region in research and innovation Sweden/Poland 2 3. Implementing the Small Business Act: to promote Denmark 9 entrepreneurship, strengthen SMEs and increase the efficient use of human resources 4. to reinforce the sustainability of agriculture, forestry and fisheries Finland 7 III. To make the Baltic Sea region an accessible and attractive place 1. to improve access to, and the efficiency and security of energy Latvia/Denmark 3 markets 2. to improve internal and external transport links Lithuania/Sweden 5 3. to maintain and reinforce the attractiveness of the Baltic Sea region Tourism: Germany 10 in particular through education, tourism and health Health: Northern Dimension Education: Germany IV. To make the Baltic Sea region a safe and secure place 1. to become a leading region in maritime safety Finland/Denmark 4 2. to reinforce protection from major emergencies at sea and on land Denmark 2 3. to decrease the volume of, and the harm done by, cross-border Finland 3 crime Horizontal actions European 10 Commission

Institut de la Méditerranée 63