MEDGOVERNANCE PROJECT ACTIVITY 3-1: ANALYSIS OF EURO-MEDITERRANEAN GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK MEDITERRANEAN GOVERNANCE REPORT

Transcription

1 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

2 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

3 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

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background: the MEDGOVERNANCE project The MEDGOVERNANCE project was implemented in the framework of the MED interregional cooperation programme, gathering together 6 regions (Andalusia 1, Catalonia 2, 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 policymaking 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 2 Autonomous Government of Andalusia or Junta de Andalucía. Generalitat of Catalonia or Generalitat de Catalunya. Institut de la Méditerranée 4

5 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 subnational 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 decisionmakers 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

6 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

7 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 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 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 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

8 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 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

9 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

10 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

11 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 (Andalusia 3, Catalonia 4, 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 policymaking 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 multilevel 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 4 Autonomous Government of Andalusia or Junta de Andalucía. Generalitat of Catalonia or Generalitat de Catalunya. Institut de la Méditerranée 11

12 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 priority 6, 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 casestudy 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

13 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-studies 7 - 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

14 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 programmes 8. 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

15 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 decisionmaking 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 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

16 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 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

17 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 mandatory 10. 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

18 The progressive recognition of regions in Mediterranean policies The Euro-Mediterranean partnership is first of all an intergovernmental framework, resting on interstate 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 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: Institut de la Méditerranée 18

19 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 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 21 st January 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. Therefore: Extract from the conclusions of the ARLEM inaugural meeting 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 copresidents; 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

20 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 ). They have a total budget of 1.13 billion for 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 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 decisionmaking 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 ( ). The democratic parties did not have a clear-cut model though for a particular type of decentralized State. Institut de la Méditerranée 20