The context of transnational cooperation dynamics in the Euro-Mediterranean space

The need for a post-regional approach

1When framing the context of territorial collaboration in the Euro-mediterranean space to which this article refers, it’s essential to bear in mind the geographical perspective. The macro-regional collaboration in question (bring together regions from European Member States and neighbour Mediterranean countries confronted with a common set of challenges) includes all the coastal territories (states, regions, cities) of the Mediterranean basin, both in the north and in the south and east (Fig. 1). When reference is made to the set of Euro-Mediterranean policies, these include all EU countries and their partners in the south and east of the basin (Fig. 2). Therefore, it must be considered that the Mediterranean macro-regional collaboration is inserted in the wider context of EU policies and instruments, whether in relation to the cohesion policies that affect the south of Europe or cooperation (governmental or decentralized) with the associated countries of the south and east of the Mediterranean.

Source Fig. 2: Union for the Mediterranean (https://ufmsecretariat.org/​wp-content/​uploads/​2018/​03/​map-3000x3000-november2022-01.jpg)

2In this Euro-Mediterranean space of relations, an increasing number of complexes, globally reaching issues are impacting societies on both sides. The climate crisis, energy efficiency, water scarcity, youth unemployment, humanitarian crises, and migration management have become the responsibility of regional administrations and are integrated to urban policies. These issues transcend administrative borders, necessitating collaboration from European, national, or subnational structures that, on their own, prove insufficient. Despite having overarched global frameworks such as the agenda 2030 as sources of inspiration for innovative governance, current instruments still adhere to rigid logics. Euro-Mediterranean relations are predominantly led at the intergovernmental level (Fig. 2), while territorial mechanisms primarily operate with a logic of European integration and territorial cohesion. Thus, it can be asserted that European and Mediterranean territorial administrations currently lack transnational mechanisms to actively contribute to resolving common global issues directly impacting their policies. In this context, the relation of Europe with its southern neighbours have been largely determined by the situations of unequal economic development, non-democratic political systems and high level of conflictive situations. These circumstances have led to the prevalence of government policies, with little presence of sub-state actors, making closer integration within the framework of a macro-regional cooperation a particularly challenging proposition (European Parliament, 2021).

3In this intergovernmental context, there has been a way since 1990s that has allowed non-state actors to activate transnational collaborations: the progressive establishment of networking relations between non-state actors. We can agree that at present the space is dynamically interlinked through networks, establishing relationships, creating connected environments for undertaking projects, enhancing economic attraction, and opening to other territories.

4In this context, the Euro-Mediterranean space of relations has evolved into an intricate network of actors. This interregional ecosystem poses a challenge for an external observer to fully comprehend. Without claiming to be exhaustive, the research conducted (Aubarell, 2023), which forms the basis of this article, identifies on one hand, some of the main representative existing networks and platforms (beneficiaries of the territorial cooperation), and on the other the programs and institutions that facilitate this cooperation (collaborative frameworks) (Fig. 3).

5These networks establish relationships rather than structures that are not necessarily cross-border (Varnier, 2005). We can agree that these dynamics correspond to the concept of “localization”, included in the framework of the 2030 Agenda (Noferini, 2022), and which refers to the territorial and local actor’s involvement throughout the entire process of cooperation (Local and regional governments, Global Taskforce, 2019). Various European instruments have progressively facilitated the inclusion of regional and local actors, jointly with states, and the concept known as “multilevel governance” refers to it. In the concrete Euro-Mediterranean cooperation with the southern Mediterranean countries, the European Commission (EC) itself promotes this multilevel governance. But as predominantly technocratic instruments, they do not fully explore the potential strategic and innovative value of transnational cooperation with non-state actors. Hence, the interest in the need for a governance system that goes beyond the current administrative and vertical multilevel decentralization (state, region and local).

6Finally, the analysis tools that prevail in territorial studies are aimed at the rigidity of administrative and decision-making limits in territorial studies (Giménez-Capdevila, 2022) suffering of the limitations of the traditional place-based analyzes (Celata and Coletti, 2014). This is the main reason for the interest in neo-regionalism and the post-regional territorial approach that can be useful to study the existing cooperative alliances. Perrin (2022) refers to “cooperation” in a context of “complexity” and uses the concept of “coopetition” to define it. The research that gives rise to this article and its proposed model on cooperative governance precisely stems from this suggestive idea.

New governance models for evolving collaborative relationships

7The concept of governance lacks a universal definition, and various definitions have been proposed in the literature, all revolving around the inclusion of a plurality of public and private actors in public decisions (Rota, 2022). Here, we refer to territorial governance, an increasingly used term in political and academic debates to emphasize the importance of territory in decision-making processes. Territorial governance not only is useful to analyze the place-based orientation mentioned earlier but also is useful to manage new changing territorial spaces created by transnational cooperation: the “soft spaces” (ESPON 2013).

8The multilevel governance concept was the first governance approach with a territorial dimension introduced in Europe during the 1980s, driven by the need to incorporate a third regional level alongside member states and EU institutions. Progressively, this multi-level orientation has required the integration of the expectations of the different actors involved (Hooghe and Marks, 2020). On the other hand, cohesion policy will guide this governance within the framework of functional or natural spaces that go beyond administrative boundaries (Böhme et al., 2015). A new dimension emerges that conceptualizes governance as a process of creating spaces and territories: new soft spaces, defined as the spaces build upon relations between territorial actors with diffuse boundaries (transnational and cross-border). These territorial and policy constructs play an increasingly pivotal role in the formulation of contemporary EU transnational programs. These are spaces in constant evolution, characterized by a high level of multilevel interactions among involved actors who seek to provide solutions to the growing number of issues and problems that must be addressed from scales beyond traditional administrative ones. In these forms of governance, complex relationships and networks will be included, encompassing not only governmental units but also non-governmental actors based on inclusive multilevel cooperation, vital for achieving challenges such as the Sustainable Development Goals.

9To characterize all these ongoing institutional processes, which are indeed innovative, the term “experimentalist governance” is employed. This term has been adopted in the literature because it is suitable in transnational frameworks where objectives are less regulated and can be reviewed by comparing alternative approaches, thus advancing in different contexts (Sabel et al., 2012). The European Commission (EC) has started experimenting with new forms of territorial governance: macroregional strategies. This aligns relatively well with the new narrative derived from the Agenda 2030 that call for experimental and innovative governance models with an emphasis on territory and territorial differentiation (Noferini, 2022). At present, the EC emphasizes the added value of this model of multilevel and inter-sectoral cooperation (European Commission, 2022).

10In these soft spaces, different scales and levels of decision-making intersect, necessitating interterritorial cooperative procedures (Perrin, 2022). However, this governance model runs the risk of being highly technocratic and distant from representative bodies. For this reason, the interest in integrating the collaborative dimension, involving public actors and non-governmental organizations at any stage of the policymaking process to negotiate interests and preferences on policies. This raises questions of interdependencies and coordination between different levels of governance (horizontal and vertical), between public and private actors, institutions, and organizations, including, on a participatory basis, various levels of government and multiple stakeholders (Noferini, 2022). The objectives of this new governance approach are included in the new generation of European transnational programs (European Commission, 2022).

11And it is here where the concept of “cooperative governance” arises, referring to multilevel agreements among different parts of a region under construction. Faced with the limited effectiveness of territorial division, spaces where collaboration occurs are outlined based on common problems that necessitate articulating and combining different interests in shared policies and objectives. This involves numerous actors and a highly diversified decision-making process.

12Various collaborative characteristics have been extensively studied (Agranoff, 2020). Here, we are interested in differentiating between collaboration that occurs when there is joint planning and management based on the competencies and resources that each party contributes, and cooperation, which refers to a clearly identified common goal. In this case, there is no hierarchy among those collaborating, and it is done through formal or informal mechanisms agreed upon or the establishment of alliances (Calina, 2023).

Emerging players in the Mediterranean territorial cooperation

13The new governance mechanisms that will be outlined based on the Lisbon Treaty for European territorial cohesion in 2007 and the Europe 2020 Strategy (Borràs and Radaelli, 2011) will progressively enable the development of territorial cooperation with innovative spatial forms on a transnational and cross-border scale (Dühr, 2011). The concept of cross-border and transnational cooperation emerged in the 1990s with the European Union’s transnational territorial cooperation programs INTERREG (European Commission, 2023). Even with programs like INTERREG Euromed and ENI CBC Med (currently NEXT Med), there will be a response to the need to consider external actors from the EU, specifically those in its Mediterranean neighbourhood (Martín, 2005). These programs have been, until today, the main reference for the deployment of territorial cooperation by the European Commission and shape the collaborative framework in research on European and Mediterranean cooperative governance.

14Moreover, over the past twenty years, European construction will articulate new regional forms of cross-border and transnational cooperation, one of them being the Euroregion Pyrenees Mediterranean (EPM), which includes Catalonia, Occitania and the Balearic Islands. This is one of the current 150 Euroregions, and it has specific regulation as a European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC). Euroregions have been central, for example, in the exchange of best practices and shared solutions among local and regional authorities belonging to different institutional environments (Durà et al., 2018).

15Simultaneously, a spatial interpretation of the European Union is fostered with new references, including the Mediterranean. This European meta geography creates new territorial representations of the European space that will require new mechanisms for transnational interregional planning (Baudelle, 2005). As a result, in the early 1992, the European Commission (EC) outlined different development poles (Atlantic, central, peripheral). For the first time, the idea of a competitive and dynamic Mediterranean arc in southern Europe emerges as a Mediterranean lobby for the EC (Aubarell, 1999).

16In this context of “European meta geographical constructions", along with the INTERREG programs and EGTCs, macroregional strategies emerge. These innovative strategies are a process aimed at building functional and transnational spaces between different levels of governance of EU member states that share enough common issues (Gänzle and Jörg, 2018). The first macro-regions are initiated around the Baltic Sea, and shortly after in the Danube, the Adriatic-Ionian space, and the Alpine space, but it is still a project for the Mediterranean.

17While INTERREG, as an objective of cohesion policy, and EGTCs as a legal instrument, have become institutionalized, macro-regions are bringing about a progressive renewal of the innovative capacity of European bodies to build cooperation. Endorsed by the European Council and actively promoted by the EC, macro-regions represent a framework for intergovernmental policies for cooperation to address common challenges in a geographic area defined by EU member states and third countries. From the European Parliament (EP), there has been a commitment from the outset for these transnational or macro-regions to be tools for European integration and to address issues of special interest (European Parliament, 2012). We can characterize them as laboratories for European territorial cooperation (Boulineau, 2017), and there is a growing body of studies that position the processes of macro-regionalization in the European Union as an excellent opportunity for the territorial research agenda. This allows for reflection on the nexus between the political and spatial dimensions of recent developments in EU governance (Gänzle and Jörg, 2018). Originally framed around the narrative of “the three no” (no new European legislation, no new European institution, and no new European budget), at the core of the strategies is the idea of fostering synergies and complementarities between existing initiatives, programs, and governance structures.

18As for the Mediterranean Macro-region (MM), coinciding with the emergence of European macro-regions, since the 2010s, EU institutions and various public actors have speculated on how to apply an integrated macroregional approach to the Mediterranean. However, it will be sub-state actors through networks that will foster this approach. The first initiative took place within the framework of the ARLEM with the 2014 report driven by the CRPM network on a cohesion policy for the Mediterranean (CRPM-CIM, 2014). This initiative has been relaunched under the impetus of the current MCA platform and from the Committee of the Regions (CoR) with the approval of an Opinion on the Mediterranean Macro-region in 2022 (European Parliament, 2022). The debate on the potential creation of a macro-region is strongly revived by the European Parliament (EP), as seen in its report on macro-regional strategies in the Mediterranean (European Parliament, 2021), and more recently, with a more specific focus on the impact of climate change (European Parliament, 2023).

19The establishment of relations between the EU and Mediterranean countries will facilitate a conducive context for synergies among Mediterranean networks and platforms (European Institute of the Mediterranean, 2022). With the creation of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership in 1995 and later with the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) Secretariat, the intergovernmental component was strengthened, and the territorial dimension was not a priority. In the early 2010s, this perspective began to be addressed with the establishment of the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM), coinciding with the reformulation of European neighbourhood policies and the growing sensitivity of the UfM to local policies, particularly with the approval of an urban strategy in 2017 (Barba, 2020).

20It is within this framework of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation that the Mediterranean Cooperation Alliance (MCA) emerges in 2020, bringing together four Mediterranean networks (Euroregion Pyrenees Mediterranean (EPM), Adriatic-Ionian Euroregion, Medcities (MC), and the Inter-Mediterranean Commission of the Peripheral and Maritime Regions Committee (CRPM-CIM)). Driven by local and regional authorities (LRA) with a solid experience in implementing territorial cooperation and development programs in the Mediterranean, this is an embryonic space for transnational coordination within existing frameworks and a macroregional perspective (Noferini, 2022). At this initial stage, there is consensus in believing that leveraging collaborative platforms and regional institutions already operating in the Mediterranean can be an effective tactic. Networks propelled by LRAs and platforms like the MCA would enhance strategic coordination with existing transnational programs, such as INTERREG (Noferini, 2022).

The cooperation governance model in the Mediterranean: a proposal

21The proposal of cooperation governance model presented in this article is a result of a research (Aubarell, 2023) that had three main phases. The first was to identify the actors: such as the networks and platforms, and the collaborative frameworks (Fig. 3). Secondly, the key characteristics defining the collaborative dynamics were identified according to the analyses of the current literature (Fig. 4). After, these were the bases for the elaboration of a comparative analyses matrix with the main projects from each of the territorial actors These results were discussed with a group of experts who defined the characteristics of the cooperative governance model. In the third phase, a comparative qualitative analysis was conducted, leading to the definition of the model which was finally applied to the Mediterranean macro-region on going model. Thus, the study reached conclusions on the shortcomings and potentialities of the macro-regional strategy by applying a proposed new cooperative governance analysis model.

What elements define cooperative territorial alliances?

22From the standpoint of the collaborative dynamics and the various factors influencing the reality of Euro-Mediterranean relations, from the territorial literature research some main characteristics have been identified (Aubarell, 2023): the need for common federative elements (political impetus), the importance of distinguishing technical collaborations from strategic ones (technical dimension), social legitimacy (participation), and finally, the value for the Euromed cooperation agenda (operational). These have been resumed in four dimensions that will shape the definition of cooperation within a governance model.

23As a result of a detailed comparative analysis of these dimensions (Fig. 4) within the alliances promoted by the various analyzed actors (Fig. 3), the research undertaken provided a series of elements that define collaborative relationships in the region.

24Cooperation and collaboration are incorporated interchangeably into the alliances. The alliances promoted by these actors identify collaborative characteristics (with practical goals, common means, and individual responsibilities) and those representing cooperation (strategic, with common objectives and shared responsibilities).

25The objectives of alliances can be functional and/or strategic. Collaboration is only required when there is a need to achieve objectives that these actors cannot individually attain. This can be driven by the actors themselves (bottom-up) or externally promoted. These incentives can be functional or strategic, but the added value of cooperating always responds to the goal of impact and, therefore, requires political will.

26Cooperative processes are influenced by factors of internal governance, administrative culture, and political opportunity. In the alliances there are different levels of government involved, and for this reason the territorial application includes the administrative and competency culture of subnational actors as well as the Euro-Mediterranean or state agenda. In terms of purpose, cooperation is more oriented to identify solutions than the problem resolution.

27The promotion of knowledge is increasingly relevant in cooperative relations. Alliances may aim to generate knowledge transfer, act as idea laboratories, and even generate innovative processes. And this knowledge-oriented component distinguishes collaborative alliances from mere coordination.

28The multilevel dimension incorporates soft management structures. Structures facilitating cooperative governance can be formal, always incorporating the multilevel dimension, which can be horizontal or vertical. Similarly, structures oriented towards collaboration will involve aspects of planning and management. When directed towards more strategic purposes, they will incentivize fewer formal processes, oriented towards complex integration, and have soft mechanisms.

29The Euro-Mediterranean participatory model is necessarily equitable. The active involvement of actors in the Euro-Mediterranean regional context requires the evolution of mechanisms beyond traditional advisory/informative schemes, favouring co-creation and the active integration of territorial actors. The Euro-Mediterranean component further requires facilitating the integration of partners from the south and east of the Mediterranean.

30Cooperative relations incorporate an inclusive and sustainable approach. The primary purpose of cooperation in this context is to find transnational solutions for sustainable management in the Mediterranean and its cohesion. Hence, the added value of cooperative governance is that issues identified by the Euro-Mediterranean agenda can be presented in an interdisciplinary manner to promote thematic synergies.

31The analysis of actors in the cooperative model is necessarily dynamic. The nature of this governance process involves an interest in identifying the driving characteristics of cooperation. Considering external actors (promoters); supranational, national, and subnational, and emerging actors like knowledge networks. Likewise, two potential actors driving cooperation have been identified: the MCA, as a collaboration platform for networks, and a collaboration framework currently in the process of definition, the MM.

The cooperative governance model: key characteristics

32The characteristics of the cooperative governance model presented below (Fig. 6) are the result of the research and exhaustive analysis conducted during the exploration of the analised actor alliances (Fig. 3) and based on the elements of cooperation defined in each one of the four dimensions identified (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5).

Specific application of the governance model

33Once the structure and characteristics of the governance cooperative model have been determined, they have been applied to the collaborative alliances of two particularly dynamic territorial actors, in the case of the MCA and the collaborative context MM. The MM bellowing to the UE territorial structures and still being work on since 2014, while the MCA appears in 2020 as a territorial network of networks acting as a lobby to promote the cooperation in the Mediterranean space. The results of this research, aimed at identifying the governance model, will be valuable for highlighting the importance of both structures by emphasizing their different characteristics in terms of collaboration and potential complementarities in the future. In this analysis, the following results can be highlighted:

34The MCA and the MM are two collaborative alliances that present a clearly cooperative (strategic) political dimension, although with actors with different interests and priorities. While the MCA is defined as an alliance with predominantly strategic intent, the MM integrates collaborative functional elements in its principles, ultimately being a laboratory of cooperative governance due to its transnational and federating nature.

35The MCA features soft mechanisms that promote flexibility but lacks an internal governance structure, with many members having different interests, limited coordination among different levels of government, and political impetus identified with the LRAs, resulting in limited effectiveness in establishing a clear coordination structure. On the other hand, the definition of the MM provides a clear governance structure proposal, possibly with horizontal coordination ensuring effective participation of multilevel structures, including LRAs, being one of its main challenges.

36Clearly, the deficiency in both collaborative platforms is the absence of civil society incorporation in their co-governance processes. This marks a significant legitimacy deficit for two collaborative strategies with a clear intention to impact territorial and social transformation closer to society. The MCA exhibits underrepresentation from the southern Mediterranean, while the MM envisions equitable representation in the governance bodies of the EU and southern and eastern Mediterranean countries. However, both initiatives are led by Europe in their territorial governance context.

37Both alliances promote a sustainable and inclusive approach, and their context is that of the Euro-Mediterranean agenda. This agenda covers a wide range of thematic areas, making focused action challenging. For the MM, the prioritization of climate change is considered a priority. On the other hand, the intersectoral approach lacks specificity in both initiatives.

Conclusions

38One of the most relevant conclusions of the research carried out is the confirmation of existence of a cooperative macroregional ecosystem in the Mediterranean: a soft space, dynamic comprehensive, and sharing a Euro-Mediterranean vision. Likewise, there is a clear willingness for transnational cooperation of the involved actors, contrasting with the still insufficient involvement of the federating institutional frameworks of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation. A primary difficulty of this ecosystem in establishing cooperative structures is the significant difference in actors, particularly in terms of having the appropriate competencies to activate transnational alliances, especially outside the European framework (political dimension).

39As seen in Fig. 7, this Cooperative Ecosystem has 4 different levels that are in constant interrelation. The two first come from the results of the first part of the research: the central importance of the existing Euromed vision within the institutional framework (UfM and ARLEM). These structures, being primarily intergovernmental and institutional, do not fully integrate the soft territorial dimension and still lacked of soft governance instruments. As a second step, the EU’s transnational programs (Interreg programs) are beginning to be incorporated into this Euromed system, serving as decentralized laboratories for action. These programs are playing a central role in the transnational cooperative framework for regional and local authorities, as well as civil society actors. In the two last circles there are the result of what has been analised in the comparative analyses of the research: MCA operates within this context as a cooperative platform aimed at fostering collaboration; and finally, this ecosystem can be enhanced through a MM strategy that encourages all these actors (institutions, programs, and alliances) to work together, benefiting from a potential collaborative governance model.

40The main “cooperative drivers” are political will and the establishment of strategic teams. The analysis of the behaviour of actors becomes crucial in understanding the impetus of platforms and networks. If they aim to play a role as a cooperative driver, actors identified as beneficiaries fundamentally require the political commitment of the LRAs that drive them, fostering open and horizontal collaborative environments, generating knowledge, and, beyond planning processes, establishing advocacy strategies. Collaboration frameworks deemed facilitators will only be cooperative drivers if they provide technical frameworks with a strategic role and promote processes of integration of collaborative platforms and beneficiary communities in the definition and implementation of their policies. Lastly, to promote synergies and effective cooperation, networks must have governance processes, and collaborative platforms must incorporate networks into their governance.

41Local and regional authorities are the main beneficiaries of the cooperative model’s application. The fact that networks and platforms, the main actors in Mediterranean territorial cooperation, are directly driven by local and regional authorities (LRAs) makes them the most strategic cooperative instrument currently. Those networks and platforms will facilitate the integration of LRA interests within the framework of horizontal governance structures and increase their incidence on issues of global interest with local implications (political dimension).

42Collaborative frameworks, despite their managerial component, play a key role as promoters of cooperative governance. One of the most relevant results of the applied analysis is that transnational governance must necessarily be promoted from the respective collaborative frameworks of each network or platform. The main identified difficulty is the current technical dimension of these collaborative frameworks. Vertical multi-level governance is applied, but there are a lack of flexible transnational coordination instruments and effective horizontal governance. This need for a transnational cooperative framework is the origin of the current proposal for the macroregional strategy (technical dimension).

43Equitable participation is far from being achieved, but beneficiary communities emerge as laboratories. Cooperative governance in the region can only have an impact on transnational issues if they respond to the priorities identified by actors from both the north and south of the Mediterranean. However, there is a clear deficit of north-south equity and civil society involvement. Paradoxically, beneficiary communities promoted by transnational governance programs are the most representative, as are north-south projects. Therefore, INTERREG transnational programs act as true laboratories for cooperative governance. While the integration of civil society requires strengthening an initial incipient consultative and informative stage (participatory dimension).