MED FOR YOUMED FOR YOU – Event minutes / Compte rendu de l’évènement Version 2.2 – 22 Jan...

Programme co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund

Programme cofinancé par le Fonds européen de développement régional

MED FOR YOU Unfolding a strong narrative for policy change Minutes / Compte-rendu

Athens / Athènes, 24 Oct 2019

MED FOR YOU – Event minutes / Compte rendu de l’évènement

Version 2.2 – 22 Jan 2020 page 2

Table of Contents / Table des matières

Glossary of Used Terms ....................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 8 Section 1. Key Take-aways ................................................................................................. 10

1.1.- A globally successful event .................................................................................................................. 10 1.2.- Highlighting two original traits of the Programme ............................................................................. 11 1.3.- And bringing “the MED added value” to the attention of local and EU policy .................................. 12 1.4.- But also pointing towards further architectural and institutional changes ........................................ 13 1.5.- With the ultimate goal of a more effective capitalisation .................................................................. 13

Section 2. Detailed Event Report ...................................................................................... 15 2.1.- Agenda ................................................................................................................................................. 15 2.2.- Plenary sessions ................................................................................................................................... 16

2.2.0.- Grand opening ............................................................................................................................... 16 2.2.1.- First plenary session – “What’s unique in the Interreg MED cooperation approach?” .............. 17 2.2.2.- Second plenary session – “Overcoming borders on land and sea. The cross-border cooperation experience” ............................................................................................................................................... 23 2.2.3.- Third plenary session – “What could be the sequel of the Interreg MED story?” ...................... 24

2.3.- Instant poll results ................................................................................................................................ 26 2.4.- Agora presentations and demonstrations ........................................................................................... 31

2.4.1.- ALTER ECO ..................................................................................................................................... 31 2.4.2.- ARISTOIL ......................................................................................................................................... 32 2.4.3.- CESBA MED .................................................................................................................................... 32 2.4.4.- CHEBEC .......................................................................................................................................... 33 2.4.5.- CHIMERA ........................................................................................................................................ 33 2.4.6.- COMPOSE ...................................................................................................................................... 34 2.4.7.- DESTIMED ...................................................................................................................................... 34 2.4.8.- GREENOMED ................................................................................................................................. 35 2.4.9.- iBLUE .............................................................................................................................................. 35 2.4.10.- IMPULSE ...................................................................................................................................... 36 2.4.11.- LOCAL4GREEN ............................................................................................................................. 36 2.4.12.- LOCATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 37 2.4.13.- MAESTRALE ................................................................................................................................. 37 2.4.14.- MD.net ......................................................................................................................................... 38



2.4.15.- MEDCYCLETOUR .......................................................................................................................... 38 2.4.16.- MOBILITAS ................................................................................................................................... 39 2.4.17.- MPA-ADAPT ................................................................................................................................. 39 2.4.18.- PEFMED ....................................................................................................................................... 40 2.4.19.- PEGASUS ...................................................................................................................................... 40 2.4.20.- PlasticBusters MPAs .................................................................................................................... 41 2.4.21.- RE-LIVEWASTE ............................................................................................................................. 41 2.4.22.- REMEDIO ..................................................................................................................................... 42 2.4.23.- STEPPING ..................................................................................................................................... 42 2.4.24.- TOURISMED ................................................................................................................................. 43

Section 3. Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................... 44

DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in this document (including any involuntary mistakes or omissions) are solely of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official standpoints of the Interreg MED Joint Secretariat or of any Member State or Regional government body or agency operating in the MED area.



Glossary of Used Terms

Architecture of the Programme

The peculiar structure of the Interreg MED 2014-2020 Programme, based on 3 distinct layers: the (integrated and modular) projects, now in the number of 95, clustered into 8 thematic communities, each of them supported by a horizontal project, and the Axis 4 - Governance strategic projects, now in the number of 4, along with the PanoraMED platform.

Capitalisation Organisation of information concerning the implementation of programmes, projects, their impacts, and the methods used in order to make the accumulated experience usable for other programmes, projects or stakeholder groups.

ETC European Territorial Cooperation (Interreg V edition), articulated in 3 distinct strands: Cross Border (Interreg V A), joining NUTS III regions from at least 2 neighbouring Member States; Transnational (Interreg V B), involving bigger regional areas from several countries of the EU to tackle common issues; and Interregional (Interreg V C), adopting a geographically “pan-European” approach.

H2020 Horizon 2020, the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation over the years 2014-2020.

Horizontal Project Unifying element of a Thematic Community of Programme projects. In charge of community building, joint communication and capitalisation of the relevant (integrated and modular) projects.

Integrated Project Programme project combining all the 3 modules (M1+M2+M3) with the ambition to create a direct impact on regional and national policies of the MED and European space, integrating all the types of activities foreseen in the single-module projects.

IPA Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, a funding mechanism of the European Union active since 2007 and now in its second edition. The countries funded by IPA II are Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, and Turkey.

Modular Project Programme project composed of one or several modules (see below).

Module Complete project cycle, with partnership, budget, objectives, outputs and expected results to be implemented in a defined period of time. There are three types of modules:

M1: Studying

M2: Testing

M3: Capitalising

PanoraMED The Programme’s governance platform managed by MED Regions and Member States in the framework of the Programme’s Axis 4, aiming to enhance Mediterranean governance. Its role is to bring valuable input from the results of MED projects to a more global mainstreaming level.



Programme Short for the Interreg MED 2014-2020 programme.

Programme Area Consisting of 57 regions from the North Mediterranean divided among 10 EU Member States and 3 countries from the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA).

Strategic Project Programme project run under Axis 4 - Governance and open only to public authorities or equivalent.

Thematic Community One of the 8 stakeholder communities established in the Programme Area in the thematic domains of Biodiversity Protection, Blue Growth, Energy Efficient Buildings, Green Growth, Renewable Energy, Social & Creative Innovation, Sustainable Tourism and Urban Transports.

Source: adapted with integrations from the MED Programme’s online glossary (https://interreg-med.eu/documents-tools/glossary/) and other policy documents.



Introduction

MED FOR YOU – UNFOLDING A STRONG NARRATIVE FOR POLICY CHANGE was organised by the

Interreg MED Joint Secretariat in collaboration with the National Contact Point of Greece on the

24th of October 2019, in Athens. The single-day event was attended by more than 320 project

leaders/partners and national/local stakeholders from all MED regions and countries (including

from the IPA space) and structured in three main parts: morning plenaries presenting the main

achievements of this programming period, an afternoon plenary reflecting on the post-2020

scenario, and a lunchtime “interlude” structured on a collection of exhibition-like booths where

a selection of MED-funded projects held presentations and demonstrations of their key results.

It is virtually impossible to give a proper account of the day’s “atmosphere”, starting with the

shared perception of a very well organised though complex event, where no detail was left to

chance; and still chance was kind enough to leave only a soft touch on the actual course of events.

Aspects that contributed to the success of the event include, among others: the innovative

adoption of a mobile app to promote the engagement of participants, allowing them to book the

sessions of preference and formulate questions – in real time – to the various presenters; the

very touching testimony of a Belgian follower of the “Greta Thunberg movement”, raising crucial

issues to decision makers on behalf of the younger generations; a photo exhibition and contest,

gathering real masterpieces from several MED project pilot locations; and an exquisite taste of

the Greek cuisine and hospitality during the breaks.

Although based on the day’s agenda, the following report is not intended as a faithful

reproduction of all the speeches and talks that took place during the event. For those interested

in a more extensive account of the exchanges, a live streaming video recording is available on

YouTube at this URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=23816&v=tB79Av6FpyE

This document rather has the ambitious goal of “distilling” the knowledge resulting from the

keynote speeches, panel exchanges and individual project presentations and building on that

knowledge, to appraise the status of the MED programme with particular reference to

capitalisation, the “leitmotif” of all sessions.

To that end, we have adopted the following structure: in the first section we present a collection

of key take-aways from the event as a whole, the second section then takes a closer look at the

evidence gathered during the day, and the third and final section lists key points for follow-up.



We also present (in Section 2) the results of an instant poll that was proposed to participants

using the mobile app provided, with the purpose of gaining insights on their views regarding the

capitalisation prospects of the projects they were involved in.

Despite its appearance as an official Programme document, it is important to note that this is not

an internally produced report, and that its authors, Jesse Marsh and Francesco Molinari, although

officially appointed to the task by the MED Joint Secretariat, have been left free to express their

expert opinions on the event’s structure and proceedings. As a result, all contents of these

minutes, including any errors in interpretation, must be considered as outcomes of autonomous

and discretionary reflections, not necessarily endorsed by the Programme Authorities or the

individual speakers mentioned herein.



Introduction MED POUR TOI – DEPLIER UNE NARRATION FORTE POUR LE CHANGEMENT DES POLITIQUES a été

organisé par le Secrétariat conjoint Interreg MED en collaboration avec le Point de Contact

National de Grèce le 24 octobre 2019 à Athènes. L’événement d’une journée a réuni plus de 320

chefs de projets / partenaires et parties prenantes nationales / locales de toutes les régions et

pays MED (y compris de l’espace IPA) et a été structuré en trois parties principales: des plénières

du matin présentant les principales réalisations de cette période de programmation, une plénière

dans l’après-midi consacrée à la réflexion sur le scénario de l’après-2020, et un «interlude»

pendant le déjeuner, structuré autour d’une collection de stands d’exposition, où une sélection

de projets financés par le MED a organisé des présentations et des démonstrations de leurs

principaux résultats.

Il est pratiquement impossible de rendre compte correctement de «l’atmosphère» de la journée,

à commencer par la perception partagée d’un événement très bien organisé mais complexe, où

aucun détail n’a été laissé au hasard, et le hasard a quand même eu la gentillesse de ne laisser

qu’un léger toucher sur le cours réel des événements.

Les aspects qui ont contribué au succès de l’événement incluent, entre autres: l’adoption

innovante d’une application mobile pour favoriser l’engagement des participants, leur

permettant de réserver les sessions de préférence et de formuler des questions – en temps réel

– aux différents présentateurs; le témoignage très émouvant d’un adepte belge du «mouvement

Greta Thunberg», soulevant des questions cruciales pour les décideurs actuels au nom des jeunes

générations ; une exposition de photos et un concours rassemblant de véritables chefs-d’œuvre

de plusieurs sites pilotes de projets MED ; et un goût exquis de la cuisine et de l’hospitalité

grecques pendant les pauses.

Bien qu’il soit basé sur l’ordre du jour de la journée, le rapport suivant n’est pas conçu comme

une reproduction fidèle de tous les discours et pourparlers qui ont eu lieu pendant l’événement.

Pour ceux intéressés par un compte rendu plus détaillé des échanges, un enregistrement vidéo

en streaming en direct est disponible sur YouTube à cette URL :

https ://www.youtube.com/watch ?time_continue=23816&v=tB79Av6FpyE

Ce document a plutôt pour objectif ambitieux de «distiller» les connaissances résultant des

discours liminaires, des échanges pendant les panels et des présentations de projets individuels

et de s’appuyer sur ces connaissances pour évaluer le statut du programme MED, en faisant



particulièrement référence particulière à la capitalisation, qui était le «leit motif» de toutes les

sessions.

À cette fin, nous avons adopté la structure suivante : dans la première section, nous présentons

une collection de points clés à retenir de l’événement dans son ensemble; la deuxième section

examine ensuite de plus près les preuves recueillies au cours de la journée; et la troisième et

dernière section énumère les points clés pour le suivi.

Nous présentons également (dans la section 2) les résultats d'un sondage instantané qui a été

proposé aux participants à l'aide de l'application mobile fournie, dans le but d'avoir un aperçu de

leurs vues concernant les perspectives de capitalisation des projets dans lesquels ils étaient

impliqués.

Malgré son apparence de document officiel du Programme, il est important de noter qu’il ne

s’agit pas d’un rapport produit en interne et que ses auteurs, Jesse Marsh et Francesco Molinari,

bien qu’officiellement nommés à la tâche par le Secrétariat conjoint MED, ont été laissés libres

d’exprimer leurs opinions d’experts sur la structure et les poursuites de l’événement. Par

conséquent, tout le contenu de ce procès-verbal, y compris toute erreur d’interprétation, doit

être considéré comme le résultat de réflexions autonomes et discrétionnaires, pas

nécessairement approuvées par les responsables du programme ou les intervenants individuels

mentionnés ici.



Section 1. Key Take-aways

In a nutshell, MED FOR YOU can be considered as a globally successful event, highlighting two

original traits of the Programme and bringing “the MED added value” to the attention of local and

EU policy, but also pointing towards further architectural and institutional changes, with the

ultimate goal of a more effective capitalisation.

The word cloud of this report reflects the technical nature of the discussions held during the day

and the core focus on how to achieve policy transfer of MED project results.

Figure 1 – Word cloud of this report

We now examine each of the key take-aways in more detail.

1.1.- A globally successful event

The objectives of the event organisation were threefold, and were achieved to a very great

extent:

a) Exchange and share the results of the Modular Projects belonging to each of the six MED

thematic communities. This was done in four main ways:



• 2 round tables held during the morning session, hosting representatives of the 8

Horizontal Projects, the PanoraMED Axis 4 initiative and thematic domain

experts. The topics selected for the round tables were “Climate Change” and

“Sustainable and Inclusive Growth”, respectively;

• 24 self-managed presentations of a subset of MED modular projects, run during

the (extended) lunch break, each with a dedicated audio channel, within 6

peculiar exhibition booths named “Agoras”;

• A photo exhibition arranged in the conference lobby, capturing the most salient

aspects of a sample of MED projects;

• Seamless networking opportunities offered to participants (during the event

breaks) and a final, structured exchange of views with the speakers (during the

concluding plenary), supported by the use of a dedicated mobile app.

b) Frame the post-Programme exploitation of results within the context of the 2021-2027

revision of programming instruments (including an analysis of scaling out potentials). This

was done through two round tables held before and after the lunch break, hosting the

representatives of Commission DGs and other European Territorial Cooperation (ETC)

programmes;

c) Make sound progress on the roadmap established by the February 2019 Capitalisation

Plan, launched in Thessaloniki on 7-8 March, with the goal of creating a “capitalisation

responsive environment” within the MED stakeholder community and thereby to “trigger

transfer, landmark and ultimately territorial appropriation/ownership” mechanisms of

the “jointly elaborated policy tools, measures or procedures”. Documenting such progress

is one of the goals of the last section of this report.

1.2.- Highlighting two original traits of the Programme

Irrespective of any evaluation of the quantity and quality of project results, two original traits of

the MED programme were clearly put in the foreground:

• Its unique, three layered, architecture, clustering the modular projects thematically and

then “assigning” each of them to a single horizontal project, while at the same time

promoting the interaction of Horizontal Projects with PanoraMED, the umbrella initiative

gathering virtually all Regions and Member States operating in the Programme area;

• Its evident orientation towards capitalisation, notably the successful conversion of the

Modular (and Horizontal) Project results into lessons learnt and evidence in support of

sustainable (Regional/National) policy transformation.



The first original trait distinguishes the MED programme from any other territorial cooperation

initiative, starting from those participating in the event sessions, and it is an open question (with

a positive answer according to the authors of this document) whether the future alignment of

other programmes in the MED area to this architecture would contribute to creating common

grounds of communication and interaction, particularly in shared thematic domains such as

“Renewable Energy”, “Green Growth”, “Biodiversity Protection” and the like.

The second original trait is more common to ETC initiatives in general, but convincingly declined

here, at least for the first part of the capitalisation game: in fact, as will be further documented

in the next section of this report, the project results presented and demonstrated in the “Agoras”

globally demonstrate a relatively high potential for capitalisation, i.e. scaling up and out to other

policy and territorial levels than those represented in the individual partnerships. However, it

remains vaguely argued, and for many aspects totally unexplored, the process through which

these results can actually become motors of new, “MED inspired” regional and national policies

in the various thematic domains addressed by the Programme. This is a challenge for the current

and forthcoming cycles of both PanoraMED and the Horizontal Projects, the latter having recently

been awarded the opportunity to continue their activities until the end of the programming

period.

1.3.- And bringing “the MED added value” to the attention of local and EU policy

A number of EC representatives stressed that the main added value of the Interreg MED

programme – and more generally of ETC – lies with its ability to capture the territorial dimension

by involving local communities and governments in targeted innovation projects. This “non-

declared objective” of improving relations between citizens and local authorities delivers a

diffused institutional capacity building that is objectively not available in H2020.

Having said that, it seems slightly paradoxical that most MED project leaders and partners – as

highlighted in a response to an instant poll launched through the event app during the day – are

experiencing difficulties in liaising with local decision makers to ensure that their achievements

have an impact on regional and national policy.

This may in part be an issue of knowledge aggregation and transfer, where the mediation of the

Programme’s Joint Secretariat and local ERDF Managing Authorities can possibly play a role,

supported by new and innovative resources such as the TALIA toolkit, available at

https://talia.enoll.org/, which brings project outputs from the Creative and Social Innovation

Community to the attention of local decision makers. There is also a need for regional community

building: see the example of the MED Sustainable Tourism Community that successfully organised



thematic policy workshops bringing together representatives of initiatives from different

programmes in the same region.

1.4.- But also pointing towards further architectural and institutional changes

While these concerns materialize and consolidate across the MED area, time flies and the new

framework conditions for territorial cooperation in 2021-2027 are gradually reaching the top of

the priority list. During the event sessions, the “mantra” was the expectation of deep and diffused

budget reductions in all strategic areas of EU Cohesion Policy. This inevitably calls for a more

parsimonious approach for the new programming period, touching on both thematic and

governance related aspects. Thematically, it will be inevitable to streamline the priorities of each

ETC initiative and search for any possible convergence with other concurrent initiatives having

the same geographical rooting. In terms of governance, apart from the need to ensure more and

better policy impacts as described above, the new challenge seems to be how to make the distinct

programmes with overlapping coverage areas (for MED, this includes ENI-CBC, ADRION, Alpine

Space, and the 22 currently active cross-border cooperation initiatives) coherent elements of the

same “big picture”.

Based on the discussions in both the morning and afternoon plenary sessions, the impression is

that the issue can be approached through convergent architectural and institutional innovations,

for instance: a common “3rd layer” to all programmes, in this sense giving more prominence to

the PanoraMED initiative; a common “2nd layer” between programmes, either structured, with

shared horizontal projects for each thematic community, or informal, activating permanent

communication channels between programmes. This would be important not only ex post, i.e.

after the respective strategies have been defined, but above all ex ante, when it comes to

regulating the traffic and distributing the shares of responsibility for the progress of knowledge

and action in each thematic domain.

1.5.- With the ultimate goal of a more effective capitalisation

As previously stated, the MED FOR YOU event was a milestone of the programme’s capitalisation

plan and certainly met the expectation of creating and reinforcing (at least the embryo of) a MED

level community of interest and practice. More generally, the focus on community building has

been a peculiar feature of the programme’s strategic orientation until today.

Now the time has come, however, to give capitalisation a more visible and effective role in the

current and future programme’s architecture and governance system, by embedding

“Capitalisation by Design” in the forthcoming institutional innovations. This could imply, by way

of exemplification, adding a mandatory capitalisation module to all new projects, and/or making



the participation of at least one or two Regional or National governments compulsory in the

consortia through a new form of associated partner, and/or proposing (and then financing) the

creation of local interest groups in each participating region that cut across the thematic domains

of the Horizontal Projects, etc.



Section 2. Detailed Event Report

2.1.- Agenda

The conference adopted a theatre-like structure, in three “Acts”, as shown in the picture below.

Act 1 “Interreg MED 2014-2020, what’s unique in the cooperation approach?” was split in two

parts (or “Takes”), clustering the 8 Thematic Communities under the twin headings of “Climate

Change” and “Sustainable and Inclusive Growth”. Act 2 “Overcoming borders on land and sea,

the cross-border cooperation experience” brought together a number of official representatives

of the Cross Border (Interreg V C) programmes (supporting cooperation between EU regions from

at least two neighbouring Member States) for an exchange of opinions on the future of these

programmes. Act 3 – entitled “What could be the sequel(s) of the Interreg MED story?” – was a

sort of foresighting exercise into the next programming period 2021-2027, with the participation

of qualified speakers from European Commission DGs, and Transnational (Interreg V B) and

Interregional (Interreg V C) cooperation programmes.

Figure 2 – Official agenda of the MED FOR YOU event



2.2.- Plenary sessions

Following are some excerpts of the talks held during the main conference sessions.

We have structured the following subsections as follows: for each slot of the agenda depicted in

the figure above, a few highlights are reported without a formal attribution to individual speakers,

but more as a summary of the main messages emerging from the session. We apologise in

advance for any misinterpretation.

In case our synthesis should elicit the interest of the reader, it is always possible to access the live

streaming video recording of the full event available on YouTube at the following URL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=23816&v=tB79Av6FpyE

2.2.0.- Grand opening

Moderated by Alex Taylor, the following speakers took the floor.

Figure 3 – Speakers of the Grand Opening session

Far from being ceremonial, all introductory speeches went well into the substance of the matter:

the ongoing transition – seen from all perspectives: political/institutional, environmental,

economic and social – towards a vision of the Mediterranean space as a complex, yet peculiar

and precious, territorial ecosystem, no longer a mere geographical attribute of some EU or non-



EU regions and countries. Complying with this vision in full is of paramount importance for its

implications in terms of policy innovation, (re)design and implementation – both at local/regional

and at national/supranational levels.

All three speakers, representing a National Government, a Regional Government and a

Directorate General of the European Commission, in different but convergent ways

demonstrated a good deal of political and institutional awareness of how the Mediterranean

space is at the crossroads of multiple environmental and socio-economic challenges, clustered in

the following sessions as Climate Change and Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. Tackling these

challenges is imperative, particularly on behalf of the younger generations who are increasingly

voicing their feelings of abandonment and reiterating requests for strategic policy change.

Cooperation across the MED space is the best instrument currently available to deal with these

challenges, the complexity of which derives from their ecosystemic nature – origin and impacts –

requiring a better coordination, but also concentration, of policy interventions. This is why the

continuation of the MED Programme in 2021-2027 is necessary, although threatened by the

likelihood of budget reductions in all strands of European Territorial Cooperation. Against this

backdrop, three concurrent actions are foreseen:

• Capitalisation and mainstreaming of policy relevant results from the ongoing MED

programme projects, a selection of which is described in section 2.2 of this report;

• A search for better synergies with the different strands of ETC, particularly Cross-Border

Cooperation, having their territorial scope partly or wholly within the MED space;

• The overcoming of the barriers to territorial cooperation in the North and South of the

Mediterranean, ultimately seen as a single ecosystem populated by stakeholders with

similar needs, issues and expectations.

2.2.1.- First plenary session – “What’s unique in the Interreg MED cooperation approach?”

The session, as shown in the figure below, was split in two parts (or “Takes”).

In Take 1, a round table on Climate Change involved the following MED thematic communities:

Biodiversity Protection, Energy Efficient Buildings, Green Growth, Renewable Energy and Urban

Transport.

In Take 2, another round table on Sustainable and Inclusive Growth welcomed the remaining MED

thematic communities: Blue Growth, Social & Creative Innovation and Sustainable Tourism. Each

round table also included a representative of the PanoraMED Axis 4 initiative and a thematic

domain expert.



Take 1 was entitled: “How to survive climate change, the Mediterranean Way?”. Interestingly, all

speakers put a similar emphasis on the benefits of more coordinated actions at the MED level in

their respective thematic communities.

The representative of the Biodiversity Protection community highlighted the complexity of the

topic – which is evidently of crucial importance for the future of the Mediterranean – given the

heterogeneity and pervasiveness of both threats to biodiversity and impacts of degradation,

involving environmental and non-environmental aspects that are extremely difficult to detect and

predict. Fragmentation of habitats is one of the strongest arguments in favour of a MED-level

approach: in fact, most protected areas are relatively small in extension, while the phenomenon

of biodiversity conservation requires acting at a regional or supra-regional level. Moreover, the

changes in biodiversity health are likely to be fairly localised initially and then gain momentum

and scale. This suggests exchanging experiences from local pilots to draw pragmatic lessons that

can become more easily adoptable or replicable in other locations in the future. Thanks to the

MED programme, good progress has been made towards a common declaration of principles that

can serve as a blueprint for future coordinated actions. These must connect and link economic

actors together with scientists and policy makers and secure the engagement and consensus of

all the people living in the Mediterranean.

The importance of MED level cooperation for biodiversity protection was also stressed by the

representative of Montenegro, who mentioned the value for Mediterranean Protected Areas of

streamlined networking and management efforts, also for doing more concrete activities at the

sub-regional level in participating countries.

This learning challenge (and opportunity) was made ever more evident by one representative of

the Energy Efficient Buildings community, who started by considering that while the localisation

and gravity of the issue is eminently at the city level, the smaller municipalities from the majority

of MED countries lack a dedicated financial support to plan their interventions or simply further

the awareness of private building owners. As a matter of fact, related technologies are globally

mature and do not need further elaboration, but a critical mass is required to attract and leverage

private finance. Therefore, the exploration of new and alternative funding approaches – as made

possible by MED programme priorities and projects – is key to fulfilling the ambitious goals of the

EU, national and regional policy documents in terms of efficiency gains and improved energy

performances of public and private buildings.

The representative of the Green Growth community reported about a multiplicity of actions that

the participant projects were carrying forward, supported by four working groups each delivering

a white paper on a specific, related issue: from circular economy to green public procurement,

from waste management (especially in the food industry) to sustainable resource consumption.



Recently, the alignment with policy trends and emerging priorities in the Mediterranean has been

made evident by the official endorsement received from the UfM (Union for the Mediterranean),

gathering all governments from both the North and South of the Mediterranean Sea. Again, the

qualifying trait of the MED approach is seen as a combination of local engagement and higher

scale activity coordination.

This approach fills a bit the vacuum left between the ambitious EU policy targets (including the

UN Millennium Goals as a recent complement) on the one hand, and the execution of coherent

policy actions at national/regional levels on the other. As stated by the representative of the

Renewable Energy community, we are not aiming to implement the EU priorities mechanically at

the local level, but trying to achieve the territorial integration of efforts provided by various actors

and in different locations, under the common umbrella of values and principles such as equity,

inclusion and peer collaboration. For example, the concept of ETU (Ecosystem Transition Units)

is being used to support the strategic governance of ongoing actions, through the feedback and

suggestions of national and local stakeholders.

Finally, the representative of the Urban Transport community echoed all the previous remarks,

stating that related issues materialize predominantly at the small community level despite being

key for the future of the Mediterranean and Europe as a whole. An on-line tool has been

developed to create momentum for a broader take up of initiatives. The projects involved

constitute a good legacy for the next programming period, but also for immediate take-up in

legislation and policy.

This vision was confirmed by the delegates of two distinct MED regional governments also active

in PanoraMED, the Axis 4 Governance initiative of the Programme, and Interact, the ETC technical

support programme. Both showed a pretty good awareness of the intertwined nature – not only

environmental, but also socio-economic, to say the least – of climate change impacts on our

citizens and communities and, as a result, the urgent demand emerging in all Mediterranean

countries for policy innovation in the direction of coordination and integration.

To summarize, the results presented from this round of cooperation demonstrate the crucial

importance of the topics dealt with for the future of the Mediterranean but also the need to make

the key policy implications known at the broader EU level, not only to the relevant Member States

and Regions.

It was evident in this first round table that the “Mediterranean way” is appropriate to the scale

and dimension of the problems addressed, which are indeed supranational and cut across country

and regional borders. But it is also appropriate in relation to the importance of the Mediterranean

– in its various aspects, socioeconomic and environmental – for the present and future

development of Europe as a whole.



Another aspect of MED cooperation emerging from the discussion is its ability to have an impact

at the level of small municipalities, an institutional layer that, for a variety of reasons, is normally

difficult to involve systematically and consistently over time. To the extent that this layer is the

closest to the citizens, the creation of local communities with a private and a public sector

representation to tackle relevant problems for current and future generations is being facilitated

also on the institutional side, according to the vertical subsidiarity principle.

Take 2 of the first plenary session was entitled: “Which drivers for a sustainable and inclusive

growth?”. There, the “blue”, “green” and “orange” development paths (the latter colour referring

to culture and creativity as drivers of diffused innovation) were discussed as relevant for attaining

the goals of sustainability and inclusiveness in the Mediterranean model of growth.

One representative of the Blue Growth community made the strong argument that the recent

developments in industry (e.g. of aquaculture and marine biotechnology applications) and their

supporting policies and strategies (e.g. for coastal planning and marine surveillance) all go in the

direction of sustainability. However, education and training are needed to shape the required

“blue skills” and support the emergence and consolidation of new “blue jobs and professions” in

the MED area. This interest in capacity building, including the creation of a Summer School that

is open to all Triple Helix actors and stakeholders, coupled with the promotion of joint business

opportunities across country borders, has helped configure a community that was not even

existing (or perceived as such) before. In particular, the Blue Energy cluster (now high in the

agenda of the Greek government, as pointed out by another community representative) has

managed to gather the impressive number of 450 members from 7 MED countries.

In turn, the representative of the Social & Creative Innovation community reminded the audience

of the peculiar features of the “Mediterranean way” to innovation, both territorially rooted and

open to cross-fertilisation with other cultures and communities. The process of community

building in relation with this cluster of projects led to many interesting dynamics as well as the

creation of an on-line toolkit gathering all the results that can be relevant for Quadruple Helix

stakeholders in the execution of their daily activities.

Finally, the representatives of the Sustainable Tourism community outlined the fragmentation of

the current business scenario, making it extremely difficult to communicate and transfer the

results of clustered projects to such a territorially distributed and highly diversified set of

industrial players. Yet the time is ripe for these initiatives, considering that the current figures are

in the range of 4 incoming tourists per each MED citizen, which makes sustainability an inevitable

component of any new policy or action in this sector. A declaration signed in Athens two years



ago set the stage for the creation of four working groups, which have delivered significant

outputs. Now the priority goes to uptake.

A similar argument was made by the PanoraMED representative, who also expressed his praise

for the upcoming strategic projects, aiming to become change makers in their respective domains

while at the same time remaining open to additional thematic integrations.

If one remark can be made, differently from the sustainability concept, the notion of inclusive

growth – associated with shared benefits, but also equitable opportunities for all members of

society – was not clearly declined during the discussion. While the speakers were convincing in

supporting the argument that a wealth of new growth and job opportunities can derive from

(especially) the “blue” and “green” specialisations, also explored and analysed in depth by the

technology scoping team of the PanoraMED initiative, the complexity of the inclusiveness concept

did not become evident, being confined to education or training related aspects. This contrasts

with the extended coverage received during the mid-term event of the Programme, held in Rome

on 18-19 April, 2018.

Also, the “orange” dimension was left a bit obscured, though we know how important culture

and creativity are considered for the European model of innovation, particularly at the City level.

On the whole, the impression was of a more varied set of approaches to promote thematic

coordination than in the first round table, with a need for policy action felt more at the Member

State and Regional than at the MED and EU levels.

Overall, the two round tables demonstrated the effectiveness of the Horizontal Project layer – a

peculiar and distinctive feature of the MED programme in the ETC scenario – to capture, analyse

and streamline the key results and policy implications of the Modular and Integrated Projects

belonging to each Thematic Community. Now the time is ripe for a quantum leap from the phase

of community building to that of capitalisation at the most appropriate level – MED/EU, national

or regional/local – to ensure real policy transformation.

In that regard, one of the key assets of each Thematic Community is the number and quality of

its members, in many cases reaching several hundred organisations from all countries of the MED

area, including IPA States.

Now it seems obvious that this broad constituency should be able to survive the administrative

end of the funded Projects contributing to its formation. One of the challenges for the remaining

part of this programming period and the new wave of ETC in 2021-2027 will certainly be how to

grant these communities an autonomous life, not necessarily as legal entities but in terms of the

creation and maintenance of the cooperative links that are particularly important for continuity

and critical mass.



2.2.2.- Second plenary session – “Overcoming borders on land and sea. The cross-border cooperation experience”

In addition to the speakers mentioned in the official agenda, the discussion was also joined (from

the audience) by Mr Taddei Haskovic from the Interreg V A Slovenia-Hungary programme.

This round table was useful to remind about the very wide variety of Mediterranean locations

where Cross-Border Cooperation operates and how similar problems of global relevance – such

as Climate Change and Sustainable / Inclusive Growth – take on different shapes when translated

into the specificities of different contexts.

While on the one hand, the commonality of challenges and thematic objectives suggests a unified

approach to tackle them, on the other, it is clear that the special characters and needs of local

communities belonging to a single land- or seascape must be protected and valorised. This calls

for a more intense communication and exchange among the CBC programmes operating in the

MED area, with Interreg MED playing a possible role of “knowledge hub” for shared thematic

objectives, projects and results.

Indeed, generally positive comments were made by the speakers about the institutional

innovations introduced and now successfully tested by the MED programme, first and foremost

the creation of thematic communities and the attention to capitalisation and policy impact.

However, it was also noted that it is not a simple task for CBC programmes to replicate these

aspects in their respective institutional and territorial contexts. In some instances, community

building and capitalisation seem more difficult than as seen in the previous panel sessions. This

makes it even more critical to give continuity to the communities created and the achievements



attained, even when new projects are launched. A deeper involvement of the private sector was

also recommended.

2.2.3.- Third plenary session – “What could be the sequel of the Interreg MED story?”

The concluding plenary was indeed the most forward-looking of the day, offering precise

indications regarding the future of MED level cooperation.

The representative of DG Regio summed up the orientation of the new programming period with

three keywords: Cooperation, Coordination and Concentration.

Cooperation will be promoted across the frontiers of the MED and IPA countries as in the past,

and in the future cooperation will also involve interior regions sharing common issues with the

coastal ones (e.g. the consequences of desertification). It will also be extended, with the

appropriate means, to the southern side of the Mediterranean.

Coordination will be confirmed as a major building block of ETC, following on the track of past

programming periods (e.g. with a single regulation framework and a revised set of thematic

objectives) but also extended towards involving all key actors and stakeholders active in the area.

Concentration of resources will be inevitable in consideration of the expected reductions in the

future budgets; concentration will at the same time be thematic, i.e. focusing on key territorial



challenges, and procedural, i.e. emphasizing measures that have not only worked well but also

demonstrated transformative capacity.

Thematically speaking, the representative of DG Mare confirmed the positive alignment between

the day’s conference and the priorities of the new programming period. Alongside Blue Growth

and the promotion of investments in this sector by a centrally managed platform, sustainability

will also be a crucial aspect, making sure that all known drivers of development – as identified in

the morning panels – move in unison and do not compete with each other.

Quite significant was the participation of a representative of the Union for the Mediterranean, an

intergovernmental association gathering 43 member states from the whole Mediterranean basin.

This is seen as a single political area with shared challenges and a common future to build and

preserve for the young generations. The association among its statutory aims provides technical

support and visibility to the implementation of innovative projects in a number of thematic

domains that are common to the MED programme and take stock of key results in view of up-

scaling them to a macro regional level. Ongoing interaction with current activities of the MED

programme includes a formal recognition of the Green Growth community on October 2nd.

Other speakers, like the representative of Interreg ADRION, returned to the specificities of on-

going ETC programmes and the need to avoid overlaps and duplication of efforts. However, at

the moment it is not yet clear what increased cooperation and coordination of programmes

would look like. For instance, should different programmes support different thematic priorities,

or should the same priority be approached differently by different programmes, preserving

territorial specificities?

The Managing Authority of the ETC Programmes for the Hellenic Republic offered her point of

view on managing the differences in the cooperation models within a single Member State.

Another significant contribution came from the representative of the ENI CBC MED programme.

Of the eleven thematic priorities only one (Energy Efficiency) is actually shared with the Interreg

MED programme. In the past, inter-programme consultations aimed to share information on

funded projects with similar or convergent objectives and to promote the creation of links

between them. This idea can be replicated and more can be done to promote coordination as

well as improve awareness among project proposers of the policy implications of their results.

When it comes to sharing project developments with the Member States, however, we should

keep in mind different levels of alignment to EU policy goals and methods of governments from

the North and South side of the Mediterranean. The latter generally need more time to share

priorities but when done they are willing to move forward together.

The presentation of the Interreg North Sea representative provided an “external” view that

resonated with the previous speakers, emphasizing the need to innovate not only contents but



also procedures, so as to improve coordination with other CBC programmes and, where

appropriate, macro regional strategies (North Sea overlaps with the Baltic programme). A number

of pragmatic solutions were mentioned, from regular joint seminars to sharing the same country

representatives in both programmes, to the targeted use of feasibility studies to select but also

pre-evaluate new project proposals. A final consideration was that despite Brexit, the UK

government is still very interested in cooperation, perhaps more now than ever.

The concluding remarks were from the Managing Authority of the Interreg MED programme. The

key point was that the MED programme architecture, with its Thematic Communities, not only

can provide a pragmatic approach to intra-programme coordination but can act as a model for

other programmes and policies for the next programming period, thus helping to solve some of

the concerns raised throughout the day.

This is not to say that a mechanical extension of this model would be enough to solve all problems.

For instance, there is a latent tension between the goals and needs of ENI and Interreg MED, only

in part due to the evident barriers to cooperation between the North and the South of the

Mediterranean. More generally, there is no clear answer to the question of how to articulate

policy and programme implementation in the MED “sub areas”, giving equal opportunities while

at the same time reducing territorial imbalances that can only be seen from the macroregional

perspective.

Another challenge is the capitalisation of project results, which has a lot to do with policy change.

Attaining progress in this direction may require the adoption of forward-looking perspectives now

absent in programme design, including the financing of actions to transform existing policies into

new and better ones.

2.3.- Instant poll results

As mentioned in the Introduction, one of the innovative features of the MED FOR YOU event was

the adoption of a mobile app to promote the engagement of participants, allowing them to book

the sessions of preference and formulate questions – in real time – to the various presenters in

the panels. Using the same app, participants were also invited to respond to an instant poll based

on 7 questions with closed answers, which was kept open until the end of the day. The purpose

of the poll was to gain insights on the participants’ views regarding the capitalisation prospects

of the projects they were involved in. In the following, the responses received are aggregated and

briefly commented in qualitative terms.

The poll attracted 119 unique respondents or 53,6% of the 222 registered users of the app (as

against the 321 participants in the event). Since 27 respondents only answered the first question

(“who are you?”) the final headcount is 92 unique respondents (still a good 41,4% rate).



The structure of the poll allowed users to not reply

to all the questions, presented in random order,

so the respondents reacted unpredictably, with

only 34 completing the poll in full. This is shown in

the graph on the left, which shows the distribution

of the number of replies. In the following, we

consider all responses received for each question.

Looking at the respondents’ profiles, a majority of 49 out of 92 (53,3%) is composed of project

partners, followed at a distance by official

representatives of MED or other programmes (9),

external experts (7), policy makers not directly

involved in projects (4) and other profiles (2).

Interestingly, 22,8% (21) did not disclose their

roles at all. Apart from this latter group, it is quite

likely that the distribution of respondents, with

such a majority of project partners, mirrors that of the participants in the MED FOR YOU event

overall, meant to promote knowledge exchange and the creation of a capitalisation oriented

community among people actively engaged in the programme’s projects.

In this context, two questions of the poll invited respondents to reflect on 1) the most important

insight or lesson learnt, and 2) the single, most exploitable item resulting from their participation

in a MED project in the current programming period.

Very importantly, the possible answers to these two questions were identical, showing the same

options: new product or service prototypes, policy studies or surveys, new transnational clusters,

or new policy directions or agreements. In turn, this range of options relates to the modular

structure of MED projects, which could include studies, prototype testing, or policy blueprints for

capitalisation.

The first question on the most important insight

or lesson learnt was skipped by 37 respondents

(40,2%) while those who replied highlighted a

“new policy direction or agreement” (18),

followed by a “new product or service prototype”

(12), a “policy relevant study or survey” (11), a

“new transnational cluster” (8), or “none of the

above” (6). Although it difficult to interpret non-responses to this answer, we will see that the



number is consistent for all questions, between 35 and 37, with only the last dropping to 21. On

the other hand, 36 of the 37 who did not reply profiled themselves as project partners.

A similar feedback was received for the next

question on the most exploitable result of a MED

project. Respondents to the question chose a

“product or service prototype” (18), a “new

policy direction or agreement” (16), a “new

transnational cluster” (12), a “policy relevant

study or survey” (8), or “none of the above “(2).

An almost identical number, 36 out of 92 (39,1%) decided not to reply, with 32 of these profiling

themselves as project partners. This may be interpreted as related to the predominance among

respondents of partners belonging to Horizontal Projects, another reason could be a lack of

internal communication within Modular Project partnerships.

On a separate note, there is a relatively higher presence of “product or service prototypes” and

“new transnational clusters” as exploitable items compared with the previous question on

insights and lessons learnt. If we could be sure that the same respondents answered the two

questions (which is not likely), this may point to a good level of awareness of the distinction

between take-aways and outputs, particularly for Modular Project partners. If instead we assume

that the same people did not necessarily answer both questions, a possible interpretation could

be that those two answers are more easily seen as exploitable items than as insights or lessons

learnt. Whatever the case, it appears that respondents had a good awareness of the importance

of “new policy directions or agreements” in the context of the MED programme.

The next question asked to identify the single,

most easily approachable policy group that could

take benefit from the transformative power of

MED results. As before, 37 out of 92 (40,2%)

chose to skip this answer, while those who

replied split themselves in two groups: one

indicating local authorities (e.g. Municipalities) or

interest groups (e.g. political lobbying associations) (32 replies), and the other looking at regional

agencies or departments / ministries (19). All other options got very few preferences, including

the programme’s managing authorities (3) and national agencies or departments / ministries (2).

This overwhelming evidence – the two groups together sum up to 51, or 92,7% of the valid replies

– very well defines the perimeter of operation of MED projects, which also determines their most



likely sphere of influence. The only unexpected result is the higher number of respondents looking

at the local rather than the regional level as their most viable capitalisation target. Incidentally,

of the 37 choosing not to reply to this question, 25 (67,6%) did not even answer any of the

previous ones, after profiling themselves as project partners.

The next question asked to identify a constraint

or issue posing the greatest barrier to

capitalisation at regional/member state/MED

levels. In light of the previous replies, there can

be some risk of misinterpretation, as the very

local dimension was not explicitly mentioned in

the text of the question itself. Again, 35

participants out of 92 (38%) chose to skip this answer, while those who replied split themselves

in two groups: the first considering that adoption would not be immediate but require a number

of legal/administrative/procedural reforms for take-up with the target institutional environment

(28), and the other suggesting a failure of project dissemination in reaching the policy makers in

charge (19). All other options were considered almost irrelevant, including “too radical nature of

the underlying innovation”, “breaking up the current set of policy priorities to an unacceptable

extent” (3), and “too broad scope of the same innovation, needing a concerted reaction from

governments and other public stakeholders” (1 answer).

Taken together, these answers show a diffused sense of awareness that the type of innovation

proposed by the MED projects is not disruptive, but coherent with the existing institutional and

policy environments of the countries/regions participating in the programme. Another possible

comment is that the whole communication path, to and from individual projects and policy

makers, may need some revision in two respects: a) to address the diffused concern that

traditional approaches do not work well with such a peculiar audience, and b) to use time as a

strategic instrument for capitalisation. In other words, a one-off presentation of project results

may not be enough, especially in the presence of the legal/administrative/procedural barriers to

policy implementation. This in fact risks missing the fundamental dimension of mainstreaming –

that of formally reaching out to all stakeholders who have a say in the shaping or redirection of

the implementation process. This would inevitably call for further dissemination actions, some of

which cannot be planned in advance but would need to be decided upon on a case by case basis.

Finally, we observe that of the 35 choosing not to reply to this question, 23 (65,7%) did not answer

any of the previous ones, after profiling themselves as project partners.



The second to last question asked respondents to

make one single proposal or recommendation on

how to enhance the capitalisation and impact

potentials of the MED programme. Again, the no

answers prevailed with a total of 37 out of 92

(40,2%). For those who replied, the most voted

suggestion was to mainstream project results with

relevant networks and agencies (21), followed by coordination with other policy programmes and

measures (18). There is also some consensus on using communication and engagement tools (8)

as well as aggregating results in a way that is ready for capitalisation (7).

Once more, we note that of the 37 choosing not to reply to this question, 22 (59,5%) did not

answer to any of the previous ones, after profiling themselves as project partners.

Considering that this number dropped considerably when it comes to the next and final question,

one can conclude that 22 out of the 49 who profiled themselves as project partners (44,9%) did

not follow the thread from lessons learnt to identified results to capitalisation and its barriers and

opportunities at all. This may mean little if we remember that responding to the poll was optional

and the questions were randomly displayed on the app, but it could also be yet another sign of a

deeper issue of conceptual misalignment within MED partnerships.

As a last opportunity for contributing to the poll,

participants were asked to make one single

proposal or recommendation on how to

improve the next edition of the MED

programme (2021-2027). This was by far the

most popular of all questions, as shown by the

fact that only 21 out of 92 (22,8%) skipped the

answer. The three most voted suggestions were: “engaging the policy makers” (22), “revising the

current intervention priorities” (20), “improving cross-programme coordination” (18) and, at

some distance, “revising the programme’s architecture” (10).

Globally speaking, we believe this evidence shows a good alignment between the opinions of the

participants in the MED FOR YOU event and the current and prospective scenarios discussed for

the Interreg MED programme during the event itself. Again, as we miss the time stamp of answers

received, we can only speculate on whether this was the outcome of a full day of talks and

reflections or the alignment existed already before the event, due to a sort of adverse selection



of those who accepted to join as speakers, exhibitors or attendees. Whatever the case, the

Interreg MED programme appears to be effectively presiding the “internal war front” in terms of

communication / awareness raising and mobilisation of project leaders and participants, as

already evident in the participation at the Made in MED conference of June 2018.

Further evidence of this was in the quality and variety of presentations and demonstrations

during the lunch interlude, the so-called “Agora sessions” reported in the next section.

2.4.- Agora presentations and demonstrations

During the lunch break, attendees and speakers were offered the opportunity to explore a set of

exhibition-like booths where a selected total of 24 MED funded projects had the opportunity of

performing live presentations and especially demonstrations of their results.

In the remainder of this section, we provide a bird’s eye view of the key results of each “Agora

session”, following the alphabetical order of project acronyms. It should be noted that for each

project, only one exploitable result is mentioned.

2.4.1.- ALTER ECO

Thematic community = Sustainable Tourism

Type of project = Testing

Website = https://alter-eco.interreg-med.eu

Target policy makers = Local authorities / agencies

Key project result = Tool for measuring the carrying capacity limit of a destination

Nature of result = New product or service prototype



2.4.2.- ARISTOIL

Thematic community = Green Growth

Type of project = Studying + Testing

Website = https://aristoil.interreg-med.eu

Target policy makers = Regional / national authorities / agencies

Key project result = Health claim extra virgin olive oil production e-cluster & e-hub

Nature of result = New transnational cluster

2.4.3.- CESBA MED

Thematic community = Efficient Buildings

Type of project = Testing + Capitalising

Website = https://cesba-med.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = Assessment tool for sustainability of urban neighbourhoods




2.4.4.- CHEBEC

Thematic community = Social and Creative


Website = https://chebec.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = Web tool for the evaluation of internationalisation readiness


2.4.5.- CHIMERA



Website = https://chimera.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = New competitive intelligence service for creative industries




2.4.6.- COMPOSE

Thematic community = Renewable Energy


Website = https://compose.interreg-med.eu

Target policy makers = Local / regional / national authorities / agencies

Key project result = Sustainable Energy Planning methods, tools and resources


2.4.7.- DESTIMED



Website = https://destimed.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = Protocol & tool for designing sustainable ecotourism packages

Nature of result = New policy direction or agreement



2.4.8.- GREENOMED



Website = https://greenomed.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = Cluster based methodology for cooperation in innovation


2.4.9.- iBLUE

Thematic community = Blue Growth


Website = https://iblue.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = Methodology for business model innovation in yachting sector




2.4.10.- IMPULSE



Website = https://impulse.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = Integrated Building’s Energy Management Support System


2.4.11.- LOCAL4GREEN



Website = https://local4green.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = New fiscal policies to promote renewable energy sources




2.4.12.- LOCATIONS

Thematic community = Urban Transports


Website = https://locations.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = Low Carbon Transport and Mobility Plans for the Port Cities


2.4.13.- MAESTRALE

Thematic community = Blue Growth


Website = https://maestrale.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = Marine renewable energy technology strategy and plan




2.4.14.- MD.net


Type of project = Integrated

Website = https://mdnet.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = Mediterranean Diet as instrument for sustainable development


2.4.15.- MEDCYCLETOUR



Website = https://medcycletour.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = Eurovelo 8 as a tool to influence regional / national policy




2.4.16.- MOBILITAS



Website = https://mobilitas.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = Handbook for sustainable mobility planning in urban areas


2.4.17.- MPA-ADAPT

Thematic community = Biodiversity Protection


Website = https://mpa-adapt.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = Tools for climate change impact on biodiversity assessment




2.4.18.- PEFMED



Website = https://pefmed.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = EU product environmental footprint assessment methodology


2.4.19.- PEGASUS



Website = https://pegasus.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = Business model for the efficient use of micro grids in rural sites




2.4.20.- PlasticBusters MPAs

Thematic community = Biodiversity Protection


Website = https://plasticbustersmpas.interreg-med.eu

Target policy makers = Local / Regional authorities / agencies

Key project result = Mediterranean approach towards marine littering


2.4.21.- RE-LIVEWASTE



Website = https://re-livewaste.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = New technology to convert livestock waste into resources




2.4.22.- REMEDIO



Website = https://remedio.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = Integrated mobility modelling and impact assessment tool


2.4.23.- STEPPING



Website = https://stepping.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = Guidelines for the adoption of Energy Performance Contracts




2.4.24.- TOURISMED



Website = https://tourismed.interreg-med.eu


Key project result = Costal and maritime fishing tourism business model & brand




Section 3. Summary and Conclusions

To conclude this report, we would like to sum-up the evidence gathered and analyse some key

implications for both the last phase of this programming period and the 2021-2027 perspective.

Inevitably, the starting point is the question of capitalisation. In fact, the MED FOR YOU event was

a milestone along the roadmap defined by the February 2019 Capitalisation Plan officially

launched in Thessaloniki on 7-8 March. The Plan aims to create a “capitalisation responsive

environment” within the MED stakeholder community and thereby “trigger, transfer, landmark

and ultimately territorial appropriation/ownership” mechanisms of the “jointly elaborated policy

tools, measures or procedures.”

It is probably too early to evaluate the responsiveness to capitalisation of this environment,

however defined. Yet two interesting elements emerged with clarity during the event: on the one

hand, we should speak not of a single community but rather an ordered collection of (currently

8) distinct groupings of projects, partners and stakeholders, each finding the “glue” with which

to connect the dots and arcs in its specific thematic orientation.

Thanks to the work done by the Horizontal Projects, globally respecting the mandate received

from the Programme, each grouping has taken on the shape and internal dynamics of a (virtual)

community of practice. This constitutes sound progress if we compare it with the 2007-2013

programme, where the formation of a MED community of convergent actors with a clear

definition of goals in relation to capitalisation was more evident towards the end, rather than in

the middle, of the programming period.

On the other hand, as in every network there are “central” and “peripheral” nodes, with the latter

less exposed to internal circulation of information. There are in fact signs – e.g.in the instant poll

results – that a considerable number of partners, while feeling well integrated in their respective

community, do not yet perceive the importance of ensuring that the results they contributed to

generate continue to have a separate life, provoking irreversible changes in their policy or

business environments.

Truth be told, the Modular Projects running presentations and live demonstrations during the

“Agora” sessions were very convincing in showing the potential to influence their context both

positively and permanently. As noted in the previous section, only one exploitable result per

project was mentioned, but in most cases the number could have been considerably higher. The

question then becomes whether this potential can be realised, and how.



Given that a considerable number of project partners showed little interest in the poll questions

about the “capitalisation value chain”, we must ask whether the conditions are there to translate

these results into practice. This is also related to the ability to mobilise the “right” targets for

exploitation, not only from the few regions and countries directly involved but, according to the

nature of the proposed innovations, from the entire MED area.

An unexpected answer to these questions comes from the acknowledgment of the ecosystemic

nature of the key challenges addressed in those projects. Indeed, in every ecosystem, each living

or non-living element – be it an actor, landscape, community or infrastructure – has more or less

evident interdependencies with all others, giving life to systemic connections that cut across

administrative borders and ignore national specificities, especially in the context of the MED

space.

For instance, the fight to preserve biodiversity has a number of implications for coastal erosion,

climate change, animal breeds and plant varieties, farming and the food chain, etc. A successful

initiative tested in a single location must by necessity be scaled up and out to different sectors

and a wider geographical level in order to be effective. Likewise, whenever biodiversity is seriously

threatened by a negative practice – think of sea litter – this will inevitably propagate its effects

across many diverse and reciprocally connected habitats and have a direct impact on areas such

as coastal tourism.

Following on this train of logic, the exchanges during the two morning plenaries highlighted the

fact that there is little value in looking for solutions that are only local or partial when addressing

environmental and socio-economic challenges that are ecosystemic by nature. A fragmented

approach only increases the exposure to the risk of duplicating or multiplying similar interventions

without attaining critical mass, while a systemic, collaborative approach can highlight the value

of working on complex issues from the different cultural, geographical and stakeholder

perspectives that different projects and programmes can offer.

If indeed MED level cooperation is the only possible way to tackle the key issues we face, then

any stakeholder aiming to make progress, even within a stakeholder-specific scope of limited

objectives, should be able to do so as an active part of a MED ecosystem. This transcends the

mere project or programme dimension; indeed, it is paradoxically the project dimension that is

less important provided that a bridge exists allowing to embed results into the daily life of policies,

businesses, and cultures of citizenship.

Does such a bridge exist at the moment? Probably not, although some bricks and a bit of mortar

were present at the event, together with some first ideas of a possible architecture.

The plenary discussions among Programme managers repeatedly mentioned the complexity of

ETC in the Mediterranean area: 3 extensive programmes (MED, Adrion and ENI-CBC), 2 political



initiatives (UfM and the never-mentioned IEMed) and 22 Interreg CBC programmes. In this

situation, with the convergence of priorities that the central level (DG Regio) aims to, the risks

associated with duplication and a loss of transformative potential are high. There is therefore an

urgent need to coordinate overlapping initiatives, but at the same time to capture the value

coming from different approaches that address similar problems at various scales, while better

integrating the South with the North Mediterranean.

The urgency is not only a function of budget cuts, but also a recognition of the exemplary value

that effectively addressing the challenges could bring to Europe as a whole. To use the words of

one of the speakers, “many challenges faced by the EU will never be solved unless they are solved

here”. This is why a systemic approach is needed, grounded on institutional dialogue and prone

to cooperation in order to overcome the conflicting needs of simplification and a deeper

understanding from multiple perspectives. In addition, developing such an approach requires its

own pace: as someone commented, “we should never be in a hurry, as cooperation takes time”.

In the perspective of 2021-2027, it was evident from the discussion that the Interreg MED

programme will need to play a double role in the future, both as a funding initiative in its own

right and as a facilitator of connections within the Mediterranean space, embodying the

ecosystemic nature of the whole and the high-level challenges shared by all with a pervasive

influence on the living conditions of current and future generations.

Thematically the key challenges, building on some of the main results, include:

• Climate change emerged as the key issue; though absent as such in current programming it

is transversally present across most of the MED projects. This is thus an example of the need

for focus and interconnection, together with a new attention to specific dimensions such as

resilience.

• Blue Growth and Green Economy appear as the two key vectors for innovation and concrete

development policies, with an economic development focus in the former and a social

economy focus in the latter. The MED communities representing these objectives have both

reached agreements with the UfM, with Blue Growth also coordinating with DG Mare and

the Maritime CBC.

• Sustainable Tourism is instead the only MED community (represented by a Horizontal Project)

to be directly taken up by PanoraMED (as well as indirectly Blue Growth for Maritime

Surveillance). This community is however one of the better examples of systemic connections

with nearly all of the other thematic communities in the MED programme, including

Sustainable Transport, Social & Creative Innovation, Energy Efficient Buildings, Renewable

Energy and Biodiversity.



Concentration on key themes is certainly recommended, especially in the context of budget

reductions. However, a word of caution needs to be spent. As one of the speakers said, “at the

theoretical level everyone agrees on identifying the overarching challenges, but when you go into

detail then you start seeing the differences; probably the key themes are the same, the question

becomes which actions should be taken”.

Concentration may not even be enough if we move from the environmental to the socioeconomic

side of development. The concept of sustainability is known as multifaceted, and we could not

afford the luxury of sacrificing some of them – inclusiveness for instance, which was apparently a

bit neglected during the talks on innovation and growth.

To balance the risks associated with concentration, one possible approach could be to build on

one of the innovative features of the PanoraMED workplan: namely, to identify and develop the

key transversal issues that cut across the specifically thematic priorities. These can be

methodological, as is the case of mainstreaming methods and resources, including for instance

knowledge management tools such as those developed in the Creative and Social community.

Transversal priorities can also be thematic, as is the case of migration in PanoraMED (a topic

barely touched upon in the discussion) but potentially extended to inclusive development,

participation, creative and social innovation, etc.

A second aspect of the MED programme that saw substantial agreement was the positive

outcome, in terms of community building and creation of the framework conditions for

capitalisation, of its peculiar Programme architecture. For the 2014-2020 period, this is structured

on three layers with Modular Projects (MPs) as the first, Horizontal Projects (HPs) the second, and

the PanoraMED Axis 4 initiative the third. The HPs played a role not only in aggregating MPs by

theme but also aggregating their results and making them visible. This in turn enabled them to

successfully liaise with other initiatives (example: Green Economy with UfM), while the

PanoraMED initiative created an unprecedented set of links with Regional and Member State

policy levels.

The question is how and to what degree this architectural approach can and should be applied to

the future MED programme and possibly to other programmes and initiatives in the MED space

and beyond. One approach mentioned envisages meta-HPs, clustering thematically convergent

projects or even a similar form of HPs belonging to different programmes. With this simple

solution, the capacity of coordinating efforts while promoting cooperation would gain

momentum and the potential for policy impact would dramatically increase. Such meta-HPs could

also foresee a role for (or be driven by) Member States and Regions as within PanoraMED. More

importantly, they could take-up the results of convergent project efforts and give them an

extended life, beyond the mere capitalisation phase of each individual initiative.



In so doing, one of the risks to monitor would be the development of imbalances between sub-

areas in the MED space with different degrees of institutional and strategic development. As

someone put it a bit roughly, “West has the Maritime strategy, Centre has the USAIR Macro-

region, South has ENI-CBC, East has no strategy – thus it is important not to lose the whole area

view.”

Inter-programme cooperation could also be built into specific projects, either at the procedural

level (provided the respective time frames are aligned) or the capitalisation level, where impact

could be enhanced if exploratory actions not covered by policies were also funded or by enlarging

the scope of action to regional events and strategic initiatives. This kind of approach can be

achieved by adopting the kind of flexibility in call structures tested successfully in the MED

programme with specific Terms of Reference, targeted calls etc.

A combination of the architectural and procedural approaches, building on the successful

innovations tested in the MED programme, can aim to achieve the policy efficiency required by

the new budgetary constraints. Such a combination can overcome the hierarchies and separate

worlds that are inevitable pitfalls of any policy instrument, balancing risks while capturing the

ecosystemic relations between programmes and instruments that individual projects and

stakeholders naturally strive for: the bridge for effective capitalisation.

During the plenary sessions it was reiterated that the ability to capture the territorial dimension

is the main added value of Interreg, together with the “non-declared” objective of improving

relations between citizens/communities and local authorities. In this context, Interreg has the

potential to achieve institutional capacity building to an extent that is not available in other

European instruments such as H2020.

Yet this is an on-going challenge. While respondents to the instant poll were able to achieve

relative success at the local and municipal levels, the target of Regional policy through local

Managing Authorities remains elusive. If indeed a key goal for the new programming period is to

improve policy impact, the ecosystemic approach may help Regional policy makers gain better

and clearer access to project developments and results in a more timely fashion. Above all, by

engaging stakeholders at all levels in coordinated and complementary efforts, it becomes clearer

what the contribution from different institutional and disciplinary standpoints can be to address

the present and future challenges facing the Mediterranean space.

More information:

https://interreg-med.eu/

@MEDProgramme

medprogramme

InterregMED

MED FOR YOUMED FOR YOU – Event minutes / Compte rendu de l’évènement Version 2.2 – 22 Jan...

Documents

Transcript of MED FOR YOUMED FOR YOU – Event minutes / Compte rendu de l’évènement Version 2.2 – 22 Jan...