Sector de envases, empaques y embalajes de plástico

In the Cairo declaration, Euromed partners affirmed their commitment to the objective of creating a Euro-Mediterranean area of higher education and research and clearly defined the guidelines for future cooperation among Euro-Mediterranean partners in this area. They also stated that cooperation in the field of higher education, research and innovation, technology transfer and information society should go hand-in-hand and that such cooperation should reinforce competitiveness and job creation in order to meet the challenges of globalisation. In this sense, all stakeholders – international organisations, such as the EU, national and regional governments, local authorities, civil society, private business and universities – should actively participate in the process. European countries have though, it must be noted, been reforming their higher education and research systems more rapidly than the south Mediterranean countries in line with the agenda designed to deal with the Bologna process.

The European university landscape is primarily organized at the national and regional levels and is characterized by its heterogeneity, a fact reflected in its organization, governance and operating conditions. From a general point of view, regulation in the form of enhancing institutional autonomy has been one of the overarching governance trends in European higher education over the last two decades.

At the first Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference on Higher Education and Scientific Research, held in Cairo on 18th June 2007, Ministers underlined the importance of Euro- Mediterranean cooperation in supporting development and modernisation in higher education, especially through the TEMPUS Programme, as well as fostering research, technology, development and innovation in cooperation with Mediterranean Partner Countries, in particular through the 7th

Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. They also welcomed the Erasmus Mundus External Cooperation Window and the prospects offered by the Euromed scholarship scheme for university students and higher-education staff from partner countries, as endorsed by the Euro-Mediterranean Summit in 2005. All this should add to the existing funding opportunities offered by both European Union Member States and Mediterranean Partners.

It is natural that there should be cooperation in higher education, research and innovation since they help along competitiveness in business, new job creation and prepare countries and regions to meet the challenges of globalisation. In this context, the importance of knowledge needs to be noted. Supported by the achievements of the information society, knowledge is the basis for faster development – nationally, regionally and internationally. In order to take a more active role in strengthening partnership and dialogue, Slovenia launched a specific initiative to establish a Euro- Mediterranean University in Piran. The formal inauguration of the Euro-Mediterranean University took place in Slovenia in June 2008. The main reason for establishing an international institution of this kind was the need to draw inspiration from the cultural, religious and human legacy of the Euro-Mediterranean area. The University has every prospect of becoming a meeting place for young people, researchers and academic staff from the entire Mediterranean. One of the emphases of this initiative is the promotion of multilingualism and intercultural exchanges between young people as a means of increasing their employability, mobility and social inclusion and, thus, promoting development.

The implementation of the Euro-Mediterranean Higher Education and Research Area is – despite these achievements – still though in its initial phase.

it attempts to create a viable service provision environment in which it controls outcomes at a systems level without detailed interference. But here again, new steering devices have been introduced where output funding and multi-year agreements with the (individual) higher education institutions provide illustrative examples. In effect, governments are not withdrawing from higher- education systems. Rather they are in search of new means of system oversight and performance- based steering of organizations. In some countries one can speak of the State as a “market engineer”, while emerging “quasi markets” still vary in the degree of competition and the extent to which they are regulated by the government. For example, the provision of continuing education or academic consultancy activities is largely unregulated in most countries because these activities are not perceived as core activities. Traditional academic programs and degrees are often still subject to governmental regulation and access to this market is frequently controlled by State authorities or authorities given this responsibility by the State. Competition on the research market is promoted by moving away from the tradition of institution-based research funding towards performance based funding, and the competitive funding of research projects through research councils or agencies at the national and international level.

As far as transnational and transregional cooperation are concerned these seem to remain unimportant. In the last years, the consolidation of several Euro-regions fostered transborder and transregional cooperation in Europe. Among the different Euro-regions, there are several initiatives focusing on Higher Education and Research. For instance, Rhine-Waal, Helsinki-Tallinn, Galicia- Norte de Portugal and Nestos-Mesta Euroregions, focus respectively on qualifications and the labor market, innovation in arts and sciences, competitiveness and employment and technology transfer. Only the Euroregion Pyrenees-Mediterranean has a specific objective for higher education and research.

A question that needs to be asked after this review of governance reform and change in the higher- education systems of the participating regions/countries is the following: is it possible to find a link between governance reform and the overall performance of higher-education systems that can also take into account the construction of a future Euro-Mediterranean Area of Higher Education and Research? The few policy initiatives since 1995 are not, in general, perceived as being very effective.

Annex 5 – Executive Summary of the Culture Report

This report undertakes to analyse the actual and potential contribution of regional authorities to cultural cooperation and policy formulation in the Euro-Mediterranean space. It has been developed in the framework of Activity 3.1. (Analysis of EuroMed Governance Framework) of the MEDGOVERNANCE project. This project aims to develop, the role and contribution of Mediterranean regions to major policies, including transport, competitiveness, environment, and culture. A case-study, the Network of Historic Urban Centres of Islamic Influence between Spain, Portugal, and Morocco, has been selected for an in-depth analysis in order to draw conclusions regarding the articulation between field projects and cultural strategies and policies regarding the institutional aspects of cultural cooperation. The conclusions and recommendations at the end of the report and in this Executive Summary aim to identify the options available for Mediterranean Region initiatives in the field of culture and to propose arrangements that could lead to the best use of these options.

The report deliberately focuses on the cultural action of the regions at the Euro Mediterranean level, and hence does not address the main context factors of cultural development: freedom as a context requirement for culture, education as the main enhancing factor, language as a vehicle for communication in any cultural exchange (this often has a lot to do with the cultural actions of the regions), and mobility as a multiplier of culture. This is necessarily only a preliminary and very general approximation to the subject.

The Network of Historic Urban Centres of Islamic Influence Project

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

Main conclusions

The documentary and case-study analysis conducted to prepare this report has led to the following main general conclusions (see a more developed version in Section 3):

1) Regions in the Mediterranean have a long tradition and a rich experience of action in the field of culture. However, despite their sizeable resources, administrative capacity, and political competences in the field of culture, their participation in formulating cultural policy and strategy at the EU level is very limited.

2) Regions in the Mediterranean focus their actions on events and activities. This is detrimental to their natural role as planning and strategic formulation bodies within their territories. In turn, this focus on activities is detrimental to the contribution of culture to territorial development.

3) Most Mediterranean regions do not have cultural strategies for their own territories. But regions cannot claim participation in the cultural agenda setting and policy formulation at the State, EU, or Euro-Mediterranean level if they, in turn, do not consult and involve sub- regional actors.

4) In the field of international cultural cooperation, the heterogeneity of competences and systems of regional governance in the Mediterranean is a serious obstacle to cultural cooperation between regional governments across the Mediterranean. But it may be an asset, too. It could contribute to the strengthening of regional authorities in those countries where they are less autonomous.

5) In any case, there is a huge inventory of projects and experiences to draw on, and a critical mass of regions with an extensive experience of international cultural cooperation. There is a long tradition of cultural cooperation between European regions, and the lessons learned could be usefully transferred to North-South Mediterranean cultural cooperation.

6) Nevertheless, the evidence shows that transnational projects are often not subject to any serious evaluation or impact assessment, and lessons are not drawn from the evaluations carried out. This means that a lot of good practices are lost.

7) In particular, within the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership framework, regions have not until recently played an effective role in Euro-Mediterranean cultural policy-making.

8) On the operational front, the Cross-Border Cooperation component of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument introduced in 2007, included an innovative and sizeable Mediterranean Basin Programme (one of the four priorities of which is culture, and a management methodology based on EU regional policy structural funds). But this risks failing because of political interference. Failure could have very negative consequences for the prospects of participation for the regions in policy and strategy making in the Euro- Mediterranean framework in all fields, including culture.

9) So far, networks of regional authorities have, for the most part, a generalist nature, with weak technical and lobbying capacities, and they focus on declaratory activities or on attracting and managing funds from States or international organizations. In order to be effective, these networks should be thematic and specialized.

Strategic Recommendations

On the basis of these conclusions, the following preliminary recommendations for action might be formulated (see a more developed version in Section 3):

1) Mediterranean regions should invest in improving their own comprehensive territorial cultural strategies, and should not limit themselves to managing cultural activities. To formulate these strategies, they should consult sub-regional government and civil society actors in their territories, if they want to have a legitimate claim to their right to participate in EU and Euro-Mediterranean cultural policy-making.

2) Inter-regional international cooperation projects should try to involve territorial bodies of the same level as leading partners. When this is not possible, regional bodies should be associated with the projects so that the implementation of the projects at least contributes to their capacity building.

3) Culture should be mainstreamed into general territorial development strategies at all levels and, as this is increasingly a consensus position, regions should be mainstreamed into the cultural policy formulation process. It would, to this end, be useful to create a Network of Mediterranean Regions for Culture, bringing together regions from throughout the Mediterranean region and specifically focused on cultural and cultural cooperation issues. A limited but specialized and dedicated technical secretariat should be created in this framework.

4) Following the same rationale, a commission on cultural cooperation and intercultural dialogue should be created within the newly established Euro-Mediterranean Local and Regional Assembly (ARLEM).

5) Both instances should address the issue of how to associate regional authorities with the on- going formulation of a Euro-Mediterranean Cultural Strategy (the Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Meeting on Culture scheduled for the first semester of 2010 would be the right moment to bring up this involvement, and networks of Euro-Mediterranean regions should submit their claims and ideas to the Conference) and to the activities of the Anna Lindh Foundation for Dialogue between Cultures.

6) The success of the Cross-Border Cooperation Programme of the ENPI, and in particular of the Mediterranean Basin Programme, has strategic importance for the prospects of increasing the participation of the regions in Mediterranean policy-making in all fields, including culture. The credibility of the regions as fully-fledged partners in Euro- Mediterranean cooperation is at stake. So a top priority of all existing networks and regional authorities from the North and the South of the Mediterranean should be to solve current obstacles to success.

7) In line with the rationale of the European Neighbourhood Policy, EU programmes and agencies in the field of culture should invite participation of Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries.

8) International cooperation projects in the Mediterranean should invest more resources in a more systematic way in the dissemination of outcomes and results among the general public and in reaching out to civil society, with budget resources for this; integrating best practices and experiences from similar past projects into the project plan.

9) A systematic catalogue of international cultural cooperation projects in the Mediterranean (by similar categories of projects) and a synthetic brief of good and bad practices derived from them are necessary to ensure the valorisation of the rich experience regional authorities have accumulated in the field of international cultural cooperation (very often in projects with similar characteristics).

10)In the Mediterranean, specific strategies for cultural cooperation should be developed as standard “cooperation themes” (such as cultural heritage, youth or artists exchanges, cultural tourism…) as a guide and a framework for future action.

Annex 6 – Stakeholders interviewed in the case-studies analysis

1- Marc Vanderhaegen, DG TREN

2- Nadine Sulzer, French Ministry of Ecology

3- Jean-François Leydet, Regional direction for transport and ecology 4 - Philippe Mangeard, Cercle Européen de l’Optimodalité

5- Jean Marie Millour, Bureau de Promotion du shortsea shipping 6- François Michel Lambert, Jonction

7- Patrick Anvroin, CPMR, 8- Ricardo Roscelli, SITI (Turin) 9- Henry Roux Alezais, CMA CGM 10- Hervé de Tarade, CMA-CGM 11- Ariodente Valeri, GNV 12- Santiago Orduna, Euroferrys

13- Jose Luis Becerra Dominguez, FRS Iberica 14- Juan Trigo, Comarit Espana

15- Andrés Orellana, Comarit Espana 16- Loic Bezombes, GPMM,

17- Luigi Barone, Port of Genoa,

18- Angel Pulido Hernandez, Portof Seville 19- José Domingo Gil, Port of Algeciras, 20- Ana Arévalo, Port of Barcelona

21- Christelle Caso, PACA region 22- Pierre Lemery Peissik, PACA region 23- Riccardo Mollo, Liguria Region

Culture

24-Rosario Escobar Romero, Secretary of Research and Communication on Historical Heritage for the Department of Cultural Heritage) Historical Centres Network of Islamic Influence – coordinator of the project in Andalusia

25- Hafid Zouaki Historical Centres Network of Islamic Influence. Coordinator of the project in Morocco

26- Mayor of Almonaster la Real (Huelva). 27- Mayor of Olvera (Cadiz)

28- Director of the Faro Interpretation Centre (Algarve) 29- Director of the Silves Interpretation Centre (Algarve)

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

Migration

32- Israel Adán Castilla, Directorate General for Coordination of Migration. Junta of Andalusia 33- Alberto Bitoden Yaka, CEPAIM Seville – Seville “Acoge” Foundation

34- José Domingo Gil, Port Authority of Bahía de Algeciras

35- Francisco Bellido, Migration Coordination Manager for the Chambers’ High Council 36- Cristina García, Peace Movement – MPDL

37- Piedad Pérez Arcos, UGT Trade Union

38- Rocío Palacios, Directorate General for Coordination of Migration, Junta of Andalusia. 39- Muriel Nabeth, Co-ordinator of REMI (Marseilles)

40- Enrica Gay, CNA (Turin)

41- Giorgio Garelli, Piedmont Region 42- Carla Martoglio, Piedmont Region

43- Marzia Sica, Area Operativa Politiche Socio, Compagnia di San Paolo

Environment

44- Elena Santini, Latium Region Enviroment directorate, Nature conservation area 45- Jacopo Sinibaldi, Biodiversity expert, Lazio Regional Agency for Parks (ARP) 46- Giovanni Ferrara Mirenzi, Responsible, Lazio Region, Civil protection directorate 47-Patrizia de Meis, Latium region, Civil protection directorate

48- Angela Farina, Regional Forestry Corps

49- Eugenio Dupre, Italian Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation service 50- Lorenza Colletti, Senior Forestry Officer. Corpo Forestale dello Stato, Divisione 5 51- Fabrizio Bulgarini, WWF – Italy, Responsible for biodiversity protection

52- Fotios Papoulias, Principal Administrator, Nature and Biodiversity – European Commission, Environment Directorate General

53- Thomas de Lannoy, Policy Officer, Civil Protection Unit – European Commission – Directorate General for Environment

543- Michal Bucki, Administrator, Agricolture, Forests, Soil – European Commission, Environment Directorate General

55- Mariam Sanchez Guisandez, Policy Officer, Nature and Bio-diversity – European Commission, Environment Directorate General

56- Pieter Van Lierop Forest Resources Development Forestry Department FAO 57- Denise Axfantidis, Association des Forêts Méditerranéennes

58- Valérie Martinez, PACA regional council, environment direction, natural areas unit 59- Céline Hayot, PACA regional council, environment direction, natural areas unit 60- Laure Moreau, Authority for the Development of the Durance Valley (SMAVD)

61- Piergiorgio Terzuolo, IPLA - Istituto per le piante da legno e l'ambiente

62- Marina Cerra, Piedmont Region – Environment Directorate – Planning and management of Natural Protected areas

63-Federico Pelfini, Piedmont Region, Forestry policies directorate

64- Cristina Ricaldone, Piedmont Region, Civil protection and forest fire fighting system (AIB) 65- Rosario Pintos Martín, Sierra Norte Natural Park

66- Maria Pérez, Sierra Norte Natural Park

67- Juan J. Negro, Researcher Doñana Biological Station

68- Javier Cobos, Head of the Coordination and Management Service for RENPA 69- Dolores Ayllón, Director of the Regional Operational Centre for the Plan INFOCA 70- Juan Cuesta, NGO Ecologistas en Acción.

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

Strategy

There is no standard definition for “macro-region”: the term has been used to describe both globally significant groups of nations (the EU, ASEAN etc.) and groupings of administrative regions within a country (e.g. Australia, Romania). The definition applied here, developed during the preparation of the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region will be “an areaincluding territory from a