Brussels, 12/07/2013 (Agence Europe) - What choices should be made to bring Mediterranean policy out of the current impasse in which it has been placed by the upheavals in southern rim countries and, also, the lack of future prospects? In any case, the region remains insufficiently attractive to private investors, with only public institutional funds seemingly interested, their motivation being more political then economic. What indeed are the choices, replies the co-president of the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM), Luis Valcarcel Siso, who is also president of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) and at the head of the Region of Murcia (Spain) - unless those choices are at the local or regional level or at the level of regional groups, including synergies between Community and non-Community local authorities. In an interview with EUROPE, he confirms it is important to give Mediterranean policy a “territorial dimension”, saying this is one of ARLEM's main ambitions. The CoR believes this is a safe way to give content to a Mediterranean policy that is generally running the risk of stalling.
“The risk is there for all to see”, says Valcarcel, explaining that this is due to the “difficulty of building a coherent and sustainable policy for the future” as “the process of democratic transition takes time and is unstable” and also because of the “traditional conflicts”. The Mediterranean, he asserts, “was and remains one of the most unstable and least integrated regions of the world. We wish to complete the democratic transition process in this region that is located just a few miles from our own shores, and whose potential cannot be ignored”. As things stand and with this in mind, “no country - and especially not the EU as such - must slow down the dialogue process or put a brake on the structures created since 2008”, when the feeling is currently that the EU only manages everyday business in the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean neighbourhood, Valcarcel goes on to say, “is not considered as a strategic zone for all 28 EU member states” and the area is “all too often only considered when there are emergencies or crisis situations”. He regrets the “lack of vision” on the part of some member states. “The development of the Mediterranean coastal countries will be vital for Europe's economic and social future”, he adds. The stakes are enormous, he points out, saying that mutual trading interests are at stake and that “it is above all necessary to develop infrastructures that allow mobility of goods and territorial development. We must, together, work against pollution and climate change, and in favour of local water management, the efficient use of energy and waste management”. Valcarcel also affirms that “European towns and regions are already able to promote further action at every level: economic, social, cultural, strategic and from the solidarity point of view. City-diplomacy (the diplomacy of local citizenship) is increasingly becoming a tool to be exploited by traditional diplomacy and is at the disposal of the EU: these towns and regions form, with the CoR, the living part of the EU and they should be taken more into consideration when measures are taken as part of neighbourhood policy or under decentralised cooperation”. He went on to say: “The last ARLEM meeting in Palestine and my visit to Israel in June bear witness to the will to keep all channels of dialogue and multilateral cooperation open”.
The Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) does not have the means to carry out its ambitions. Valcarcel criticises this “lack of means” in the Barcelona structure. “We often have the impression that a wall of water is keeping us apart when investment should come about as soon as possible - both public investment (through a Euro-Mediterranean investment bank that we wish to set up) and private investment. Unfortunately, the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 will not help to change the situation”, he said. The secretariat of the UfM which “is doing a very good job” cannot therefore “play its role to the full”, said Varcarcel, adding that this is “short-sightedness” on the part of the states.
Valcarcel considers the EU should start to reflect on its action in the countries of the southern Mediterranean rim in terms of regional policy, structural funds, and perhaps macro-regions (Ed.: European regions and countries that are not neighbouring countries). And the results obtained in the European regions and towns with cohesion policy over the past 20 years are an incentive to take this course.
Regarding the role of ARLEM, Valcarcel points out that it was created in 2010 well before the “revolutions” in order to give a “territorial dimension” to Euro-Mediterranean dialogue - something that was missing in the Barcelona process. “The recent popular movements have shown the extreme need for economic and social territorial development, accompanied by a decentralisation process that can facilitate the strengthening of the democratic process in each partner state. Our idea is therefore to accompany the Euro-Mediterranean debate in order to bring it to the field by using multilateral cooperation instruments, managed or co-managed by regional and local authorities. We are working with the secretariat of Barcelona to identify concrete projects, relating, for example, to the promotion of capacity building measures in key sectors of regional and urban development or in the local management of water. We are moving from what is political to what is practical”. (our translation throughout). (FB/transl.jl)