Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 : multi-level governance in support of Europe 2020 : final report.
Date: 2015-06-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
Subjects: EU regional policy, economic and social cohesion, governance, innovation, regional and local authorities, regional development, report, research and development, transfer of competence

Local  and  Regional  Partners 
Contributing to Europe 2020 

Multi-level governance in support of Europe 2020  

Spatial Foresight  
April 2015 

Regional and 
Urban Policy 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This is the final report of the study on promoting multi-level governance in support of Europe 
2020 (Contract No 2013CE16BAT019). 

The study was led by Spatial Foresight and began in October 2013. The aim of this study on 
promoting multi-level governance in support of Europe 2020 is to provide lessons and to 
stimulate the increase and transfer of knowledge between regions. The study focuses on both 
the analysis and facilitation of transfer processes. 

This report was prepared by Spatial Foresight with the support of Nordregio. It is based on 
earlier contributions to this study from t33 (Lombardy and meeting support), IPoP (Vrhnika), 
Instytut Rozowoju (Pomorskie), Sweco (Stockholm), VEConseil (Alsace), Metrex (meeting 
support), Nordregio (literature review and meeting support) and Spatial Foresight (Prignitz-
Oberhavel, Liverpool and Timisoara, overall analysis and coordination).  

Acknowledgements 

This study would not have been possible without many people involved in the case study 
research and discussions at the multilateral meetings and the twinning exercises. The project 
team would like to thank all those who gave their time to support this work, including the 
representatives of the local and regional stakeholders, external experts and the staff at DG 
Regional and Urban Policy (in particular John Walsh and Samuele Dossi) and other Commission 
Services. Without your constructive support this study would not have been possible! 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy  
Directorate B — Policy  
Unit B.2 — Evaluation and European Semester  

Contact: John Walsh  

E-mail:  john.walsh@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Local  and  Regional  Partners 
Contributing to Europe 2020 

Multi-level governance in support of Europe 2020 

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 
Study on promoting multi-level governance in support of Europe 2020 
CCI 2013CE16BAT019 

2015 

 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers 
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you).

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 

ISBN 978-92-79-48906-8
doi:10.2776/74666

© European Union, 2015 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... V

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ..................................................................................... VI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ VII

RÉSUMÉ ..................................................................................................................... XI

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG ................................................................................................. XVI

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1

1	   MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE & EUROPE 2020 .............................................................. 3
1.1	   GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY .................................. 5
1.2	   GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS FOR SOCIAL INCLUSION ................................... 7

2	   LESSONS  FOR  EFFECTIVE  USE  OF  MULTI-LEVEL  GOVERNANCE  IN  SUPPORT  OF 

EUROPE 2020 ..................................................................................................... 10

2.1	   WHEN?  MULTI-LEVEL  GOVERNACE  PROCESS  CAN  COME  IN  AT  ALL  STAGES 

OF THE POLICY CYCLE ................................................................................ 11

2.2	   WHY?  LOCAL  NEEDS  DRIVE  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  EUROPE  2020 

STRATEGY ................................................................................................ 14

2.3	   WHO?  INDIVIDUAL  DRIVERS  OFTEN  INITIATE  MULTI-LEVEL  GOVERNANCE 

PROCESSES .............................................................................................. 17
2.4  WHO? SELECTING AND MOTIVATING ALL CRUCIAL STAKEHOLDERS .................. 22 
2.4.1  Stakeholders  from  multiple  sectors  and  administrative  levels  get 

involved ...................................................................................... 23 

2.4.2  Different motives for mobilising stakeholders ...................................... 29 

2.5  HOW? DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS OF MODES OF GOVERNANCE ............................ 33
2.6	   HOW?  FACILITATING MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE PROCESSES ........................ 35
2.7	   WHAT? NEED FOR CLEAR OBJECTIVES, DEMANDS AND ROLES ......................... 38
3	   LESSONS FOR TRANSFERABILITY ........................................................................... 39
3.1	   THE POLICY TRANSFER SETTING OF THE STUDY ............................................. 40
3.2	   HOW?  POLICY TRANSFER 2.0 ...................................................................... 41
3.3	   WHAT?  TRANSFERABILITY DELIVERED ......................................................... 44
3.4	   FINAL REMARKS ON TRANSFERABILITY PROCESSES AND OUTCOMES ................ 47
4	   CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 49
4.1	   Key lessons on governance arrangements ...................................................... 50
4.2	   Key lessons on transferability ....................................................................... 51

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 53

ANNEX 1 CASE STUDY SUMMARIES 

ANNEX 2 LESSONS ON GOOD PRACTICES FROM IDEA TO ACTION 

v 

Final Report 

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES  

Figure 1 Interplay between policy levels ............................................................................ 3 

Figure 2 Lessons for multi-level governance (MLG) in support of Europe 2020 ...................... 10 

Figure 3 Initiation factors for multi-level governance ......................................................... 18 

Figure 4 ‘Top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ forces in multi-level governance processes ................... 20 

Figure 5 A new cooperation culture is needed with regard to … ........................................... 22 

Figure 6 Most influential stakeholders in multi-level governance processes ........................... 23 

Figure 7 Sectors involved in multi-level governance processes on social inclusion .................. 25 

Figure 8 Sectors involved in multi-level governance processes on energy efficiency ............... 25 

Figure 9 Policy sectors and levels in the Urban Game ........................................................ 26 

Figure 10 Reflections on cross-sector governance mechanisms ........................................... 27 

Figure 11 Reflections on cross-level governance mechanisms ............................................. 28 

Figure 12 Trilateral communication on the case of Timisoara .............................................. 32 

Figure 13 Lessons for transferability of multi-level governance (MLG) processes ................... 39 

Figure 14 Challenges for transferring lessons ................................................................... 42 

Figure 15 Linking lessons on multi-level governance (MLG) process and transferability .......... 49 

Table  1  Multi-level  governance  dimensions  at  various  stages  of  the  policy  cycle  for  energy 
efficiency ............................................................................................................. 12 

Table  2  Multi-level  governance  dimensions  at  various  stages  of  the  policy  cycle  for  social 
inclusion .............................................................................................................. 13 

Table 3 Motivating factors by types of stakeholders .......................................................... 30 

Table 4 Prevailing modes of governance in the case studies ............................................... 33 

Table 5 Modes of transferability highlighted in the study .................................................... 48 

vi 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  

To achieve the Europe 2020 strategy targets, all levels of governance from local to EU 
levels  need  to  work  on  implementing  this  overarching  long-term  strategy.  Multi-level 
governance  describes  collective  decision-making  processes  where  authority  and 
influence are shared between stakeholders operating at multiple levels of governance. 
In  other  words,  it  describes  decision-making  processes  that  engage  various 
independent  but  interdependent  stakeholders.  Multi-level  governance  does  not  define 
a  model  of  exclusive  decision  making  powers  nor  proposes  stable  hierarchies  of 
authority.  

What  happens  on  the  ground?  Most  debates  on  the  implementation  of  the  Europe 
2020  strategy  take  place  at  the  EU  and  national  levels,  based  on  EU  documents  and 
the  National  Reform  Programmes  (NRPs).  From  there  the  objectives  and  targets  are 
assumed  to  trickle  down  to  the  regional  and  local  levels  to  be  translated  into  action. 
Stepping  away  from  this  command-chain  view  of  Europe  2020  strategy  governance 
and focusing on what happens on the ground shows diverse objectives being pursued, 
diverse  arrangements  and  diverse  processes  at  local  and  regional  levels  being 
realised. 

Study  on  multi-level  governance  in  support  of  Europe  2020.  To  stimulate 
discussion and potential transfer of learning DG REGIO launched a study on multi-level 
governance  in  support  of  Europe  2020.  This  study  analyses  eight  case  studies  to 
better  understand  existing  governance  arrangements.  Four  case  studies  concern 
energy  efficiency  and  four  others  focus  on  social  inclusion.  Based  on  these  studies, 
seminars and workshops were organised to discuss the findings and possible transfer 
of  governance  tools  and  ideas  to  other  cities  and  regions  in  Europe.  The  scope  and 
timeframe of the study were too limited to allow definitive overarching conclusions to 
be drawn. Nevertheless the results provide valuable input to the discussion on multi-
level  governance  processes  in  support  of  the  Europe  2020  strategy  and  the  roles  of 
local  and  regional  authorities  in  particular.  The  national  and  EU  levels  were  also 
identified as relevant in several case studies. 

Eight  case  studies  were  identified  prior  to  the  start  of  the  study  and  documented 
during the work. 

Energy efficiency case studies  
-  Prignitz-Oberhavel (Germany) concerns the interplay between energy strategies at 
different  levels  of  governance  and  in  particular  the  role  of  the  standing  conference  of 
regional planning authorities, aiming at a more rational approach to energy issues.   
-  Vrhnika  (Slovenia)  involves  the  launch  of  a  local  energy  concept  complying  with 
national  laws,  and  formulated  with  a  range  of  national  ministries  and  local 
stakeholders.  

-  Lombardy  (Italy)  relates  to  the  regional  territorial  plan  (PTRA)  for  the  Alpine  Valley 
Area, which brought together the most important stakeholders to approach the issue of 
energy inefficiency and the unsustainable use of natural resources in the region.  

-  Alsace  (France)  is  about  a  programme  and  cluster  supporting  the  emergence  of 
innovative  products  and  services  reducing  energy  consumption,  through  a  range  of 
cooperation activities, including a contract with the state. 

Social inclusion case studies  
-  Stockholm  (Sweden)  concerns  the  Urban  Game  as  a  tool  to  encourage  discussion 
and to increase awareness about the interdependencies of developments and decisions 
in  different  sectors  and  at  different  levels  of  governance  in  the  context  of  social 
inclusion challenges.  

-  Pomorskie  (Poland)  involves  the  European  Regional  Development  Funds  (ERDF)  to 
initiate  local  stakeholder  cooperation  and  integrated  social  inclusions  measures  in 
tandem with physical urban revitalisation projects.  

vii 

 
 
Final Report 

-  Timisoara  (Romania)  relates  to  new  local  governance  arrangements  addressing  the 

problems of non-EU migrants, which also led to policy changes at national level.  

-  Liverpool (UK) is about an initiative to encourage social entrepreneurship with ERDF 
support and its struggle to survive in changing administrative and governance settings, 
including reinforced cooperation of stakeholders in being more resource-efficient. 

Implementation  of  Europe  2020  follows  the  subsidiarity  principle.  So  actions 
should  be  taken  as  closely  to  citizen  level  as  possible.  The  appropriate  level  of 
decision-making  varies  depending  on  the  policy  fields  and  the  division  of  decision-
making powers in a Member State or region. In addition, the EU level has, in general, 
limited formal scope to influence national governance arrangements. Still stakeholders 
from different levels of governance and different sectors, as well as public, private and 
civil  society  stakeholders,  often  need  to  cooperate  to  tackle  the  complexity  of 
challenges addressed in the Europe 2020 strategy.  

Towards a multi-level policy cycle. Implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy is 
embedded in policy developments that need to mobilise various levels of governance.  
Achieving the objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy requires the cooperation 
of multiple sectors and levels of governance. No single stakeholder or policy sector can 
achieve these complex objectives on its own. The challenge is to bring the necessary 
stakeholders  together  in  a  policy  cycle.  Depending  on  the  local  and  regional  pre-
conditions  and  the  policy  field  addressed,  different  stakeholders  are  involved  at 
different moments of the policy cycle. Different modes of governance can be at play to 
bring  on  board  the  relevant  stakeholders.  The  four  most  prominent  modes  are 
governing by authority, governing by provision, governing through enabling and self-
governing. In practice, several modes are involved and their importance may change 
during the policy cycle. 

Changing  governance  arrangements  takes  time.  Governance  processes  and 
structures show strong inertia and it takes time to move towards new forms of shared 
decision-making  processes.  The  time  needed  depends  on  the  issue  at  stake,  the 
change processes, the approaches and stakeholders to be involved. The more complex 
the process, the more difficult and time consuming it is to change.  

Differences between policy fields. The eight case studies are too small a sample to 
draw  conclusions  on  the  differences  of  multi-level  governance  in  the  fields  of  energy 
efficiency and social inclusion. However, they suggest that legal and policy frameworks 
at EU and national level play a larger role in energy efficiency than in social inclusion, 
when  initiating  multi-level  governance  processes.  At  the  same  time,  social  inclusion 
governance processes put more emphasis on the local and even neighbourhood level. 
In addition, the governance arrangements in the social inclusion cases tend to include 
a larger number of different policy sectors than the energy efficiency cases. 

Diversity  and  coherence  of  governance  arrangements.  Multi-level  governance 
arrangements  are  context  dependent.  How  to  run  them  and  who  to  involve  depends 
on the issue at stake, existing multi-level governance platforms or experience, and the 
formal  division  of  competence  between  levels  of  governance  and  stakeholders  with 
decision  making  powers  or  influence.  Consequently  there  are  many  multi-level 
governance arrangements, all of which are place and context-specific.  

The  factors  listed  above  contribute  to  the  challenge  for  those  organisations  that  are 
interested in learning from interregional exchanges when trying to improve and modify 
governance  arrangements.  As  suggested  by  the  literature  good  governance  practices 
cannot  be  transferred  automatically,  are  more  difficult  to  transfer  than  policy  action 
and the effects of governance changes take a long time to materialise and are difficult 
to quantify.  

However,  there  are  some  common  characteristics  that  suggest  a  few  critical  success 
factors for efforts to improve multi-level governance relationships.  

viii 

 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

The main success factors arising from the study answer the following questions: 

•  Why  engage  in  multi-level  governance  processes?  Local  development 
needs and the necessity to comply with legal requirements are key drivers for 
stakeholders to engage in multi-level governance processes. Policy frameworks 
at  EU  or  national  levels  can  trigger  multi-level  governance  processes  at  local 
and regional level. Multi-level governance processes are also used because the 
issues  at  stake  are  so  complex  that  they  need  the  competence  and  decision-
making powers of a range of stakeholders at different levels of governance.  

•  Who  drives  or  initiates  the  multi-level  governance  processes?  There  is 
no  single  stakeholder  who  is  per  se  designated  to  initiate  or  drive  governance 
processes. Clear evidence of the needs and individuals with good networks and 
a broad understanding of governance in the respective policy field help to make 
a  start.  While  very  often  these  are  politicians  and  civil  servants  at  local, 
regional  or  national  level,  non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs)  and  other 
stakeholders can also initiate change. 

•  Which  stakeholders  should  be  involved?  The  selection  of  stakeholders 
across levels of governance and policy sectors depends on the policy, the policy 
tools and existing governance. Any stakeholders whose decision-making power 
or  political  and  social  influence  are  needed  to  contribute  to  the  policy  cycle  in 
order to solve the issue at stake should be involved. Also stakeholders from the 
private and the third sector should be considered. At the same time there is a 
trade-off  between  the  number  of  stakeholders  and  effectiveness.  Therefore, 
from  the  very  beginning,  a  careful  mapping  must  be  undertaken  in  order  to 
determine the most influential stakeholders in the field. 

•  How 

to 

facilitate  multi-level  governance  processes?  Facilitating 
cooperation  of  a  considerable  number  of  stakeholders  needs  communication 
routines  and  cooperation  practices  supporting  agreement.  This  includes 
awareness-raising  techniques  to  create  a  common  understanding  or  even 
consensus  among  stakeholders,  shared  visions,  objectives,  strategic  plans  or 
contractual  agreements.  The  crucial  factor  is  the  ability  to  create  ownership 
and commitment among the stakeholders. The modes of governance also play 
a  role.  In  this  context  a  trusted  neutral  facilitator  may  play  a  valuable  role  to 
animate a process of governance change.  

•  When  should  multi-level  governance  processes  be  used?  Multi-level 
governance  arrangements  and  processes  can  be  relevant  at  all  stages  of  a 
policy cycle. It is important to adjust the composition of the stakeholder groups 
during the process in order to find the most appropriate arrangements for the 
different  steps  in  the  policy  development.  It  is  also  necessary  to  plan  for 
feedback loops at the stakeholders’ institutions and consider external dynamics 
such  as  e.g.  upcoming  elections,  which  may  influence  decision-making 
processes. 

•  What  is  it  all  about?  Clarity  of  processes,  definition  of  roles  and  policy 
contents  are  important  to  facilitate  a  smooth  multi-level  governance  process. 
Clear rules on the cooperation framework, clear roles for different stakeholders, 
and clear objectives for specific actions are all relevant to manage expectations 
and sustain engagement. 

•  How  can  one  learn  from  the  experience  of  others?  Learning  from  others 
can  help  ’thinking  outside  the  box’,  even  if  the  learning  first  needs  to  be 
translated  to  the  specific  context.  Transferring  practices  and  experiences  from 
one city or region to another needs to be 

ix 

 
 
Final Report 

…mutual,  resulting  from  dialogue  between  the  sender  and  the  receiver  of  this 
knowledge; 
…concrete, focusing on practices that can actually be changed or influenced at 
the receiver’s end; 
…incremental,  as  new  practices  need  to  be  integrated  with  current  and  future 
practices; 
…context-specific,  so  there  should  be  some  similarity  with  the  geographical, 
socio-economic and institutional conditions; 
…adapted,  as  even  the  most  obvious  success  story  can  never  be  fully 
transposed elsewhere; 
…realistic, as some good practices may, in theory, have a high impact, but are 
actually difficult to apply outside their home context; 
…durable,  as  there  is  no  magic  solution  or  quick  fix  that  will  foster  long-term 
changes of attitude and have long-standing impact.  

National  bodies  play  a  critical  role.  In  the  delivery  of  Europe  2020  objectives, 
national authorities have a pivotal role in the framing of National Reform Plans and the 
shaping  and  delivery  of  national  policy  initiatives.  From  this  and  other  studies  it  is 
clear  that  a  wide  range  of  sub  national  public  bodies  also  have  roles,  competencies 
and interests in key Europe 2020 policy fields. In the eight case studies chosen at the 
beginning of the study the national level is in all cases part of the policy cycle although 
in  none  of  the  eight  cases  national  partners  were  mobilised  during  the  exchanges. 
Nonetheless,  national  actors  can  also  draw  lessons  from  this  work.  National  actors  in 
many cases have a wider range of options open in terms of the modes of governance 
they wish to employ. But the key lessons on raising awareness of governance options, 
mapping  the  relevant  stakeholders  and  actors  that  have  important  policy  roles,  the 
use of different tools and processes to facilitate consensus building and clarity on roles 
and retaining a focus on the policy objectives are all relevant for national players also. 

Delivering Europe 2020 and EU Cohesion Policy. Europe 2020 objectives are not 
abstract  EU  level  ideas,  but  concern  the  development  of  every  city  and  region  in  the 
EU. Achieving the policy objectives requires effective governance mechanisms. Future 
debates  need  to  focus  more  on  sub-national  levels.  More  emphasis  could  be  given  to 
‘bottom-up’ processes and to furthering the understanding that implementation of the 
Europe  2020  strategy  requires  the  cooperation  between  public,  private  and  civil 
society stakeholders at different levels of governance and from different sectors. This 
means  raising  awareness  and  creating  opportunities  to  facilitate  learning  within 
existing European frameworks and policy areas.  

Initiatives  within  the  European  territorial  cooperation  programmes  to  promote  multi-
level  governance  and  governance  learning  can  also  draw  lessons  from  this  work.  
Delivering  governance  change  is  highly  context  specific  and  dependent  on  complex 
relationships with territories. There are difficulties of time scale and identifying cause 
and effect relationships between multi-level governance actions and policy outcomes, 
which will lead to clear difficulties for European cooperation initiatives to demonstrate 
their results or benefits of time limited cooperation actions.  

In  relation  to  the  governance  of  2014-2020  ESIF  programmes,  the  case  studies 
documented,  the  tools  identified  and  the  lessons  drawn  from  the  work  during  this 
study  can  clearly  inform  efforts  by  programme  authorities  to  put  in  place  more 
effective  governance  arrangements  with  a  view  to  deliver  more  effective  policy 
interventions.  The  partnership  principle  and  Code  of  Conduct  on  partnership1  in  the 
framework  of  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF)  offer  good  starting 
positions in relation to investment policies, where taken seriously.  

1 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 240/2014 of 7 January 2014 on the European code of conduct on partnership 
in the framework of the European Structural and Investment Funds (OJ L 74, 14.3.2014, p. 1). 
x 

 
 
 
                                                 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

RÉSUMÉ 

Afin  d’atteindre  les  objectifs  généraux  et  à  long-terme  de  la  stratégie  Europe  2020, 
tous  les  niveaux  de  gouvernance,  du  local  à  l’Union  Européenne,  doivent  contribuer 
ensemble  à  sa  mise  en  œuvre.    La  gouvernance  multi-niveau  désigne  des  processus 
collectifs de prise de décision caractérisés par un partage de l’autorité et de l’influence 
entre  des  acteurs  opérant  à  différents  niveaux.  En  d’autres  termes,  il  s’agit  de 
processus  de  prise  de  décision  qui  engagent  des  acteurs  qui  sont  tout  à  la  fois 
autonomes  et  interdépendants.  La  gouvernance  multi-niveau  n’a  donc  pas  pour 
vocation de définir un modèle de répartition des compétences, ni de proposer niveaux 
de hiérarchie stables pour la prise de décisions.  

Que se passe-t-il sur le terrain? L’essentiel des débats relatifs à la mise en œuvre de 
la stratégie Europe 2020 sont aux niveaux national et européen ; ils se focalisent sur 
des  documents  communautaires  et  sur  les  Programmes  nationaux  de  réforme  (PNR). 
Les  objectifs  et  valeurs-cibles  sur  lesquels  on  s’accorde  sont  ensuite  censés  être 
répercutés  aux  niveaux  régional  et  local  afin  d’être  traduits  en  actions.  La  présente 
étude  abandonne  cette  approche  hiérarchisée  de  la  gouvernance  de  la  stratégie 
Europe  2020  et  décrit  des  actions  concrètes  développées  au  sein  des  collectivités 
territoriales. Cela lui permet de constater la pluralité des objectifs poursuivis, ainsi que 
la diversité des arrangements institutionnels et des processus de développement.  

Étude  de  la  gouvernance  multi-niveau  à  l’appui  de  la  stratégie  Europe  2020. 
Pour stimuler la discussion et le transfert de connaissances entre régions, DG REGIO a 
lancé  cette  étude  examinant  la  gouvernance  multi-niveau  à  l’appui  de  la  stratégie 
Europe  2020.  Cette  étude  analyse  huit  études  de  cas  pour  mieux  comprendre  les 
processus  et  dispositifs  de  gouvernance  existants  dans  différentes  régions  d’Europe. 
Quatre  études  de  cas  concernent  la  thématique  de  l’efficience  énergique  et  quatre 
celle de l’inclusion sociale. A partir de ces études de cas, des séminaires et workshops 
furent organisés afin de discuter de la possibilité et pertinence du transfert à d’autres 
villes  ou  régions  d’Europe  de  certains  résultats,  bonnes  pratiques  ou  instruments 
spécifiques liés à la gouvernance. Malgré les limites du champ d’investigation et de la 
relative courte durée du projet, ne permettant pas de tirer des conclusions générales 
et  définitives,  les  résultats  de  l’étude  apportent  de  nouveaux  éléments  au  débat 
concernant  les  processus  de  gouvernance  multi-niveau  à  l’appui  la  stratégie  Europe 
2020 et sur le rôle que les collectivités territoriales peuvent potentiellement jouer afin 
d’y  contribuer.  Les  niveaux  national  et  européen  furent  aussi  identifiés  comme 
pertinent dans de multiples études de cas.  

Huit  études  de  cas  ont  été  identifiées  en  amont  du  projet  et  documentées  lors  de 
l’étude. 

Cas sur l’efficience énergétique 
-  Prignitz-Oberhavel  (Allemagne),  traite  de 

les  stratégies 
énergétiques  à  différents  niveaux  de  gouvernance  et  en  particulier  le  rôle  de  la 
conférence  permanente  des  autorités  régionales  pour  l’aménagement  du  territoire, 
visant une approche plus intégrée aux questions énergétiques.  

l’interaction  entre 

-  Vrhnika  (Slovénie),  traite  du  lancement  du  concept  d’énergie  locale  respectant  les 
règles nationales, et formulé en interaction entre différents ministères nationaux et les 
acteurs locaux.  

-  Lombardie  (Italie),  est  associé  au  plan  régional  d’aménagement  du  territoire  de  la 
vallée  alpine,  qui  rassemble  les  acteurs  les  plus  influents  afin  de  définir  une  approche 
plus globale des problèmes liés à l’inefficacité énergétique et à l’usage non-durable des 
ressources naturelles de la région.  

-  Alsace  (France),  traite  d’un  programme  et  cluster  soutenant  le  développement  de 
produits  et  services  innovants  permettant  une  réduction  de  la  consommation 
énergétique  au  travers  de  multiples  activités  de  coopération,  notamment  au  travers 
d’un contrat état-région.   

xi 

 
 
 
Final Report 

Cas sur l’inclusion sociale 
-  Stockholm  (Suède),  concerne  le  Jeu  Urbain,  un  outil  permettant  d’encourager  la 
discussion entre acteurs régionaux et de favoriser la prise de conscience concernant les 
interdépendances  existantes  entre  différents  secteurs  et  niveaux  de  gouvernance  afin 
de relever les défis liés à l’inclusion sociale.  

-  Pomorskie  (Pologne),  traite  de  l’utilisation  du  Fonds  Européen  de  Développement 
Régional (FEDER) pour le développement de la coopération entre acteurs locaux et de 
l’intégration de mesures favorisant l’inclusion sociale autour de projets de revitalisation 
de l’infrastructure urbaine.  

-  Timisoara  (Roumanie),  traite  des  nouveaux  dispositifs  de  gouvernance  locale 
développés  afin  d’adresser  les  problèmes  liés  aux  migrants  extra-communautaires,  et 
impliquant des changements durable de politique au niveau national.   

-  Liverpool 

(Royaume-Uni), 

régionale  encourageant 
l’entrepreneuriat  social,  avec  le  soutien  des  fonds  structurels  FEDER,  et  relate  des 
difficultés  rencontrées  pour  survivre  aux  récentes  réformes  de  l’administration 
régionale  et  de  ses  effets  sur  la  coopération  entre  acteurs  locaux  pour  permettre  une 
meilleure utilisation des ressources disponible.   

traite  d’une 

initiative 

La mise en œuvre de la stratégie Europe 2020 suit le principe de subsidiarité. 
Cela implique que les décisions et actions publiques doivent être prises aussi proches 
que  possible  des  citoyens.  Le  niveau  le  plus  approprié  pour  la  prise  de  décision  varie 
dans  chaque  État-membre  d’une  part  selon  les  questions  adressées  et  d’autre  part 
selon la division des pouvoirs de prise de décision entre les niveaux de gouvernance. 
En outre, le niveau communautaire a peu de pouvoirs formels lui permettant d’influer 
sur la gouvernance au niveau national. Néanmoins, les acteurs provenant de niveaux 
de  gouvernance  et  de  secteurs  différents  ont  souvent  besoin  de  développer  des  axes 
de coopération afin de s’attaquer plus efficacement à la complexité des défis adressés 
par la stratégie Europe 2020.  

Vers un cycle de politique multi-niveau. La mise en œuvre de la stratégie Europe 
2020 est ancrée dans des politiques de développement qui nécessitent la mobilisation 
de plusieurs niveaux de gouvernance. Atteindre les objectifs élaborés dans la stratégie 
Europe 2020 nécessite donc la coopération entre de multiples secteurs et de niveaux 
de gouvernance. Aucun acteur ni secteur ne peut atteindre ces objectifs complexes à 
lui  seul.  Le  défi  est  donc  de  rassembler  ceux-ci  dans  un  même  cycle  de  prise  de 
décision.  Selon  les  conditions  locales  et  régionales  ainsi  que  les  thématiques 
adressées,  différents  acteurs  sont  impliqués  à  différentes  étapes  du  processus  de 
décision.  Différents  modes  de  gouvernance  peuvent  ainsi  être  mobilisés  afin  de 
rassembler au mieux les acteurs pertinents au cours du processus. Les quatre modes 
de  gouvernance  les  plus  répandus  sont  la  gouvernance  par  compétence,  la 
gouvernance  par  provision,  la  gouvernance  par  facilitation  ainsi  que  la  gouvernance 
par  autogestion.  En  pratique,  plusieurs  modes  peuvent  être  mobilisés  simultanément 
et leur importance respective peut varier au cours du processus.  

Changer  les  structures  de  gouvernance  prend  du  temps.  Les  processus  et 
structures  de  gouvernance  font  preuve  d’une  forte  inertie  et  la  transition  vers  de 
nouvelles formes de gouvernance pour la prise de décision collective peut prendre du 
temps.  La  durée  de  cette  transition  dépend  de  la  question  adressée,  des  structures 
existantes  ainsi  que  des  méthodes  et  acteurs  impliqués.  Plus  le  processus  est 
complexe, plus la transition sera longue et ardue.  

Différences  entre  les  champs  d’action  politique.  Les  huit  études  de  cas 
représentent  un  échantillon  trop  limité  pour  pouvoir  tirer  des  conclusions  générales 
sur les différences de gouvernance multi-niveau existantes au sein des thématiques de 
l’efficience  énergétique  et  de  l’inclusion  sociale.    Cependant,  elles  suggèrent  que  les 
cadres légaux et politiques aux niveaux européen et national jouent un plus grand rôle 
dans le cas de l’efficience énergétique que dans celui de l’inclusion sociale, notamment 
en  ce  qui  concerne  l’initiation  de  nouvelles  structures  de  gouvernance  multi-niveau. 
Par  ailleurs,  les  processus  de  gouvernance  concernant  l’inclusion  sociale  tendent  à 

xii 

 
 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

mettre plus en exergue le niveau local voire même celui des quartiers. De surcroit, les 
structures de gouvernance adressant l’inclusion sociale ont tendance à inclure un plus 
grand nombre de secteurs que celles adressant l’efficience énergétique. 

Diversité  et  cohérence  des  dispositifs  de  gouvernance.  Les  structures  de 
gouvernance  multi-niveau  sont  dépendantes  du  contexte  institutionnel  et  socio-
économique  dans  lequel  elles  se  développent.  Comment  les  mettre  en  œuvre  et  qui 
impliquer dans ce processus dépendent donc de la question adressée, des plateformes 
ou structures de gouvernance multi-niveau existantes, ainsi que les divisions formelles 
de compétences entre les niveaux de gouvernance et les acteurs étant partie prenante 
du  processus  de  décision.  Ainsi  les  multiples  structures  de  gouvernance  multi-niveau 
qui  se  développent  restent  en  lien  étroit  avec  la  spécificité  institutionnelle  et  socio-
économique du territoire.   

Les  facteurs  listés  ci-dessus  constituent  d’autant  plus  de  défis  pour  les  organisations 
qui  veulent  s’appuyer  sur  les  expériences  d’autres  régions  afin  d’améliorer  les 
structures  locales  de  gouvernance.  Cependant,  comme  la  littérature  scientifique  le 
suggère, les pratiques de bonne gouvernance ne peuvent a priori pas être transférées 
telles  quelles.  Ces  pratiques  sont  en  effet  plus  difficiles  à  transférer  que  des  actions 
politiques,  les  effets  des  changements  de  gouvernance  prenant  plus  de  temps  à  se 
matérialiser et étant plus difficilement quantifiables.   

Néanmoins,  il  existe  certaines  caractéristiques  qui  apparaissent  dans  de  nombreux 
cas,  ce  qui  suggère  que  certains  facteurs  peuvent  contribuer  au  succès  de  telles 
initiatives.  

Les facteurs de succès les plus prépondérants adressent les questions suivantes :  

•  Pourquoi  s’engager  dans  un  processus  de  gouvernance  multi-niveau? 
La  nécessité  de  répondre  aux  besoins  liés  au  développement  local  ainsi  que 
celle  de  se  soumettre  aux  cadres  légaux  existants  sont  les  principales  raisons 
amenant  les  acteurs  à  s’engager  dans  des  processus  de  gouvernance  multi-
niveau.  La  complexité  des  cadres  politiques  aux  niveaux  européen  et  national 
peut  inciter  la  mise  en  place  de  nouveaux  processus  de  gouvernance  multi-
niveau adoptés par les collectivités territoriales. Les processus de gouvernance 
multi-niveau  sont  utilisés  lorsque  les  questions  adressées  sont  suffisamment 
complexes  pour  qu’elles  nécessitent  une  prise  de  décision  collective  basée  sur 
les  compétences  de  multiples  acteurs  issus  de  différents  niveaux  de 
gouvernance ainsi.    

•  Qui  dirige  ou  initie  les  processus  de  gouvernance  multi-niveau?  Il 
n’existe pas d’acteur qui puisse, seul, initier ou diriger ces nouveaux processus 
de  gouvernance.  Avoir  une  idée  précise  des  besoins  locaux,  avoir  une  bonne 
capacité à créer des réseaux d’acteurs ainsi qu’avoir une connaissance étendue 
des problématiques de gouvernance dans le domaine politique en question sont 
des  qualités  nécessaires  pour  mettre  en  œuvre  de  telles  initiatives.  Dans  de 
nombreux  cas,  ce  sont  les  politiciens  ou  fonctionnaires  de  collectivités 
territoriales  qui  sont  les  plus  à  même  d’initier  ce  changement,  même  si  les 
organisations non-gouvernementales et d’autres acteurs peuvent jouer un rôle 
important pour le développement de ces initiatives.  

•  Quels  acteurs  doivent  être  impliqués?  La  mobilisation  de  divers  acteurs 
provenant de différents niveaux de gouvernance ou secteurs publiques dépend 
notamment  de  la  politique,  des  instruments  ainsi  que  de  la  gouvernance 
considérés.  Tous  les  acteurs  ayant  un  pouvoir  de  décision  ou  une  influence 
sociale  et  politique  notable  doivent  participer  au  cycle  politique  menant  à  une 
résolution  durable  de  la  problématique  en  question.  En  outre,  les  acteurs  du 
secteur  privé  et  du  tiers-secteur  doivent  être  impliqués.  L’objectif  de 
promouvoir  une  participation  large  doit  néanmoins  être  balancée  avec  la 

xiii 

 
Final Report 

nécessité  de  l’efficience  globale  du  processus  initié.  Ainsi,  un  juste  équilibre 
entre  le  nombre  d’acteurs  impliqués  et  l’efficacité  du  processus  doit  être 
maintenu.  Ainsi,  dès  le  départ,  une  cartographie  minutieuse  des  acteurs  doit 
être  effectuée  afin  de  déterminer  quels  acteurs  sont  les  plus  pertinents  ou 
influents pour répondre à la problématique.  

important  d’acteurs  nécessite 

•  Comment  faciliter  les  processus  de  gouvernance  multi-niveau?  Faciliter 
la  coopération  entre  un  nombre 
le 
développement  de  routines  de  communication  et  de  pratiques  de  coopération 
en  soutien  de  la  prise  de  décision.  Cela  inclut  des  techniques  et  méthodes 
facilitant  la  prise  de  conscience  collective  afin  de  créer  une  compréhension 
commune, voire même un consensus, entre les acteurs, des visions et objectifs 
partagés,  ainsi  que  des  plans  stratégiques  ou  des  accords  contractuels  précis. 
Le  point  crucial  reste  la  capacité  de  créer  une  mobilisation  et  un  engagement 
durable des acteurs. Les modes de gouvernance mis en œuvre jouent aussi un 
rôle  décisif.  Dans  ce  contexte,  un  facilitateur  «neutre»  ayant  la  confiance  de 
toutes  les  parties  peut  jouer  un  rôle  moteur  pour  initier  un  changement  de 
gouvernance locale.  

•  Quand  doit-on  avoir  recours  à  la  gouvernance  multi-niveau?  Les 
processus  et  structures  de  gouvernance  multi-niveau  peuvent  être  pertinents 
durant chaque étape du cycle de prise de décision. Il est nécessaire d’ajuster la 
composition  du  groupe  d’acteurs  au  fil  du  processus  afin  de  trouver  les 
agencements les plus appropriés aux besoins de chaque étape du cycle de prise 
de  décision.  Il  est  aussi  nécessaire  de  planifier  des  plages  de  retour  sur 
expérience au sein des organisations participantes notamment afin de prendre 
en  considération  d’éventuelles  dynamiques  extérieures,  comme  par  exemple 
des élections prochaines, qui peuvent avoir un impact fort sur la mise en œuvre 
de ces processus. 

•  En  quoi  consiste  la  gouvernance  multi-niveau?  La  transparence  des 
processus,  des  rôles  attribués  et  des  contenus  des  politiques  est  cruciale  pour 
développer  un  processus  fluide  et  des  structures  adaptées  de  gouvernance 
multi-niveau.  Des  règles  claires  sur  le  cadre  de  coopération,  des  rôles  bien 
définis  pour  chaque  acteur  participant  et  des  objectifs  précis  pour  les  actions 
mises  en  œuvre  sont  tous  nécessaires  pour  gérer  les  diverses  attentes  et 
soutenir durablement l’engagement des acteurs. 

•  Comment  apprendre  des  expériences  des  autres?  Apprendre  des 
expériences  documentées  concernant  des  initiatives  mises  en  œuvre  d’autres 
régions  ou  localités  peut  aider  à  développer  et  mettre  en  œuvre  des  idées 
novatrices, même si l’apprentissage nécessite en premier lieu une identification 
précise des besoins du contexte local. Le transfert de pratiques et expériences 
d’une région à une autre doit ainsi être: 

… réciproque, résultant d’un dialogue entre les responsables de chaque région 
et d’un échange réciproque ;  

…  concret,  se  basant  sur  des  pratiques  qui  peuvent  être  effectivement 
appliquées ou adaptées dans une autre région ;  

…  progressif,  puisque  les  nouvelles  pratiques  doivent  être  intégrées  aux 
pratiques locales actuelles et futures ;  

…  contextualisé,  un  fort  degré  de  similitude  entre  les  conditions  territoriales, 
socioéconomiques  et  institutionnelles  des  différentes  régions  étant  ainsi 
préférable ;  

xiv 

 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

…  adapté,  puisque  même  les  bonnes  pratiques  les  plus  évidentes  ne  peuvent 
jamais être totalement transposée en d’autres lieux ;  

…  réaliste,  puisque  certaines  bonnes  pratiques  peuvent,  en  théorie,  avoir  un 
fort  impact,  mais  sont  de  fait  difficiles  à  mettre  en  œuvre  en  dehors  de  leur 
contexte d’origine ;  

… durable, puisqu’il n’y a pas de solution miracle qui puisse promouvoir des 
changements d’attitude durables et avoir des impacts au long-terme. 

Les  compétences  nationales  jouent  un  rôle  crucial.  Pour  la  mise  en  œuvre  des 
objectives de la stratégie Europe 2020, le cadre national joue un rôle primordial pour 
la  formulation  des  Plans  Nationaux  de  Réforme  ainsi  que  pour  la  mise  en  œuvre  des  
politiques  sectorielles  nationales.  La  présente  étude,  et  d’autres  études  avant  elle, 
permet  d’identifier  qu’un  grand  nombre  de  collectivités  territoriales  ont  aussi  des 
rôles,  compétences  et  intérêts  dans  des  domaines  d’action  de  la  stratégie  Europe 
2020. Dans chacune des huit études de cas sélectionnées, le cadre national est partie 
prenante  du  cycle  de  prise  de  décision  au  niveau  local.  Ainsi,  les  acteurs  nationaux 
peuvent  tirer  des  leçons  intéressantes  de  ce  travail.  Dans  plusieurs  cas,  les  acteurs 
nationaux  ont  à  leur  disposition  un  large  éventail  d’options  en  termes  de  modes  de 
gouvernance  qu’ils  souhaitent  mettre  en  œuvre.  Les  enseignements  tirés  de  cette 
étude  concernent  surtout  la  sensibilisation  autour  des  options  de  gouvernance, 
l’identification  des  acteurs  qui  jouent  un  rôle  majeur,  l’utilisation  de  différents 
instruments  ainsi  que  le  processus  menant  à  un  consensus,  ainsi  que  la  clarté  des 
rôles  et  la  capacité  à  mettre  en  œuvre  de  façon  concrète  et  cohérente  des  objectifs 
politiques. 

Mettre  en  œuvre  la  stratégie  Europe  2020  et  la  politique  européenne  de 
cohésion.  Les  objectifs  de  la  stratégie  Europe  2020  ne  doivent  pas  être  considérés 
comme des idées abstraites développées au niveau européen, mais plutôt comme des 
objectifs qui concernent le développement local dans chaque ville et région de l’Union. 
Atteindre  ces  objectifs  politiques  requiert  des  mécanismes  de  gouvernance  plus 
efficaces.  Les  futurs  débats  doivent  se  focaliser  plus  sur  l’échelon  territorial.  L’accent 
devrait  être  mis  sur  des  approches  ascendantes  (bottom-up)  ainsi  que  sur  une 
meilleure  compréhension  de  ce  que  la  mise  en  œuvre  de  la  stratégie  Europe  2020 
nécessite en termes de coopération accrue entre le secteur public, le secteur privé et 
les  acteurs  de  la  société  civile.  Cela  implique  de  sensibiliser  et  de  créer  des 
opportunités  afin  de  faciliter  l’apprentissage  en  lien  avec  les  cadres  et  politiques 
européens existants.  

initiatives  dans 

Les 
le  cadre  des  programmes  européens  de  coopération 
transfrontalière pour la promotion de la gouvernance multi-niveau peuvent aussi tirer 
des  enseignements  de  cette  étude.  La  mise  en  œuvre  de  changements  de 
gouvernance locale est fortement liée à la spécificité du contexte local et est souvent 
dépendante  des  relations  complexes  entre  territoires.  Il  existe  de  fait  des  difficultés 
liées  à  la  durée  relativement  limitée  des  initiatives  de  gouvernance  multi-niveau  et 
aussi dues à l’identification des relations de cause à effet souvent complexes entre les 
actions et leurs résultats effectifs. Cette complexité rend difficile, pour les initiatives de 
coopération  communautaire,  à  démontrer  une  valeur  ajoutée  concrète  de  ces 
initiatives dans un lapse de temps assez limité. 

En relation avec la gouvernance des programmes des fonds ESI (Fonds structurels et 
d'investissement européens) pour la période de programmation 2014-2020, les études 
de cas documentées, les dispositifs identifiés et les enseignements tirés de cette étude 
les  efforts  des  organisations  chargées  de  ces 
peuvent  néanmoins 
programmes afin de mettre en œuvre des structures de gouvernance plus efficaces et 
ayant pour but une mise en œuvre plus efficace des actions publiques. Le principe du 
partenariat et le code de conduite européen en matière de partenariats offrent ainsi un 
bon point de repère en ce qui concerne les politiques d’investissements.  

informer 

xv 

 
 
Final Report 

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG 

Strategie 

Um die Ziele der Strategie Europa 2020 zu erreichen, müssen alle Governanceebenen, 
von  der  lokalen  bis  zur  EU-Ebene,  an  der  Umsetzung  dieser  übergeordneten 
langfristigen 
beschreibt 
gemeinschaftliche  Entscheidungsprozesse,  in  denen  Kompetenzen  und  Einflussnahme 
auf  Akteure  verschiedener  Steuerungsebenen  verteilt  sind.  Mit  anderen  Worten,  es 
geht um Entscheidungsprozesse, in die verschiedene eigenständige Akteure involviert 
sind,  deren  Aktivitäten  einander  beeinflussen.  Mehrebenen-Governance  legt  weder 
ausschließliche 
Entscheidungs-
hierarchien fest.  

Mehrebenen-Governance 

Entscheidungsgewalten 

unveränderliche 

mitarbeiten. 

noch 

Was passiert vor Ort? Die meisten Debatten über die Umsetzung der Strategie Europa 
2020  erfolgen  auf  EU-Ebene  und  auf  nationaler  Ebene.  Diese  basieren  auf  den 
Dokumenten  der  EU  und  den  nationalen  Reformprogrammen  (NRP).  Dabei  wird 
angenommen, dass die Ziele und Zielsetzungen auf die regionalen und lokalen Ebenen 
heruntergebrochen  und  dort  in  Maßnahmen  übertragen  werden.  Verlässt  man  diese 
Perspektive einer solchen Weisungskette der Strategie Europa 2020 und fokussiert auf 
das  was  vor  Ort  passiert,  dann  zeigt  sich,  dass  vielfältige  Ziele  verfolgt  und 
verschiedenste  Strukturen  und  Prozesse  auf  lokaler  und  regionaler  Ebene  realisiert 
werden.   

Studie  zu  Mehrebenen-Governance  als  Unterstützung  der  Strategie  Europa 
2020.  Die  Generaldirektion  für  Regionalpolitik  und  Stadtentwicklung  hat  eine  Studie 
zu  Mehrebenen-Governance  als  Mechanismus,  welcher  die  Strategie  Europa  2020 
unterstützt, in Auftrag gegeben, um die Diskussion zu Implementierungsmechanismen 
der Strategie anzuregen und mögliche Lerntransfers zu unterstützen. In dieser Studie 
werden  acht  Fallstudien  analysiert,  mit  denen  ein  Beitrag  zum  besseren  Verständnis 
bestehender  Governancestrukturen  geleistet  wird.  Vier  Fallstudien  befassen  sich  mit 
dem  Thema  Energieeffizienz  und  vier  weitere  betrachten  das  Thema  der  sozialen 
Integration.  Auf  diesen  Fallstudien  aufbauend  wurden  Seminare  und  Workshops 
organisiert, 
von 
Governanceinstrumenten  auf  andere  Städte  und  Regionen  in  Europa  zu  diskutieren. 
Der Umfang und Zeitrahmen der Studie waren zu begrenzt, als dass daraus endgültige 
und  übergreifende  Schlussfolgerungen  gezogen  werden  könnten.  Dennoch  liefern  die 
Ergebnisse  wertvolle  Beiträge  zur  Diskussion  über  Mehrebenen-Governanceprozesse 
zur  Unterstützung  der  Strategie  Europa  2020  und  insbesondere  zur  Rolle  lokaler  und 
regionaler  Behörden.  Auch  die  nationale  und  EU-Ebenen  wurden  in  mehreren 
Fallstudien als bedeutende Ebenen identifiziert. 

und  mögliche 

Übertragungen 

Ergebnisse 

um 

die 

Acht  Fallstudien  wurden  vor  Beginn  der  Studie  festgelegt  und  während  der 
Studienarbeit dokumentiert.  

Fallstudien zu Energieeffizienz  
-  Prignitz-Oberhavel  (Deutschland)  befasst  sich  mit  dem  Zusammenspiel  von 
Energiekonzepten  auf  verschiedenen  Steuerungsebenen  und  betrachtet  insbesondere 
die Rolle der regionalen Planungsgemeinschaft im Zuge eines rationelleren Umgangs mit 
Energiefragen. 

-  Vrhnika  (Slowenien)  beinhaltet  die  Entwicklung  eines  lokalen  Energiekonzepts  im 
Einklang mit der nationalen Gesetzgebung. Das Konzept wurde in Zusammenarbeit mit 
einer Reihe von nationalen Ministerien und lokalen Akteuren formuliert.  

-  Lombardei  (Italien)  bezieht  sich  auf  den  regionalen  Raumplan  (PTRA)  einiger 
Alpentäler, für dessen Entwicklung die wichtigsten Akteure zusammengebracht wurden, 
um  Fragen  der  Energieineffizienz  und  der  nachhaltigen  Nutzung  der  natürlichen 
Ressourcen in der Region zu bearbeiten. 

-  Elsass (Frankreich) behandelt ein Programm und ein Cluster, welche die Entwicklung 
innovativer  Produkte  und  Dienstleistungen  zur  Reduzierung  des  Energieverbrauchs 
durch  verschiedene  Aktivitäten  unterstützen.  Dies  basiert  u.a.  auf  einem  Vertrag  mit 
dem Staat.   

xvi 

 
 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

Fallstudien zur sozialen Integration 
-  Stockholm  (Schweden)  befasst  sich  mit  dem  Urbanen  Spiel  als  ein  Instrument  zur 
Förderung  der  Diskussion  und  der  Bewusstseinsbildung  von  ineinandergreifenden 
Entwicklungen  und  Entscheidungen 
auf 
in 
verschiedenen  Sektoren  und 
unterschiedlichen  Steuerungsebenen 
im  Zusammenhang  mit  Herausforderungen 
sozialer Integration.  

-  Pommern  (Polen)  behandelt  die  Nutzung  des  Europäischen  Fonds  für  regionale 
Entwicklung  (EFRE),  um  die  Zusammenarbeit  von 
lokalen  Akteuren  und  die 
gemeinsame  Durchführung  integrierter  Maßnahmen  der  sozialen  Integration  und 
baulicher Stadterneuerungsprojekte anzuregen.  

-  Temeswar  (Rumänien)  bezieht  sich  auf  neue  lokale  Governancestrukturen,  die  sich 
mit  Problemen  von  Migranten,  die  keine  EU-Bürger  sind,  befassen  und  die  Politik  auf 
nationaler Ebene beeinflusst haben.  

-  Liverpool  (Großbritannien)  beinhaltet  eine  Initiative  zur  Förderung  des  sozialen 
Unternehmertums  mit  EFRE-Unterstützung  und  dessen  Überlebenskampf  in  einem 
Umfeld  mit  sich  verändernden  Verwaltungs-  und  Goverancestrukturen,  in  deren 
Rahmen  eine  verstärkte  Zusammenarbeit  von  Akteuren  zur  Steigerung  der 
Ressourceneffizienz notwendig wird. 

Die  Umsetzung  der  Strategie  Europa  2020  erfolgt  entsprechend  dem 
Subsidiaritätsprinzip.  Diesem  Prinzip  entsprechend  sollen  die  Aktivitäten  möglichst 
bürgernah  realisiert  werden.  Die  angemessene  Entscheidungsebene  hängt  dabei  von 
in  einem 
den  Politikfeldern  und  der  Aufteilung  der  Entscheidungsbefugnisse 
Mitgliedstaat  oder  Region  ab.  Darüber  hinaus  hat  die  EU-Ebene  im  Allgemeinen  nur 
begrenzte formale Möglichkeiten die nationalen Governancestrukturen zu beeinflussen. 
Oft  müssen  Akteure  verschiedener  Regierungsebenen  und  unterschiedlicher  Sektoren 
sowie  öffentliche,  private  und  zivilgesellschaftliche  Akteure  zusammenarbeiten,  um 
sich  der  Komplexität  der  Herausforderungen,  die  in  der  Strategie  Europa  2020 
benannt werden, zu stellen. 

in 

ist 

die 

2020 

eingebettet, 

Politikentwicklungen 

Auf dem Weg zu einem Mehrebenen-Politikzyklus. Die Umsetzung der Strategie 
Europa 
verschiedene 
Steuerungsebenen  mobilisieren  müssen.  Um  die  in  der  Strategie  Europa  2020 
gesetzten  Ziele  zu  erreichen,  bedarf  es  der  Zusammenarbeit  mehrerer  Sektoren  und 
Steuerungsebenen.  Kein  einzelner  Akteur  oder  Politikbereich  kann  diese  komplexen 
Ziele allein erreichen. Die Herausforderung besteht darin, die notwendigen Akteure in 
einem  Politikzyklus  zusammenzubringen.  In  Abhängigkeit  von  den  lokalen  und 
regionalen  Voraussetzungen  und  dem  im  Mittelpunkt  stehenden  Politikfeld  sind 
verschiedene  Akteure  zu  unterschiedlichen  Zeitpunkten  während  des  Politikzyklus 
beteiligt.  Verschiedene  Steuerungsformen  der  Politikgestaltung  (Governance-Modi) 
können  genutzt  werden,  um  die  relevanten  Akteure  einzubeziehen.  Die  vier  am 
weitesten  verbreiteten  Formen  sind  die  Steuerung  durch  Autorität,  Steuerung  durch 
Anreize,  Steuerung  durch  Befähigung  und  Selbstverwaltung.  In  der  Realität  werden 
verschiedene Formen miteinander kombiniert und ihre Bedeutung kann sich im Verlauf 
des Politikzyklus verändern.  

von 

Veränderung 

Zeit. 
Governancearrangements 
Die 
Governanceprozesse  und  -strukturen  sind  ausgesprochen 
ist 
zeitaufwändig  neue  Formen  gemeinsamer  Entscheidungsprozesse  zu  etablieren.  Der 
tatsächliche  Zeitaufwand 
ist  abhängig  vom  zu  bearbeitenden  Thema,  den 
Veränderungsprozessen,  den  Ansätzen  und  den  involvierten  Akteuren.  Je  komplexer 
der Prozess, desto schwieriger und zeitaufwändiger ist es, ihn zu ändern. 

träge  und  es 

braucht 

Unterschiede  zwischen  Politikbereichen.  Die  acht  Fallstudien  sind  eine  zu  kleine 
Stichprobe,  als  dass  aus  ihnen Rückschlüsse  bzgl.  der  Unterschiede  der  Mehrebenen-
Governance  in  den  beiden  Bereichen  von  Energieeffizienz  und  sozialer  Integration 
gezogen  werden  könnten.  Allerdings  deuten  sie  darauf  hin,  dass  rechtliche  und 
politische  Rahmenbedingungen  auf  europäischer  und  nationaler  Ebene  bei  der 
Einführung  von  Mehrebenen-Governanceprozessen  im  Bereich  der  Energieeffizienz 
eine  größere  Rolle  spielen  als  im  Bereich  der  sozialen  Integration.  Gleichzeitig  lässt 

xvii 

 
Final Report 

sich  für  Governanceprozesse  zur  Förderung  sozialer  Integration  eine  größere 
Bedeutung der lokalen Ebene und sogar der Stadtteilebene feststellen. Darüber hinaus 
weisen  die  Governancestrukturen  der  Fallstudien  zur  sozialen  Integration  tendenziell 
eine  größere  Anzahl  verschiedener  Politikbereiche  auf  als  die  Fallstudien  zur 
Energieeffizienz. 

Vielfalt  und  Kohärenz  von  Governancearrangements.  Mehrebenen-Governance 
ist  kontextabhängig.  Wie  die  Steuerung  umgesetzt  wird  und  wer  einbezogen  werden 
soll,  hängt  davon  ab,  welche  Fragen  behandelt  werden,  welche  bestehenden 
Mehrebenen-Governancestrukturen  und 
-erfahrungen  es  gibt  und  wie  die 
Kompetenzen zwischen verschiedenen Ebenen und Akteuren mit Entscheidungsgewalt 
bzw. 
viele  Mehrebenen-
Governancearrangements, die alle spezifisch an ihren Ort und Kontext angepasst sind. 

aufgeteilt 

Einfluss 

Folglich 

sind. 

gibt 

es 

relevant. 

Die  oben  genannten  Faktoren  sind  für  die  Herausforderungen  im  Zusammenhang  mit 
Lernprozessen 
sind,  durch 
Institutionen,  die  daran 
interregionalen Austausch zu lernen, um ihre Governancearrangements zu verbessern 
und  zu  modifizieren,  sollten  diese  beachten.  Wie  in  der  Literatur  dargestellt,  lassen 
sich Praktiken guter Governance nicht automatisch übertragen und sind schwieriger zu 
transferieren  als  politische  Maßnahmen.  Die  Auswirkungen  von  Veränderungen  der 
Governance  werden  erst  nach 
langer  Zeit  sichtbar  und  sind  schwierig  zu 
quantifizieren.  

interessiert 

Nichtsdestotrotz  gibt  es  einige  gemeinsame  Merkmale,  die  aufzeigen,  welche 
kritischen  Erfolgsfaktoren  bestehen,  die  bei  Bemühungen  zur  Verbesserung  von 
Mehrebenen-Governancebeziehungen zu berücksichtigen sind.  

Die  wichtigsten  Erfolgsfaktoren,  die  sich  aus  der  Studie  ergeben,  beantworten  die 
folgenden Fragen: 

•  Warum  sollte  man  sich  an  Mehrebenen-Governanceprozessen 
Lokale  Entwicklungsbedürfnisse  und  die  Notwendigkeit, 
beteiligen? 
gesetzlichen  Anforderungen  zu  entsprechen,  sind  Schlüsselfaktoren 
für 
Akteure,  die  sich  in  Mehrebenen-Governanceprozessen  engagieren.  Politische 
Rahmenbedingungen  auf  EU-  oder  nationaler  Ebene  können  Mehrebenen-
Governanceprozesse  auf  lokaler  und  regionaler  Ebene  auslösen.  Mehrebenen-
Governanceprozesse  werden  auch  aufgrund  der  Komplexität  der  anstehenden 
der 
Probleme 
Entscheidungsbefugnisse von einer Reihe von Akteuren verschiedener Ebenen. 

genutzt.  Diese 

Kompetenzen 

bedürfen 

und 

der 

•  Wer  initiiert  oder  treibt  Mehrebenen-Governanceprozesse  an?  Es  gibt 
keinen  einzelnen  Akteur,  der  grundsätzlich  geeignet  ist,  Governanceprozesse 
zu  initiieren  oder  voranzutreiben.  Die  Kenntnis  eindeutiger  Anhaltspunkte  der 
Bedürfnisse  sowie  Personen  mit  guten  Netzwerke  und  einem  breiten 
Verständnis  der  Governance  im  betroffenen  Politikfeld  sind  hilfreich,  um  neue 
Prozesse  einzuleiten.  Es  sind  sehr  oft  Politiker  und  Verwaltungsangestellte  auf 
Nicht-
lokaler, 
Regierungsorganisationen  (NGOs)  und  andere  Akteure  können  Veränderungen 
initiieren. 

regionaler 

nationaler 

Ebene; 

auch 

oder 

aber 

•  Welche  Akteure  sollten  einbezogen  werden?  Die  Auswahl  der  Akteure 
verschiedener  Ebenen  und  Politikbereiche  ist  abhängig  von  der  Politik,  den 
politischen Instrumenten und den bestehenden Governancestrukturen. All jene 
Akteure  sollten  einbezogen  werden,  deren  Entscheidungsbefugnisse  oder 
für  die  Lösung  der 
politischer  bzw.  sozialer  Einfluss 
betrachteten  Herausforderung  benötigt  werden.  Auch  private  Akteure  sowie 
Akteure  des  dritten  Sektors  sollten  berücksichtigt  werden.  Gleichzeitig  gibt  es 
einen  Zielkonflikt  zwischen  der  Anzahl  der  Beteiligten  und  der  Effektivität  des 

im  Politikzyklus 

xviii 

 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

Prozesses.  Deshalb  müssen  von  Anfang  an  die  einflussreichsten  Akteure  des 
betroffenen Bereichs mit einer gründlichen Zuordnung bestimmt werden. 

•  Wie  können  Mehrebenen-Governanceprozesse  gefördert  werden?  Um 
die  Zusammenarbeit  von  einer  beträchtlichen  Anzahl  von  Akteuren  zu 
erleichtern, bedarf es Kommunikationsroutinen und Kooperationspraktiken, die 
Absprachen  vereinfachen.  Dazu  gehören  Techniken  der  Bewusstseinsbildung, 
mit  denen  ein  gemeinsames  Verständnis  oder  auch  Konsens  zwischen  den 
Beteiligten,  gemeinsame  Visionen,  Ziele,  strategische  Pläne  oder  vertragliche 
Vereinbarungen  geschaffen  werden.  Entscheidend  ist  die  Fähigkeit,  Teilhabe 
und  Engagement  unter  den  Beteiligten  zu  schaffen.  Auch  die  Wahl  der 
Steuerungsformen  spielt  eine  Rolle.  In  diesem  Zusammenhang  kann  ein 
vertrauenswürdiger  neutraler  Vermittler  wichtig  sein,  um  einen  Prozess  der 
Veränderung der Governance zu begleiten.  

•  Wann  sollten  Mehrebenen-Governanceprozesse  genutzt  werden? 
Mehrebenen-Governancestrukturen  und  -prozesse  können  für  alle  Stadien  des 
ist  wichtig,  die  Zusammensetzung  der 
Politikzyklus  relevant  sein.  Es 
Akteursgruppen während des Prozesses anzupassen, um die jeweils am besten 
angemessenen Strukturen für die verschiedenen Schritte der Politikentwicklung 
zu  finden.  Außerdem  sind  Rückkoppelungsschleifen  in  den  Organisationen  der 
Akteure  einzuplanen  und  externe  Einflüsse  wie  z.B.  anstehende  Wahlen  zu 
berücksichtigen, wenn diese die Entscheidungsprozesse beeinflussen können.  

•  Worum  geht  es?  Klare  Prozesse  und  ein  Verständnis  der  Aufgaben  und 
Politikinhalte  sind  wichtig,  um  reibungslose  Mehrebenen-Governanceprozesse 
zu  fördern.  Klare  Regeln  des  Rahmens  der  Zusammenarbeit,  klare  Aufgaben 
der  unterschiedlichen  Akteure  und  klare  Ziele  für  einzelne  Aktivitäten  sind 
wichtig,  um  die  Erwartungen  zu  lenken  und  ein  nachhaltiges  Engagement  zu 
sichern.  

•  Wie kann man von der Erfahrung anderer lernen? Von anderen zu lernen, 
kann  helfen  „über  den  Tellerrand  zu  schauen“  und  neue  Denkanstöße  zu 
bekommen,  auch  wenn  das  Gelernte  zunächst  an  den  eigenen  spezifischen 
Kontext  angepasst  werden  muss.  Die  Übertragung  von  Praktiken  und 
Erfahrungen von einer Stadt oder Region auf eine andere muss 
…gegenseitig  sein  und  aus  dem  Dialog  zwischen  Absender  und  Empfänger  des 
Wissens generiert werden;  
…konkret  sein  und  sich  auf  solche  Praktiken  beschränken,  die  auf  Seiten  des 
Empfängers tatsächlich verändert bzw. beeinflusst werden können;  
…inkrementell  sein,  da  neue  Praktiken  in  bestehende  und  künftige  Strukturen 
zu integrieren sind;  
…kontextspezifisch  sein,  weshalb  Ähnlichkeiten  hinsichtlich  geografischer, 
sozio-ökonomischer und institutioneller Bedingungen hilfreich sind;  
…  angepasst  werden,  da  auch  die  offensichtlichste  Erfolgsgeschichte  anderswo 
nie ganz umgesetzt werden kann;  
…realistisch  sein,  da  einige  gute  Praktiken  theoretisch  zwar  wirkungsvoll  sein 
können,  sie 
jedoch  schwierig  außerhalb  des  ursprünglichen  Kontexts 
anzuwenden sind;  
…dauerhaft  sein,  denn  es  gibt  keine  magische  oder  schnelle  Lösung,  die 
Ansichten langfristig verändert und dauerhafte Wirkungen entfaltet.  

Nationale Stellen spielen eine entscheidende Rolle. Für die Förderung der Europa 
2020-Ziele  spielen  nationale  Behörden  im  Rahmen  der  Ausarbeitung  der  Nationalen 
Reformpläne  und  der  Gestaltung  und  Förderung  nationaler  Politikinitiativen  eine 
zentrale  Rolle.  Diese  und  andere  Studien  machen  deutlich,  dass  auch  viele 
subnationale Einrichtungen über Aufgaben, Kompetenzen und Interessen in wichtigen 
Politikfeldern  der  Strategie  Europa  2020  verfügen.  In  allen  acht  Fallstudien,  die  zu 
Beginn  der  Studie  ausgewählt  wurden,  ist  die  nationale  Ebene  Teil  des  politischen 

xix 

 
Final Report 

Prozesses;  gleichwohl  wurden  in  keinem  der  acht  Fälle  nationale  Partner  für  den 
Austausch in dieser Studie mobilisiert. Dennoch können auch nationale Akteure Lehren 
aus  dieser  Arbeit  ziehen.  Häufig  können  nationale  Akteure,  wenn  von  ihnen 
gewünscht,  eine  größere  Vielfalt  von  alternativen  Steuerungsformen  nutzen.  Aber 
auch  die  wichtigsten  Erkenntnisse  bzgl.  der  Bewusstseinsbildung  alternativer 
Governancearrangements,  der  Darstellung 
relevanter  Akteure  mit  wichtigen 
politischen  Rollen,  der  Nutzung  unterschiedlicher  Instrumente  und  Prozesse  zur 
Konsensbildung  und  der  Klarheit  der  Aufgaben  sowie  des  Erhalts  von  fokussierten 
Politikzielen sind für nationale Akteure bedeutsam. 

Förderung der Strategie Europa 2020 und der EU-Kohäsionspolitik. Die Europa 
2020-Ziele sind keine abstrakten Ideen auf EU-Ebene, sondern betreffen vielmehr die 
Entwicklung von jeder Stadt und Region in der EU. Die Erreichung der politischen Ziele 
erfordert  effektive  Steuerungsmechanismen.  Künftige  Debatten  müssen  stärker  auf 
die  subnationalen  Ebenen  fokussieren.  Mehr  Aufmerksamkeit  könnte  „Bottom-up“-
Prozessen  und  der  Förderung  des  Verständnisses  gegeben  werden,  dass  die 
Umsetzung  der  Strategie  Europa  2020  der  Zusammenarbeit  zwischen  öffentlichen, 
privaten  und  zivilgesellschaftlichen  Akteuren  auf  verschiedenen  Ebenen  und  von 
verschiedenen  Bereichen  bedarf.  Dazu  bedarf  es  der  Bewusstseinsbildung  und  der 
Schaffung  von  Möglichkeiten,  mit  denen  Lernen,  im  Rahmen  der  bestehenden 
europäischen Rahmenbedingungen und Politikbereiche, gefördert wird. 

im  Rahmen  der  Programme  der  europäischen 

Auch  Initiativen 
territorialen 
Zusammenarbeit,  die  Mehrebenen-Governance  und  governancespezifisches  Lernen 
fördern,  können  aus  dieser  Arbeit  Lehren  ziehen.  Die  tatsächliche  Veränderung  der 
ist  hochgradig  kontextspezifisch  und  abhängig  von  komplexen 
Governance 
Beziehungen innerhalb der Territorien. Es ist schwierig, entsprechende Ergebnisse der 
Programme  der  europäischen 
innerhalb  der 
siebenjährigen  Förderperiode 
im  Sinne  von  Ursache-Wirkungsketten  zwischen 
Mehrebenen-Governanceaktivitäten  und  Politikergebnissen  aufzuzeigen,  da  die 
entsprechenden  grenzüberschreitenden  Austausch-  und  Lernprozesse  im  Allgemeinen 
längere Zeiträume in Anspruch nehmen.  

territorialen  Zusammenarbeit 

In  Bezug  auf  die  Steuerung  der  ESIF-Programme  2014-2020  zeigen  die  Fallstudien, 
dass die identifizierten Instrumente und Lehren aus der Arbeit während dieser Studie 
geeignet  sind,  die  mit  der  Implementierung  der  Programme  betrauten  Behörden  bei 
der  Verwendung  effektiverer  Governancearrangements  zu  unterstützen  und  damit 
helfen,  Politikinitiativen  effektiver  umzusetzen.  Das  Partnerschaftsprinzip  und  der 
Verhaltenskodex  für  Partnerschaften2  im  Rahmen  der  Europäischen  Struktur-  und 
Invesititonsfonds (ESIF) sind gute Ansatzpunkte für Investitionspolitiken, sofern diese 
Prinzipien und Ansätze ernst genommen werden. 

2 Delegierte Verordnung (EU) Nr. 240/2014 der Kommission vom 07. Januar 2014 zum Europäischen Verhaltenskodex für 
Partnerschaften im Rahmen der Europäischen Struktur- und Investitionsfonds (OJ L 74, 14.3.2014, S. 1). 
xx 

 
 
 
                                                 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

INTRODUCTION 

The Europe 2020 strategy is Europe’s overarching policy framework, guiding all major 
policy  developments  and  public  investments  at  European  level.  Furthermore,  through 
the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) and the National Reform Programmes (NRPs) 
there is a close link between EU and Member State policy objectives. 

The  Europe  2020  strategy  is  being  implemented  throughout  the  EU  by  translating 
policy objectives into reality through structural reforms, better regulation and concrete 
actions  and  investments  at  national,  regional  and  local  levels.  The  main  focus  of  the 
implementation  discussion  are  often  the  National  Reform  Programmes,  from  where 
objectives and targets are assumed to trickle down to the regional and local level and 
be translated into action.  

This is the final report of the study on promoting multi-level governance in support of 
Europe 2020, commissioned by DG REGIO. The aim of this study is to provide lessons 
and  to  stimulate  the  increase  and  transfer  of  knowledge  between  regions.  The  study 
focuses on both the analysis and facilitation of transfer processes.  

This report presents key lessons from policy experiences and learning between regions 
regarding  multi-level  governance.  This  includes  also  success  factors  for  political  and 
administrative partnerships across levels of governance and policy sectors. This report 
discusses  examples  of  multi-level  governance  mechanisms  with  regard  to  energy 
efficiency  and  social  inclusion,  and  how  multi-level  governance  arrangements  can  be 
translated and transferred to other European cities and regions. 

In  this  report,  the  ‘command-chain’  view  of  Europe  2020’s  multi-level  governance 
perspective  is  challenged.  While  ‘top-down’  processes  certainly  matter,  this  study 
focuses on ‘bottom-up’ processes. It investigates what is happening on the ground and 
puts the focus on diverse arrangements and processes at local and regional levels that 
support the Europe 2020 strategy. 

Eight  case  studies  form  the  basis  of  this  study  and  help  make  the  discussions  more 
concrete. They focus on two policy fields indicated in the terms of reference – energy 
efficiency and social inclusion. The case studies were selected prior to the start of the 
study,  based  on  an  open  search  for  cities  or  regions  that  work  with  multi-level 
governance  processes  in  the  policy  fields  selected.  One  important  criterion  for  the 
selection  was  the  willingness  of  the  parties  to  participate  in  the  study.  It  was  also 
important to establish a mix of case studies, to reflect a broad variety of governance 
contexts  and  arrangements  in  different  countries,  with  different  administrative 
systems, different approaches to multi-level governance and to have different ways of 
addressing the issues at stake.  

The  case  studies  illustrate  how  individually  adapted  multi-level  governance  processes 
can  support  Europe  2020  aims  with  regard  to  energy  efficiency  and  social  inclusion. 
Usually  it  is  easier  and  more  interesting  to  discuss  policies  than  governance 
approaches,  which  are  rather  abstract.  To  give  some  life  to  the  overarching 
conclusions  in  this  report,  the  eight  case  studies  are  described  in  separate  papers 
published by DG REGIO. The full case studies are available at:   
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index.cfm/en/information/publications/studies/20
13/promoting-multi-level-governance-in-support-of-europe-2020 . 

The  eight  cases  were  presented  and  discussed  at  two  multilateral  meetings;  one  in 
Milan on energy efficiency in March 2014, and one in Stockholm on social inclusion in 
April 2014. The discussions started a process which identified lessons from each case 
and whether these could be applied to other cities and regions in Europe.  

1 

 
 
Final Report 

The discussions about lessons and transferability were continued in further detail in 16 
twinning  meetings.  Based  on  an  open  call  for  interest,  16  regions  and/or  cities  could 
meet up with one of the case study regions or cities to discuss their experience. These 
twinning  meetings  were  moderated  by  the  study  team  and  resulted  in  action  plans 
showing  the  lessons  that  could  be  learned  and  the  first  steps  for  testing  or 
implementing these lessons back home.  

A  short  survey  in  November  2014  showed  that  14  of  the  twinning  partners  have 
started implementing these lessons. The short time period of this study did not allow 
following the implementation of action plans and changes of governance arrangements 
as these take much longer. 

Although,  eight  case  studies  and  16  twinning  meetings  are  too  small  a  sample  from 
which  to  draw  EU-wide  conclusions,  they  show  that  there  are  many  multi-level 
governance  arrangements.  All  of  them  are  place  and  context  specific.  However  some 
common  characteristics  allow  for  general  conclusions  and  suggest  a  few  critical 
success factors for multi-level governance which are presented in this report and were 
discussed at the final conference held on 05 March 2015 in Brussels. 

Chapter  1  presents  the  theoretical  backbone  of  the  study.  It  contains  findings  on 
multi-level governance in general and as well as on the literature related to the Europe 
2020 objectives for energy efficiency and social inclusion. 

Chapter 2 presents the key lessons of the case study and twinning meetings. Many of 
these  lessons  are  broader  than  just  the  focus  of  this  study.  The  main  lessons  on 
important  pre-conditions,  initiation  of  the  multi-level  governance  process,  the 
importance of having the right stakeholders on board and how to motivate them, are 
applicable to multi-level governance in general and can also be taken independently. 

Chapter 3 presents key findings on how lessons on multi-level governance in European 
cities and regions can be exchanged. The focus is on what is actually transferable and 
the pitfalls to be avoided when learning from others. Again this section can be of wider 
interest,  since  the  lessons  are  not  limited  to  energy  efficiency  or  social  exclusion 
issues.  

The final chapter provides an overview of the key lessons, for the EU level, local and 
regional level stakeholders and policy transfer processes. 

The  Annex  to  this  study  contains  short  summaries  of  each  of  the  eight  case  studies 
and  a  tabular  overview  of  the  most  important  lessons  learned  and  actions  developed 
in twinning meetings. 

The  report  was  prepared  by  Spatial  Foresight  with  support  of  Nordregio  and  the 
authors of the individual case studies.  

List of study deliverables:  

- Inception report and literature review (December 2013)  

- Eight cases studies (4 in Social Inclusion; 4 in Energy Efficiency) (July 2014)  

- Report on the Conference of 5 March 2015 (March 2015) 

- Final report (April 2015)  

2 

 
 
 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

1  MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE & EUROPE 2020 

The  Europe  2020  strategy  stresses  the  need  for  a  ‘permanent  dialogue  between 
various  levels  of  government’3  and  the  inclusion  of  stakeholders  and  civil  society  in 
delivering the strategy. Hence, implementation by means of multi-level governance is 
one  of  the  mechanisms  for  achieving  coherence  between  national,  regional  and  local 
policies.  The  Europe  2020  strategy  is  usually  discussed  in  terms  of  the  EU  level  and 
NRPs.  From  there  the  objectives  and  targets  are  assumed  to  trickle  down  to  the 
regional and local levels to be translated into actions.  

The Europe 2020 strategy  

The objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth 
cover a wide range of policy fields. The strategy that was agreed by the EU institutions 
and Member States in 2010 was based on lessons from the Lisbon Agenda and a broad 
consensus on the key objectives and methods. These targets reflect the development 
needs and policy concerns of Member States, their regions and cities.  

Implementation  of  the  Europe  2020  strategy  follows  the  subsidiarity  principle,  as 
stated in the Treaty of the European Union. This suggests that actions should be taken 
as  close  to  citizen  level  as  possible.  The  appropriate  level  of  decision-making  varies 
depending  on  the  policy  field  and  the  division  of  decision-making  competence  in  a 
Member  State  or  region.  Often  public,  private  and  civil  society  stakeholders  from 
different  levels  of  governance  and  different  sectors  need  to  cooperate  to  tackle  the 
complexity of challenges addressed in the Europe 2020 strategy. 

Nevertheless, for many stakeholders at local and regional level, Europe 2020 appears 
to be ‘distant’. In fact, they may not even be aware of the Europe 2020 strategy since 
it  has  been  integrated  into  other  national  or  regional  policies  during  its  long  journey 
before reaching stakeholders. This may particularly be the case when investments and 
projects are conducted locally within a national legal and policy guidance framework.  

Figure 1 Interplay between policy levels 

Source: Own elaboration, based on the Swedish national strategy for growth and attractiveness 2013-2020 

3 COM(2010) Europe 2020, page 29. 

3 

 
 
 
                                                 
Final Report 

The  interplay  between  policy  levels  is  shown  in  Figure  1.  This  example  from  Sweden 
illustrates  the  overlap  of  policies  and  programmes  between  the  local  level  and 
European level. 

Multi-level governance  

Figure  1  also  illustrates  that  different  levels  of  decision-making  are  involved  in 
implementation of the Europe 2020 objectives. Given the comprehensive nature of the 
development  challenges  and  objectives  addressed  in  the  Europe  2020  strategy,  no 
individual stakeholder could address it single-handed.  

Implementation  requires  multi-level  governance,  as  recommended  under  the 
partnership  and  shared  management  approach  in  the  Code  of  Conduct  for  European 
Structural and Investment Funds4. 

Multi-level governance describes collective decision-making processes where authority 
and  influence  are  shared  between  stakeholders  operating  at  multiple  levels  of 
governance  and  in  different  policy  sectors.  In  other  words,  it  describes  decision-
making  processes  that  engage  various  individual  but  interdependent  stakeholders. 
Multi-level governance covers both vertical cooperation between levels of governance 
as well as horizontal cooperation between different policy fields. 

There are at least four main types of governance in Europe that describe the relations 
between levels (see text box). 

Four modes of governance  

Governing by authority suggests the use of traditional forms of authority, such as regulation 
and  direction  that  persist  despite  reforms.  This  method  is  seen  when  national  governments 
intervene directly in local politics through mandates or other compulsory means. Governing by 
authority uses sanctions. 

Governing by provision shapes practices through the delivery of services and resources. This 
occurs when services and incentives, including funding, are offered by a national government in 
return  for  local  action.  Governing  by  provision  is  accomplished  through  practical,  material  and 
infrastructural means. 

Governing  through  enabling  includes  local  government  facilitating,  co-ordinating  and 
encouraging action through partnership with private and voluntary sector agencies, and through 
various  forms  of  community  engagement.  Governing  through  enabling  works  through 
persuasion, constructive criticism and incentives. 

Self-governing includes a local government governing its own activities. It is characterised by 
self-motivated  action  and  may  take  place  in  cities  and  regions.  Self-governing  may  occur  if 
mandatory national legislation is limited or non-existent. Self-governing relies on organisational 
management processes5. 

Multi-level  governance  does  not  assign  exclusive  decision-making  competence  or 
establish  stable  hierarchies  of  authority.  On  the  contrary,  in  order  to  deliver  the 
objectives  of  the  Europe  2020  strategy,  the  role  and  actions  of  local  and  regional 
stakeholders  is  pivotal,  suggesting  ‘top-down’  as  well  as  ‘bottom-up’  elements  in 
multi-level governance. 

The following sections provide a general introduction to governance arrangements for 
energy  efficiency  and  social  inclusion.  The  detailed  governance  processes  applied  in 
the case studies can be found in the Annex. 

4 COM (2013) Commission delegated regulation on the European code of conduct on partnership in the framework of the 
European Structural and Investment Funds 9651 final. 
5 Bulkeley H. and Kern K. (2006), Local government and the governing of climate change in Germany and the UK, Urban 
Studies, 43, pp. 2237-2259. 
4 

 
                                                 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

1.1  GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

The Europe 2020 strategy puts a strong focus on energy efficiency. Achieving energy 
efficiency  targets  leads  to  complex  governance  arrangements  due  to  the  multi-sector 
and  multi-level  dimensions  involved  in  coordination  and  implementation.  No  single 
stakeholder  or  policy  sector  can  achieve  this  complex  goal  on  its  own.  Energy 
efficiency  policies  are  thus  constructed  and  contested  through  multiple  governance 
levels6  and  can  hardly  be  tackled  through  a  traditional  single-sector,  ‘top-down’ 
approach. Recent studies suggest that more coordinated actions across multiple levels 
of  government  –  international,  national,  regional  and  local  –  can  effectively  increase 
energy  efficiency7.  This  is  admittedly  a  big  shift  for  energy  policies,  since  these  have 
traditionally  targeted  improved  technical  standards  and  not  the  improved  application 
of such standards through policy instruments, programmes and projects. 

Hence,  policies  targeting  the  energy  sector  need  a  multi-level  governance  approach. 
Among  others,  the  building  sector  appears  to  be  central  to  strategies  for  energy 
efficiency. This is underlined by Directive (EU) No 27/2012 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council8. In fact, the share of energy consumption by the building sector is 
increasing9.  Public  action  in  other  sectors  may  also  have  a  direct  impact  on  energy 
efficiency regionally, especially for sustainable water and waste management and the 
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, by promoting cleaner modes of transport10.  

The added-value brought by each level involved in the elaboration and implementation 
of energy efficiency policy is different and complementary. The spatial concentration of 
the energy efficiency issue in urban areas suggests, in governance terms, not only the 
involvement  of  relatively  powerful  local  governments  with  major  responsibilities,  but 
also  a  strategic  and  regulatory  framework  from  national  and  EU  levels.  From  the 
multi-level  governance  point  of  view,  it  means  that  ‘the  urban  and  regional 
governance  of  energy  systems  is  challenged  by  new  institutional  problems  of  inter-
regional  context  and  private  sector 
policy  coordination,  cooperation 
involvement’11. 

in  a 

The international and European level  

The  international  level  is  important  in  developing  common  legislation  and  providing 
funding  stimuli.  Regulatory  measures  initiated  at  international  level  are  considered 
among  the  most  effective  means  of  policy  intervention,  especially  with  mandatory 
building codes or minimal energy performance standards for new buildings and major 
renovations12.  The  international  level  can  provide  an  institutional  framework  for 
policymakers at EU, national, regional and local levels to develop policy interventions 
that  are  efficient  both  from  a  technical  standpoint,  meaning  the  standards  to 
implement as well as a governance standpoint, or how to carry them out.  

At  the  European  level,  EU  institutions  promote  energy  efficiency  through  consistent 
financial  support  in  the  form  of  multiple  funds.  These  funds  are  mainly  directed  at 
regions and cities13. 

6 Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005, p. 48. 
7 Jollands et al., 2009, p. 9.  
8 Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending 
Directives  2009/125/EC  and  2010/30/EU  and  repealing  Directives  2004/8/EC  and  2006/32/EC  (OJ  L  315,  14.11.2012,  p. 
1). 
9 Ryghaug and Sørensen, 2009, p. 984. 
10 Committee of the Regions, 2013, p. 2 
11 Monstadt, 2007, p. 328. 
12 Golubchikov and Deda, 2012, p736. 
13 Committee of the Regions, 2013, p. 13 

5 

 
 
 
                                                 
Final Report 

The national level  

National  governments  develop  national  legislation  and  support  schemes  to  align 
strategic and operational dimensions to the existing institutional context.  

The local level  

Local  governments  play  an  important  role  in  implementing  energy  policies  through 
concrete  initiatives  ‘on  the  ground’.  Puppim  de  Oliveira  considers  that  ‘local 
governments  generally  hold  important  powers,  in  terms  of  legal  competency  and 
resources, in sectors that are relevant for the development of a green economy such 
as transportation, waste management, urban planning, buildings, water management 
and  welfare’14.  Additionally,  in  the  UK,  Bulkeley  and  Betsill  confirm  that  ‘one  means 
through which local authorities have been encouraged to consider the issue of climate 
protection is through land use and transport planning’15. Hence, the responsibilities of 
regional  and  local  authorities  in  terms  of  land  use  planning,  public  transport, 
environmental  infrastructure,  education,  health,  training  and  social  services16  put 
them  at  the  centre  of  location-based,  coordinated  actions  to  improve  energy 
efficiency. 

However,  regardless  of  the  amount  of  power  held  by  local  and  urban  authorities, 
integration of rules and regulations at national and international levels, such as in the 
EU, changes the regulatory framework for urban governance which de facto limits the 
legal powers of local players and increases their need for support from other levels of 
governance17.  

However,  there  is  no  ‘one-size-fits-all’  model  of  governance  for  tackling  energy 
efficiency  issues.  Puppim  de  Oliveira  et  al.  acknowledge  that  ‘an  efficient  governance 
structure would be flexible enough to allow for new interests and solutions to emerge, 
and  to  adapt  to  the  different  political  situation  faced  by  cities’18.  The  wide  range  of 
actors  and  sectors  involved  in  energy  efficiency  and  the  evolving  regulatory  and 
technical frameworks necessitate a relatively open governance process. This is aligned 
with  the  conclusions  of  the  Sustainable  Urban  Metabolism  for  Europe  project  that 
identifies  two  lessons  to  be  drawn  from  cities  that  have  successfully  implemented 
sustainable  development  strategies  with  a  specific  focus  on  resource  efficiency.  First, 
an open planning process with broad participation of urban actors and stakeholders is 
important and second; cross-sector policy coherence must integrate land-use planning 
with transport, legal structures, incentive patterns and energy planning19. 

Multi-level governance  

The  ‘changing  role  of  local  authorities,  away  from  a  regulatory  role  towards  one  of 
enabling  others  to  act’20  implies  that  local  governments  need  to  integrate  and  align 
their  actions  with  higher  government  levels  as  well  as  to  coordinate  their  initiatives 
with local stakeholders. 

Working  with  a  wide  range  of  actors  is  already  built  into  the  way  that  urban 
governments  function,  since  they  usually  interact  with  key  economic,  political  and 
social  stakeholders.  These  include  administrations  at  the  regional  or  national  level, 
such  as  international  agencies  and  investors,  private  companies  and  businesses, 
NGOs,  and  citizens21.  Hence  there  is  already  a  mobilisation  of  stakeholders  in  urban 
governance.  However,  this  can  be  challenging  for  issues  related  to  energy  efficiency 
since  most  of  these  actors  are  entrenched  in  closed  policy  communities,  often  with 

14 Puppim de Oliveira et al., 2013, p. 140. 
15 Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005, p. 45. 
16 Committee of the Regions, 2013, p. 12. 
17 Puppim de Oliveira et al., 2013, p. 140. 
18 Puppim de Oliveira et al., 2013, p. 141. 
19 SUME, 2011, p. 16. 
20 Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005, p. 56. 
21 Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005; Puppim de Oliveira et al., 2013, p. 140. 
6 

 
                                                 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

conflicting  agendas  and  motivations,  which  continue  to  advocate  ‘business-as-usual’ 
practices.  These  actors  often  use  national  and  international  discourses  of  economic 
neo-liberalism and inter-urban competition to justify their approach, focusing more on 
the cost-efficiency of environmental services than on the level of resource efficiency22 
for human activities. 

The mobilisation of stakeholders may turn out to be a critical point for the success of 
multi-level  governance  for  energy  efficiency,  with  the  right  number  and  range  of 
stakeholders  involved.  Mobilising  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders  can  be  beneficial,  for 
instance  facilitating  the  commitment  of  additional  funding  resources  and  can  lead  to 
greater societal ownership, limiting  the involvement of a core bureaucracy23. Another 
aspect  relates  to  the  timing  of  stakeholder  involvement,  with  some  involved  at  an 
early  stage,  while  others  may  be  mobilised  at  later  stages,  for  instance  during  the 
implementation or monitoring of the initiatives24. 

It seems that the economic crisis has had an impact on the type of measures targeted 
by  multi-level  governance.  Indeed,  multi-level  governance  for  energy  efficiency  often 
redirects  efforts  towards  direct  energy  efficiency  measures,  since  these  are  made 
possible  by  large  stimulus  packages25.  Typically  such  measures  make  multi-level 
governance for energy efficiency more dependent on external funds. 

This study includes four cases which give practical examples of multi-level governance 
arrangements  in  the  field  of  energy  efficiency.  They  highlight  the  absence  of  a  ‘no-
one-size-fits-all’  model  of  governance  in  the  delivery  of  Europe  2020’s  energy 
efficiency  objective.  The  specific  governance  process  and  approaches  in  Prignitz-
Oberhavel (Germany) and Vrhnika (Slovenia) show more ‘top-down’ elements. In the 
German case the ERDF plays a role in establishing governance arrangements whereas 
the  Slovenian  case  illustrates  the  importance  of  national  law  for  local  actions.  The 
cases  of  Lombardy  (Italy)  and  the  Alsace  (France)  show  different  governance 
structures,  including  more  stakeholders,  and  they  illustrate  different  ‘bottom-up’ 
approaches. All case studies are presented in the Annex. 

1.2  GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS FOR SOCIAL INCLUSION 

Social inclusion is one of the key goals in the Europe 2020 strategy. 

In  the  light  of  the  economic  and  financial  crisis,  addressing  issues  of  social  exclusion 
and  poverty  within  the  EU  has  become  even  more  urgent.  Daly  stated  that  ‘the  fact 
that in Europe 2020 poverty is included in the same framework with employment and 
industrial  policy  seems  like  a  significant  step  forward’26.  Traditionally,  the  issue  of 
poverty  has  been  tackled  at  the  Member  State  level  through  a  process  of  income 
redistribution. Such a redistribution process includes pensions, unemployment benefits 
and social security transfers.  

The recent financial and budget crisis  in the EU has changed the landscape for social 
inclusion  policies  in  Member  States.  Bieling  underlines  that  ‘as  always  in  times  of 
in  countries  with 
economic  crisis  and  rising  unemployment  –  particularly 
comprehensive welfare regimes – social expenditures increased while revenues in the 
form  of  taxes  or  social  insurance  contributions  diminished’27.  This  picture  has  been 
confirmed  in  the  Sixth  Report  on  economic,  social  and  territorial  Cohesion28.  The 
reduction  of  funding  may  lead  to  more  innovative  and  efficient  forms  of  financial 
arrangements  though  this  may  not  guarantee  achieving  the  objectives.  However, 

22 Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005, p57-58; Ryghaug and Sørensen, 2009, p. 989 
23 Jollands et al., 2009, p. 25. 
24 Jollands et al., 2009, p. 25. 
25 Jollands et al., 2009, p. 35. 
26 Daly, 2012, p.275 
27 Bieling, 2012, p260. 
28  European  Commission  (2014)  Investment  for  jobs  and  growth.  Promoting  development  and  good  governance  in  EU 
regions and cities. 

7 

 
                                                 
Final Report 

social inclusion has become an increasingly important issue in large parts of Europe – 
while there are fewer resources to address increasing demands for intervention.  

Social  exclusion  and  poverty  are  addressed  by  education  policies  and  by  combining 
social  protection  policies  and  labour  market  policies29.  Social  inclusion  can  also  be 
addressed  through  health  care  policies,  housing  and  transport  measures  and  urban 
regeneration policies. This multi-faceted character suggests that a wide range of policy 
sectors  needed  to  be  involved  in  addressing  the  issues  of  inclusion  many  of  which 
involve specific target groups in the population.  

The European level 

Although  there  is  no  formal  common  EU  policy  to  address  social  exclusion,  the 
‘inclusive  growth’  target  of  the  Europe  2020  strategy  and  the  flagship  initiatives 
focusing  on  these  issues  point  to  more  direct  involvement  from  the  EU  Commission. 
Other  examples  include  the  2013  EU  Social  investment  Programme  and  the  2011  EU 
framework for Roma inclusion.  

EU Cohesion policy plays a role when it comes to reducing social exclusion. However, 
all  the  key  policies  to  tackle  poverty  and  social  inclusion  are  still  mainly  organised  at 
national (or regional) level in the Member States30.  

Social  inclusion  is  a  multi-faced  concept,  with  most  actions  and  policies  designed  at 
national level. The traditional national focus means that there are limited policy levers 
and  a  strong  level  of  inertia  in  dealing  with  these  issues  within  the  EU.  Hence,  the 
inclusion  of  poverty  and  social  inclusion  as  flagship  initiatives  in  the  Europe  2020 
strategy should facilitate a more thorough EU debate on how to reduce disparities and 
develop  synergies  and  initiatives  to  tackle  joint  or  shared  issues  across  national 
boundaries, especially the exclusion of Roma people31. 

The national level  

The  national  level  has  a  key  role  in  setting  up  policies  promoting  social  inclusion. 
Social protection systems such as family allowances and pension systems are decided 
and  financed  at  national  level  in  most  Member  States,  although  this  may  differ, 
especially in the federal states. Labour market policies are often developed and labour 
market  measures  financed  at  national  level.  Different  stakeholders,  such  as  labour 
unions,  business  representatives  and  NGOs  are  often,  in  different  ways,  involved  in 
the  formulation  of  both  social  and  labour-market  policies  at  national  level. 
Furthermore,  the  2013  EU  Social  investment  Programme  encourages  Member  States 
to  reorient  ‘towards  social  investment  where  needed,  with  a  view  to  ensuring  the 
adequacy  and  sustainability  of  social  systems  while  linking  these  efforts  to  the  best 
use  made  of  the  EU  funds,  notably  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF)’32.  On  the  one 
hand,  Member  States  are  urged  to  take  advantage  of  the  ESF,  which  is  usually 
managed  at  national  level,  and  on  the  other  hand,  ‘Member  States  are  urged  to 
strengthen the involvement of relevant stakeholders at all levels, most notably social 
partners and civil society organisations, in the modernisation of social policy as part of 
the Europe 2020 Strategy’33.  

Prevention of social exclusion and poverty is addressed differently in different Member 
States. The interplay between several policy sectors and ministries is often required at 
the national level in order to design policies tackling social exclusion. 

29 Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2013 
30 ESPON TIPSE Interim report, p. 4. 
31 European Commission (2011) An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020, COM(2011) 173/4 
32  European  Commission  (2013)  Towards  Social  Investment  for  Growth  and  Cohesion  –  including  implementing  the 
European Social Fund 2014-2020. 
2020, COM(2013) 83 final, 21. 
33 Ibid, p22. 
8 

 
                                                 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

The regional and local level  

The sub-national level is important for the implementation of policies to reduce social 
exclusion. Around 16% of sub-national expenditure is spent on reaching the ‘inclusive 
growth’ targets of the Europe 2020 strategy34. However, there is a strong geographic 
or territorial dimension to social exclusion.  

In most EU Member States, the urban and regional levels play an important role when 
it  comes  to  implementing  policies  to  tackle  poverty  and  social  exclusion,  not  least 
because  of  the  frequent  phenomenon  of  geographic  concentrations  of  excluded 
populations.  Also,  from  a  territorial  perspective,  social  exclusion  and  poverty  are 
mostly  associated  with  urban  areas  in  the  western  Member  States,  whereas  in  the 
eastern  Member  States,  poverty  is  mostly  associated  with  rural  areas35.  This  means 
that  the  national  policies  dealing  with  poverty  in  different  countries  may  target 
different types of territories, which makes a pan-European approach more difficult.  

Also, European cities experience increasing social exclusion, which has been reinforced 
as a consequence of the economic and financial crisis. As a result local authorities and 
neighbourhood  authorities  in  cities  play  a  key  role  in  working  with  socially  excluded 
people. Cities are therefore playing a crucial role in governance arrangements to fight 
social  exclusion36  and  the  urban  setting  is  thus  an  important  arena  for  new  and 
innovative governance arrangements, especially those involving civil society37. 

The citizens’ level  

The  involvement  of  civil  society  actors,  as  well  as  citizen  participation,  is  also 
highlighted.  The  added  value  of  involving  local  actors  also  concerns  their  knowledge 
and  understanding  of  the  social  exclusion  patterns  within  their  territory,  which  may 
allow for a better design and implementation of innovative social measures. 

In  an  urban  context,  neighbourhood  initiatives  mean  that  citizens  can  see  the  direct 
effects  of  their  engagement38.  More  ‘loose’  and  innovative  governance  arrangements 
such  as  neighbourhood  initiatives  also  tend  to  replace  traditional  participation  and 
engagement,  such  as  through  trade  unions  and  church  organisations39.  Thus,  the 
urban  setting  can  serve  as  ‘a  scene  for  experimenting  with  new  social  innovative 
modes of governance’40. 

Multi-level governance  

To  successfully  address  social  inclusion,  all  levels  of  governance  need  to  cooperate 
across  many  different  policy  fields.  An  example  of  EU  encouragement  for  adopting 
multi-level  governance  arrangements  where  all  levels  contribute,  together  with  civil 
society,  is  the  2011  EU  framework  for  Roma  inclusion.  The  European  Commission 
encourages Member States to develop national Roma strategies, but emphasises that 
the  strategies  should  ‘be  designed,  implemented  and  monitored  in  close  cooperation 
and continuous dialogue with Roma civil society, regional and local authorities’41. 

Four  case  studies  illustrate  the  focus  on  local  level  actions  in  the  field  of  social 
inclusion  and  the  diversity  of  issues  covered  by  this  Europe  2020  objective.  Specific 
governance  process  and  arrangements  in  Stockholm  (Sweden),  Pomorskie  (Poland), 
Timisoara (Romania) and Liverpool (United Kingdom) are presented in the Annex. 

34 Committee of the Regions, 2013. 
35 ESPON TIPSE Interim report, p. 4. 
36 Committee of the Regions, 2013 
37 Gerometta et al., 2012 
38 Gerometta et al., 2005. 
39 Gerometta et al., 2005. 
40 Gerometta et al., 2005. 
41  European  Commission  (2011)  An  EU  Framework  for  National  Roma  Integration  Strategies  up  to  2020,  COM  (2011) 
173/4, p 9. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Final Report 

2  LESSONS FOR EFFECTIVE USE OF MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE 

IN SUPPORT OF EUROPE 2020 

Many  regions  and  cities  in  Europe  contribute  directly  or  indirectly  to  achieving  the 
aims and objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy. A variety of lessons may be learned 
from  the  eight  case  studies  about  multi-level  governance  arrangements  increasing 
energy  efficiency  and  social  inclusion  may  be  relevant  for  many  other  regions  and 
policy fields beyond these specific objectives. 

The  main  lessons  concern  processes  and  coordinated  actions,  rather  than  the  Europe 
2020 targets.  

The lessons focus on the interplay of actors at various levels of government and with 
non-governmental actors, as well as across multiple policy sectors. In theory, effective 
processes  lead  to  improved  policy  outcomes;  however,  achieving  outcomes  after 
changes in the governance system takes time.  

The  case  studies,  looking  into  details  of  governance  arrangements  at  local  and 
regional levels, supported the development of more particular lessons.  

This chapter illustrates different mechanisms and elements in policy development that 
support delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy. The sections of this chapter present key 
lessons  that  were  identified  for  the  two  policy  fields  of  energy  efficiency  and  social 
inclusion (see also Figure 2).  

Figure 2 Lessons for multi-level governance (MLG) in support of Europe 2020  

Context,&external&
forces&&&
development&

2.1 

WHEN 
to call on 
MLG? 

2.2 

WHY to 
initiate 
MLG? 

Elements&of&mul89dimensional&processes&

2.7 

WHAT 
are the 
objectives 
and roles? 

2.5 

2.6 

HOW to 
run a 
MLG 
process? 

LESSONS&FOR&
MLG&
sjdhf&
SUPPORTING&
EUROPE&2020&

2.4 

WHO needs 
to 
participate? 

2.3 

WHO can 
initiate & 
drive 
processes? 

Context,&external&
forces&&&
development&

Source: Own elaboration  

10 

 
 
 
 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

The key lessons are presented in relation to a series of questions: 

•  When should multi-level governance processes be used?  
•  Why initiate multi-level governance processes? 
•  Who can initiate and drive multi-level governance processes? 
•  Who needs to participate in a multi-level governance process? 
•  How should a multi-level governance process be run? 
•  What are the main objectives, demands and roles within multi-level governance 

processes?  

The variety of different approaches and the different combinations of elements in the 
multi-level  governance  arrangements  illustrate  that  each  process  is  very  individual. 
The  lessons  only  show  some  essential  features,  how  successful  arrangements  may 
look and what should be avoided. 

2.1  WHEN? 

MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNACE PROCESS CAN COME IN AT ALL STAGES 
OF THE POLICY CYCLE  

Success factors for multi-level governance:  
Timing 

Time is an important dimension of governance processes, in particular as processes change over 
time and can be time consuming. 

•  Multi-level governance processes can be relevant at all stages of the policy cycle.  

•  Changing governance systems takes time. 

•  Adjust and change the mix and number of stakeholders during the process in order to find 

the most suitable arrangements for the different stages of policy development. 

• 

Plan for enough feedback loops at the stakeholders’ institutions. 

•  Political cycles are very important, stakeholders should anticipate political changes.  

Implementation  of  the  Europe  2020  strategy  is  embedded  in  policy  development  at 
various  levels  of  governance,  and  benefits  from  well-defined  governance  processes. 
This  includes  the  involvement  of  different  stakeholders  from  different  levels  and 
sectors influencing policy delivery.  

Key  lessons  on  multi-level  governance  arrangements  can  be  relevant  at  all  stages  of 
the policy cycle, from the phases of identification, formulation and implementation, as 
well as monitoring and evaluation.  

At  all  stages  of  the  policy  cycle,  different  stakeholders  can  be  brought  together  in 
multi-level  governance  processes.  The  tables  below  illustrate  which  actors  were 
involved at which stage and how different stakeholders changed over time. The cases 
illustrate  the  relevance  of  including  different  actors.  The  policy  outcomes  might  have 
been different depending on the inclusion of the actors at different stages of the policy 
cycle.  

One  approach  involves  broad  participation  of  many  stakeholders  as  early  as  the 
identification  stage  of  the  policy  cycle.  This  was  used  in  Lombardy,  Alsace,  and 
Timisoara. The second approach involves increasing the number of stakeholders when 
the  policy  is  implemented.  This  was  seen  in  Prignitz-Oberhavel,  Vrhinka,  Stockholm, 
Pomorskie and Liverpool.  

11 

 
 
 
Final Report 

Table 1 Multi-level governance dimensions at various stages of the policy cycle for 
energy efficiency  

Prignitz-Oberhavel 

Vrhnika 

Lombardy  

Alsace 

Developing regional 
energy policies 

Developing a local 
energy concept in 
compliance with 
national regulations 

Developing a 
regional planning 
strategy about 
energy efficiency 

Developing 
regional clusters in 
the field of energy 
efficiency 

Brandenburg state 
Ministries of Economic and 
European Affairs and 
Infrastructure and 
Agriculture initiated the 
state’s Energy Strategy 
(2008 and revised 2012) 
and implementation of this 
strategy in the state’s 
planning regions. 

National Ministries of 
Infrastructure and 
Planning, Economy and 
Technology and 
Agriculture and 
Environment propose 
Energy Act (2004 and 
revised in 2009), 
requiring municipalities 
to draft energy 
concepts. 

Launching the idea 
of a regional 
territorial plan 
(PTRA) in the 
Alpine Valleys at 
the end of 2011. At 
the beginning of 
2012 the regional 
government 
initiated the PTRA 
through a 
resolution. 

Implementation and 
translation of the state’s 
energy strategy by 
Prignitz-Oberhavel’s 
planning office, which 
regularly consults its board 
and assembly. 

Preparations of the 
pilot local energy 
concept started in 
2008 at the 
municipality of Vrhnika. 
Promoted by the 
mayor, supported by 
civil servants. 

Following analysis 
and drafting, the 
plan document was 
carried out by the 
University of 
Bergamo in 
cooperation with all 
the other actors. 

Alsace Region in 
cooperation with the 
main local players, 
i.e. regional 
environment and 
energy agency, 
chamber of 
commerce, 
authorities of the 
Alsace’s 
agglomerations, 
representatives from 
universities and 
private stakeholders. 

Cluster 
administration 
initiated by the 
Alsace region with 
support of 
representatives from 
agglomeration 
administrations and 
private stakeholders. 

Local partnerships. 

n
o

i
t
a
c
i
f
i
t
n
e
d
I

n
o

i
t
a
l

u
m
r
o
F

n
o

i
t
a
t
n
e
m
e
l

p
m
I

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
t
n
u
o
c
c
A

Involvement of local level 
to implement regional 
energy concept; district 
chief executives, municipal 
mayors and supporting 
staff. The involvement of 
interest groups, companies 
and citizens was voluntary. 

Steering group from 
region’s stakeholders and 
state representatives and 
managed by Zukunfts-
Agentur Brandenburg 
(ZAB), the state’s 
economic development 
board, an agency under 
the Brandenburg Ministry 
of Economic and European 
Affairs. 

2009 (for 10 years) 
Projects and actions 
originated from the 
concept started in 
2009 and will run for 
10 years, being 
implemented with the 
help of local 
stakeholders, including 
schools. 

Set out in national 
guidelines defining 
three levels of 
reporting. (1) the 
implementing body – 
the municipality. (2) 
municipality reporting 
to National Ministry of 
Infrastructure and 
Spatial Planning.(3) 
the municipal 
administration 
communicates the 
measures and results 
to the general public. 

Source: Own elaboration  

12 

Monitoring by the 
cluster 
administration as 
well as national 
assessment for the 
cluster’s future. 

Different evaluation 
conferences (first in 
2012) for 
incorporating 
concerns of all 
regional 
stakeholders in the 
Plan Document’s 
further 
development. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

Table 2 Multi-level governance dimensions at various stages of the policy cycle for 
social inclusion  

Stockholm 

Pomorskie 

Timisoara 

Liverpool 

Developing and 
implementing the 
Urban Game 

Introducing multi-
level governance in 
the implementation 
of ERDF actions 

Introducing 
trilateral 
dialogue for 
migration in 
Romania 

Stimulating urban 
integration 
towards social 
entrepreneurship  

Stockholm County Council 
and County 
Administration, based on 
a pre-study with 
representatives from the 
Swedish National Board 
for Housing, Building and 
Planning and the 
Stockholm County 
Association of Local 
Authorities. 

Stockholm region, with 
support from experts 

The Regional ERDF 
Programme (ROP) 
identified areas for 
which urban 
regeneration becomes 
eligible in an expert 
manner. 

Local stakeholders 
see need and start 
bottom-up action.  

Regional authorities 
identified the need to 
promote social 
entrepreneurship for 
social inclusion. 

Formulation of actions 
and funding application 
through local 
partnerships ’initiated’ 
by the ROP. 

Thematic work 
groups consisting 
of national players 
analysing cross-
sector needs. 

Liverpool city region 
Local Enterprise 
Partnership (LEP) in 
cooperation with local 
stakeholders. 

Playing the game with 
stakeholders from 
different levels and 
sectors. 

Implementation 
through local 
partnerships.  

2009-2015  
Migrants in 
Intercultural 
Romania (MiIR) 
project started by 
intercultural 
institute of 
Timisoara. 

Local partnerships, 
networks of 
intermediary 
organisations, e.g. 
Social Enterprise 
North West. 

Feedback from the Urban 
Game workshops to the 
County Council. 

Project and programme 
level are accountable 
and involved in 
monitoring, with 
emphasis on the ROP 
level (expert type). 

n
o

i
t
a
c
i
f
i
t
n
e
d
I

n
o

i
t
a
l

u
m
r
o
F

n
o

i
t
a
t
n
e
m
e
l

p
m
I

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
t
n
u
o
c
c
A

Source: Own elaboration  

Establishing  governance  change  takes  time;  how  much  time  depends  on  the  issue  at 
stake, the process, who is involved and how. In principle, complex processes are more 
difficult to maintain and take more time. Complexity in this sense refers to the number 
of stakeholders and the number of different levels and sectors. 

The duration of establishing multi-level governance arrangements differs. In the case 
studies  this  ranges  from  about  a  year  for  the  Urban  Game  to  several  years  for  most 
other examples. Finding agreements during policy identification and formulation often 
takes  several  years.  Firstly,  motivating  and  involving  stakeholders  takes  time. 
Secondly,  once  all  relevant  stakeholders  are  involved  they  often  need  sufficient  time 
to  refine  their  positions  within  their  own  institutions.  Thus  several  rounds  of 
communication  between  the  stakeholders  are  usually  necessary.  Thirdly,  various 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Report 

‘internal’  delays  may  prolong  the  process.  Fourthly,  achieving  multi-level  governance 
may make adjustments in capacities necessary at the stakeholder institutions.  

Certain  critical  moments  during  governance  processes  are  relevant  regarding  the 
policy  outcomes.  Critical  moments  can  be  the  points  when  the  stakeholders  should 
change,  for  example  when  moving  from  one  stage  in  the  policy  cycle  to  the  next,  or 
can  be  related  to  disruptive  elements  in  the  governance  process.  These  can  be 
unexpected conflicts among stakeholders, or elections changing policies at one level of 
governance.  

Actors  from  several  regions  participating  in  the  study  hinted  at  the  role  of  elections. 
Though  they  can  be  either  beneficial  or  harmful  to  the  multi-level  governance 
arrangements, they always tend to involve uncertainties. The role of local and regional 
politicians  and  their  relation  to  civil  servants  varies  between  European  countries.  In 
some  cases,  elections  may  affect  the  administrations’  organisation  or  even  the 
employment  of  staff.  In  other  countries,  uncertainties  are  more  linked  to  changes  in 
political attitudes and priorities, not directly and immediately affecting civil servants. 

2.2  WHY? 

LOCAL NEEDS DRIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EUROPE 2020 
STRATEGY 

Success factors for multi-level governance:  
Local needs and contexts  

There are many reasons why multi-level governance processes are initiated and their weight for 
shaping successful governance arrangements may differ. 

• 

• 

European or national policy frameworks can push for action.  

Local or regional development needs and challenges are important factors, which can push 
for multi-level governance processes.  

•  Building on existing governance structures.  

The  development  challenges  and  policy  objectives  addressed  by  the  Europe  2020 
strategy  suggest  that  stakeholders  from  different  levels  of  governance  and  different 
policy areas, and in some cases also public, private or civil society stakeholders need 
to cooperate to tackle them. 

In  other  words,  multi-level  governance  processes  are  needed  when  working  with  the 
topics linked to the Europe 2020 strategy. This is regardless of whether the topics are 
to implement the Europe 2020 strategy or for other reasons.  

The main reasons why regional and local stakeholders initiated or engaged with multi-
level  governance  related  to  Europe  2020  topics  in  the  case  studies  are  mainly:  (a) 
national policy frameworks, and (b) local or regional needs. 

Policy frameworks driving multi-level governance processes  

Actions  at  local  and  regional  levels  contribute  to  the  Europe  2020  objectives  and 
‘20/20/20’  targets  in  different  ways  and  forms.  In  general,  this  depends  on  existing 
policy frameworks and local needs.  

Many concrete, energy-saving measures take place at the local level, as opposed to a 
traditional ‘top-down’ approach. However, the case studies illustrate the importance of 
policy frameworks at higher government levels for governance arrangements at lower 
levels. In many cases, regions use frameworks defined at higher administrative levels 
to formulate their objective. These wider frameworks may include policy documents or 
laws from a higher level, as well as funding opportunities providing incentives.  

14 

 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

•  Legal requirements can drive multi-level governance processes in support of 
Europe 2020 energy targets. In Vrhnika, the municipality follows targets set in 
Slovenian  national  law,  and  the  Alpine  Valleys  in  Lombardy  follow  the  Energy 
Performance of Buildings Directive42 as well as Italian planning law. 

•  Policy  documents  from  a  higher  level  of  governance  can  also  play  an 
important  role  for  the  multi-level  governance  process  involving  regional  and 
local  stakeholders.  In  Prignitz-Oberhavel  (see  box)  regional  objectives  are 
embedded in federal and state documents. 

•  Contractual  arrangements  between  different  levels  of  governance  can  also 
be decisive for shaping multi-level governance arrangements, as in Alsace. 
•  Funding  opportunities  provide  another  policy  framework  for  multi-level 
governance  arrangements  in  support  of  Europe  2020.  Funding  via  EU  or 
national sources played a role in Alsace (ERDF) and Pomorskie (ERDF).  

Within these frameworks, local and regional stakeholders focus on different aspects of 
energy  efficiency,  depending  on  their  local  needs  and  the  potential  for  energy 
efficiency gains.  

Given  that  these  four  frameworks  already  implicitly  incorporate  Europe  2020 
objectives, actors at local and regional level do not explicitly refer to the Europe 2020 
strategy.  Still,  targets  in  line  with  the  overall  EU  target  to  increase  energy  efficiency 
were expressly mentioned in Alsace and Prignitz-Oberhavel. 

Focus on the Europe 2020 target of increased energy efficiency in Prignitz-Oberhavel  

The Europe 2020 strategy and its objectives provide the guiding framework for national policies 
in  Germany.  Energy  objectives  are  defined  in  sector-specific  legal  and  policy  documents,  such 
as  the  law  on  renewable  energy  and  the  national  energy  concept.  The  energy  strategy  of  the 
state  of  Brandenburg,  which  includes  Prignitz-Oberhavel,  refers  to  these  national  documents 
and to the EU Energy Efficiency Directive43. These documents guide the regional energy strategy 
of  Prignitz-Oberhavel,  even  though  the  regional  strategy  only  expressly  refers  to  the  energy 
strategy of Brandenburg, rather than national documents or the Europe 2020 strategy. 

Local needs driving multi-level governance processes  

In all four cases for social inclusion, local development needs were the prime reason a 
specific actor initiated multi-level governance processes.  

As  local  needs  vary  across  Europe  (and  thus  the  case  studies),  there  is  also  a  large 
variation of social inclusion aspects and ways to improve them. The four case studies 
address multiple policy fields relating to social inclusion such as:  

• 

reducing  socio-economic  segregation  (the  main  focus  in  Stockholm  and 
Pomorskie);  

•  strengthening entrepreneurship and, by that, inclusion in the labour market 

for socially excluded parts of society (the focus in Liverpool); 
integration of non-EU migrants (the focus in Timisoara). 

• 

The  diversity  becomes  even  more  apparent  comparing  the  local  needs  in  Stockholm 
and Timisoara and their approaches to coordinated and integrated decision-making.  

•  Stakeholders in the Stockholm region acknowledge the need to address socio-
economic  segregation  at  both  the  local  and  regional  levels  of  authority.  This 
resulted  in  the  development  of  the  Urban  Game,  a  tool  for  increasing 
awareness  about  interdependencies  of  developments  and  decisions  at  various 
levels of governance, as well as in various policy sectors.  

42  Directive  2010/31/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  19 May  2010  on  the  energy  performance  of 
buildings  (OJ L 153, 18.6.2010, p. 13).  
43 Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending 
Directives  2009/125/EC  and  2010/30/EU  and  repealing  Directives  2004/8/EC  and  2006/32/EC  (OJ  L  315,  14.11.2012,  p. 
1). 

15 

 
 
 
                                                 
Final Report 

• 

In Timisoara, NGOs introduced a new governance approach following the need 
to  integrate  increasing  numbers  of  non-EU  migrants  in  the  region.  This 
approach  was  successful  and  the  national  government  is  encouraging  other 
cities  and  regions  in  Romania  to  develop  similar  governance  approaches  (see 
box). 

Local needs in Timisoara led to a new governance approach 

In  Romania,  the  NRP  addresses  priorities  like  ‘inclusive  growth’  and  objectives  regarding 
employment, education, and the reduction of poverty, by laying out a set of clear, but general 
actions.  In  reality,  there  is  little  direct  and  focused  attention  on  the  specific  needs  of  migrant 
communities.  Additionally,  the  ‘top-down’  approach  to  these  actions  shows  little  flexibility  in 
accommodating different migrant communities and their cultures. 

Traditionally,  the  response  to  integrating  increasing  numbers  of  non-EU  migrants  in  Romania 
entailed  a  bilateral  approach  between  migrants,  local  public  authorities  and  civil  society.  A 
successful  approach  of  the  Intercultural  Institute  of  Timisoara  (IIT)  led  to  the  Directorate  for 
European  Affairs  and  International  Relations,  part  of  the  Romanian  Ministry  of  Internal  Affairs 
that is the national manager of the European Integration Fund, launching a call for projects. The 
IIT  responded  with  the  Migrants  in  Intercultural  Romania  (MiIR)  project,  which  is  based  on  a 
trilateral approach between the three main groups of stakeholders.  

The Timis region had to cope with an increasing number of non-EU migrants. Starting in 2009, 
IIT  was  directly  involved  in  developing  projects  to  improve  the  social  integration  of  non-EU 
migrants  in  Romanian  society,  at  first  in  Timisoara,  and  later  in  four  other  cities  across  the 
country.  The  cities  were  chosen  based  on  the  similarity  of  issues  and  migrant  communities, 
since migrants usually settle in urban areas that offer attractive opportunities and housing.  

Based  on  these  local  needs  in  Timisoara  and  the  innovative  trilateral  governance  approach, 
there is now a national process to promote the new governance process across Romania. 

Multi-level governance legacy  

Regardless of the reason why multi-level governance processes are initiated, existing 
structures  with  experience  in  multi-level  governance  help.  This  is  also  linked  to  the 
need to develop trust between the stakeholders. Multi-level governance is not simple 
to  build  from  scratch.  Sound  governance  structures  need  to  evolve  over  time,  even 
with  strong  engagement  from  the  leading  actors.  Previous  coordination  experience 
often  makes  it  easier  to  deepen  policy  cooperation,  whereas  the  inclusion  of  further 
levels or sector policies may be more time consuming.  

Building  on  existing  governance  structures  to  adapt  multi-level  governance 
mechanisms in Liverpool 

In  order  to  encourage  (social)  entrepreneurship  assisting  social  inclusion  in  the  Liverpool  city 
region,  new  regional  agencies  have  been  established,  making  use  of  existing  structures.  The 
governance  mechanisms  in  the  Liverpool  city  region  operate  in  a  context  that  has  changed 
substantially  since  2008  and  the  beginning  of  the  economic  crisis  in  the  UK.  There  has  been  a 
considerable  reduction  in  public  funding  for  business  support  programmes  and  encouraging 
the  North  West 
entrepreneurship.  Furthermore 
Development Agency (NWDA) have been abolished. These agencies were responsible for a wide 
range of activities relating to business support and economic development.  

regional  development  agencies, 

like 

Liverpool Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), a voluntary membership organisation, was created 
the same year the NWDA closed, in 2010. The LEP took over some of the tasks of the NWDA; 
however, with a lower budget and fewer staff. The main tool the LEP has at its disposal relates 
to  the  NWDA  approach  to  encourage  partnership  and  cooperation  between  all  relevant 
stakeholders in the Liverpool city region. Organisations dealing with social entrepreneurship had 
to deal with the changes at regional level and adjust accordingly. One response to the changed 
economic  and  governance  context  was  to  achieve  economies  of  scale  in  encouraging  social 
entrepreneurship.  Therefore  the  focus  shifted  towards  cooperation  between  stakeholders  in  a 
single large business support project, rather than a large number of smaller projects. 

16 

 
 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

These shifts of focus and new governance structures rely on established structures, but have to 
change  with  changes  in  the  economic  context  and  changes  to  multi-level  governance 
mechanisms at higher levels. 

2.3  WHO? 

INDIVIDUAL DRIVERS OFTEN INITIATE MULTI-LEVEL 
GOVERNANCE PROCESSES 

Success factors for multi-level governance:  
Initiation elements 

Multi-level governance processes can be initiated either ‘ top-down’ or ‘bottom-up’. ‘Bottom-up’ 
processes often need to be supplemented by ‘top-down’ initiatives. Despite a significant variety 
of initiation processes, there are some general success factors.  

•  No single stakeholder is designated to initiate or drive multi-level governance processes. 

• 

Initiation  processes  need  to  be  specific  for  each  policy  field.  They  depend  on  existing 
structures, the needs within each policy field and the geographical area.  

•  Specific  development  needs  or  local  issues  can  help  initiate  processes  at  local  and/or 

regional level. 

• 

Individuals with good networks and a broad understanding of governance in the respective 
policy field can help initiate processes.  

Multi-level  governance  processes  tend  not  just  to  emerge  ‘out  of  the  blue’,  but  are 
usually initiated by a stakeholder and/or triggered by a particular event.  

Political  awareness  and  commitment,  as  well  as  shared  visions 
future 
developments  with  stakeholders  across  different  levels  and  sectors  can  be  highly 
relevant  to  setting  multi-level  governance  processes  in  motion.  Different  factors  that 
could initiate a change in governance arrangements have been highlighted by the case 
studies and the literature review: 

for 

•  political awareness and commitment; 
shared vision among stakeholders from different levels and sectors; 
• 
funding resources; 
• 
•  addressing local needs; 
•  addressing policy objectives from higher levels; 
•  potential for cost saving; 
• 

‘top-down’ regulatory compliance. 

As  shown  in  Figure  3,  ‘top-down’  initiation  is  the  least  relevant.  However,  the 
examples  also  show  the  importance  of  ‘top-down’  initiating  factors  to  increase  the 
multi-level  character  of  governance  process,  i.e.  more  coordination  between  levels  of 
government and across policy sectors.  

17 

 
 
Final Report 

Figure 3 Initiation factors for multi-level governance  

Initiation factors for multi-level governance 

1. Political awareness and commitment. 

2. Shared vision among stakeholders 
from different levels and sectors. 

3. Funding resources 

4. Addressing policy objectives from 
higher levels 

5. Addressing local needs 

6. Potential for cost saving for the 
organisation 

7. ‘Top-down’ regulatory compliance 

fully agree 

agree 

disgree 

fully disagree 

not relevant 

Source:  Online  survey  to  local  and  regional  stakeholders  participating  in  the  study  and  other  interested 
actors (n = 55). 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

 ‘Top-down’ or ‘bottom-up’ initiation  

Multi-level  governance  processes  can  be  set  in  motion  based  on  either  ‘top-down’  or 
‘bottom-up’  approaches.  While  ‘top-down’  approaches  seem  to  dominate  in  the  eight 
cases studied, elements of both approaches are also visible to different extents. Pure 
‘bottom-up’ approaches seem to be rare.  

The initiation processes seem to differ between policy fields, as do key responsibilities 
and  existing  structures.  The  levels  at  which  processes  are  initiated  differ  between 
energy  efficiency  and  social  inclusion  policies.  For  social  inclusion  policies,  local  and 
regional  stakeholders  mainly  initiate  the  processes,  whereas  for  energy  efficiency 
policies it is normally stakeholders at national level.  

The  rationale  for  this  difference  lies  in  the  extent  to  which  these  policies  and  their 
impacts are linked to higher administrative levels.  

Apart  from  the  direction  of  initiation,  different  factors  can  trigger  the  governance 
arrangements.  

18 

 
 
 
 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

Initiation of multi-level governance processes:  

•  Stockholm:  Local  developments led  a  senior  official  at  the  regional  council  to  develop  the 
"urban  game"  tool  and  initiate  a  multi-level  governance  approach  to  social  inclusion  issues 
concentrated in different municipalities.  

• 

Liverpool:  The  reduction  in  regional  and  national  funding  and  changed  governance 
structures  pushed  stakeholders  in  multi-level  governance  processes  to  adapt  their 
cooperation  to  be  able  to  continue  to  support  the  employment  of  socially  excluded  groups 
with ERDF co-financing (2007-2013).  

•  Pomorskie: ERDF funding and the desire to use this funding strategically led the Managing 
Authority  of  the  regional  ERDF  programme  to  initiate  a  multi-level  governance  process  to 
address social inclusion by integrating inclusion measures with physical urban regeneration.  

•  Timisoara:  Non-EU  immigration  in  Timisoara  prompted  an  NGO  (supported  by  the  EU 
migration  Fund)  to  start  a  range  of  local  processes,  which  later  activated  governance 
processes at regional and national levels.  

•  Alsace: The availability of funding (including ERDF) together with a national ‘cluster’ policy 
prompted  stakeholders  in  the  Alsace  region  to  establish  the  ENERGIVIE  programme  and 
related cluster. This was supported by politicians and contractual arrangements between the 
regional and national levels. 

•  Prignitz-Oberhavel:  governance  coordination  processes  were  initiated  by  the  state  of 
Brandenburg that offered funding for energy efficiency measures to the planning regions.  

•  Vrhnika:  National  law  required  Slovenian  municipalities  to  develop  local  energy  concepts 

and caused the municipality to lead and engage in multi-level governance processes.  

• 

Lombardy: Local needs and the need to comply with national laws and EU directives made 
stakeholders  at  the  regional  level  initiate  multi-level  governance  processes  for  improving 
energy efficiency in the housing stock of the respective Alpine Valleys. 

Energy efficiency policies at local and regional levels are often linked to policies at 
national,  EU  or  even  global  levels.  However,  the  energy  efficiency  policies  illustrate 
that despite their link to higher administrative levels, there is no obligation for them to 
be initiated ‘top-down’. Higher levels should be involved, but initiation can be inspired 
from the local level.  

Figure 4 illustrates how ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ forces may be beneficial for multi-
level governance in support of energy efficiency. ‘Top-down’ forces push the initiatives 
of  the  local  level.  Local  level  activities  can  be  found  in  regional  strategies  and 
approaches.  ‘Bottom-up’  initiatives  provide  the  basis  for  effective  implementation  of 
regional  objectives  and  targets.  Local  action  is  thus  needed  for  implementation  of 
higher  level  objectives.  At  the  same  time,  it  feeds  back  to  the  regional  level  by 
providing examples for local actors in other municipalities within the region. 

In  Prignitz-Oberhavel,  the  process  began  with  cooperation  between  two  regional 
levels. While the state (upper regional level) was the initiator by offering funding, the 
planning  region  (lower  regional  level)  complied  by  taking  the  initiative  and  changing 
processes  to  supplement  with  its  own  funding.  In  Vrhnika,  the  ‘top-down’  initiation 
suggested a direct link between national and local levels (see box).  

In  Lombardy  and  Alsace,  initiation  resulted  from  a  combination  of  ‘top-down’  and 
‘bottom-up’  processes.  In  Lombardy,  the  interplay  between  local  and  regional  levels 
initiated  the  processes.  In  contrast,  Alsace  is  an  example  of  combined  initiation 
between regional and national levels. 

19 

 
 
Final Report 

Figure 4 ‘Top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ forces in multi-level governance processes  

Source: Own elaboration  

‘Top-down’ initiation of a local energy concept in Vrhnika 

The municipality of Vrhnika’s Local Energy Concept (LEK) is partly based on a legal obligation to 
implement  the  National  Energy  Programme  and  to  stimulate  a  more  strategic  approach  to  the 
management of energy supply and demand at the local level. 

The idea of the LEK was first introduced by the Slovenian Energy Act in 2004. To promote the 
use of this new instrument, a number of LEKs were co-financed, as pilot cases, at the national 
level.  The  key  actor  was  the  ministry  responsible  for  energy  –  at  that  time  the  Ministry  of 
Economy, now the Ministry of Infrastructure and Spatial Planning. LEKs were first envisioned in 
the  Energy  Act  as  a  tool  for  local  energy  policies  in  the  municipalities.  The  Ministry  later 
encouraged the first LEKs in the pilot phase.  

In 2008, Vrhnika began to approach sustainable energy policies systematically when preparing 
its  local  energy  concept.  The  proposal  was  supported  at  national  level  in  a  cross-sector 
approach  and  involved  the  Ministry  of  Infrastructure  and  Spatial  Planning,  the  Ministry  of 
Agriculture and the Environment and the Ministry of Economic Development and Technology.  

Social inclusion in urban areas, in contrast to energy efficiency, puts a focus on local 
themes  and  needs,  although  many  social  inclusion  issues  are  subject  to  national 
policies including the labour market and education. 

The initiation processes of governance processes related to social inclusion do not vary 
as  much  between  national,  regional  and  local  levels  as  do  energy  efficiency  policies. 
However,  social  inclusion  policies  further  differentiate  the  local  level  because  they  go 
down to the neighbourhood level, which mirrors the local character of social inclusion 
issues  in  urban  areas.  The  initiation  of  the  Urban  Game  in  Stockholm  may  be 
considered an example of ‘top-down’ initiation, since the regional level actively tackled 
local  needs.  In  this  case,  the  regional  level  not  only  initiated  the  overall  process  but 
also  actively  managed  it.  Pomorskie  and  Liverpool  may  be  seen  as  a  ‘top-down’ 
initiation  process  in  which  funding  provided  by  the  regional  level  triggered  local 
players to combat social exclusion. However, this provision of funding would not have 
been  set  in  motion  without  initiatives  taken  by  local  actors.  Thus,  the  ‘top-down’ 
initiation was supplemented by ‘bottom-up’ initiation.  

Only  Timisoara  may  be  best  described  as  a  ‘bottom-up’  process  that  was  initiated  at 
local level.  

20 

 
 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

Different ERDF-driven mechanisms for initiating multi-level governance projects 

A  comparison  of  Prignitz-Oberhavel  and  Pomorskie  illustrates  different  initiation  mechanisms, 
though  both  are  ERDF-driven.  Their  common  aspect  lies  in  the  design  of  a  programme  that 
foresaw multi-level governance arrangements as a prerequisite for funding. 

In  Prignitz-Oberhavel,  the  provision  of  funding  at  state  level  went  along  with  the  state’s 
expectation  that  all  five  planning  regions  should  apply  for  funding  for  a  regional  energy 
strategy. This approach was based on the desire to cover the whole of the state of Brandenburg 
with  energy  strategies.  Furthermore,  the  state  provided  a  strict  outline  of  what  should  be 
included  in  the  planning  regions’  energy  strategies.  Although  not  compulsory,  the  planning 
regions, including Prignitz-Oberhavel, responded to this request.  

In contrast, in Pomorskie the ERDF-driven mechanism provided the opportunity of funding for a 
less  precisely  defined  group  of  beneficiaries.  It  offered  local  actors  the  possibility  of  proposing 
different  projects.  Thus,  regional  initiation  was  only  set  into  motion  when  local  actors  made 
corresponding project proposals. This approach neither aimed at full coverage of all areas with a 
social inclusion issue nor did it aim at only one type of project. Much more freedom was left to 
local initiative than in the above example. 

The driver is often a person 

There  was  an  individual  driver  for  multi-level  governance  processes  in  most  case 
studies, regardless of the policy field or initiating process.  

In almost all cases, one individual can be identified as crucial for setting the process in 
motion. At least to start with, this individual was the main contact for representatives 
from  other  administrative  levels  and  policy  sectors.  Often  these  individuals  have  a 
mandate  to  act  according  to  their  position  in  the  public  administration.  But  this 
mandate  in  itself  is  not  necessarily  sufficient  to  induce  a  multi-level  governance 
process. It also requires active pursuit of the envisioned governance.  

The  initial  driver  most  often  is  either  a  political  representative  or  a  civil  servant.  The 
latter  usually  needs  to  spark  the  interest  of  political  representatives  in  order  to  get 
broader  support  in  raising  awareness.  Typically,  politicians  can  ‘sell’  the  policy  to  a 
broader  audience  than  civil  servants.  The  governance  concept  implicitly  includes  the 
involvement of non-public stakeholders. As the example of Timisoara shows, it is not 
always necessary for policies to be initiated by the public sector. Civil society, pulling 
the  right  strings,  may  also  succeed,  though  this  may  not  apply  in  the  same  way  to 
different policy fields.  

Examples  of  key  persons  as  drivers  of  multi-level  governance  in  Stockholm  and 
Timisoara  

Individuals  as  drivers  for  multi-level  governance  processes  are  most  prominent  in  the  social 
inclusion examples in Stockholm and Timisoara. Whereas the key person for the Urban Game in 
Stockholm  could  rely  on  experience  and  a  vast  network  in  the  region,  the  Timisoara  case 
showed the importance of being persistent.  

Despite  the  joint  initiative  for  the  Urban  Game  by  Stockholm  County  Council  and  the  County 
Administration Board, the driver behind the Urban Game can be boiled down to a single person. 
This key person launched the Urban Game making use of his vast network, gained by working 
at different governmental levels in the Stockholm region and in different policy sectors, making 
it  easier  to  engage  all  the  stakeholders.  This  network  was  further  used  to  promote  the  Urban 
Game beyond Stockholm. 

Such  a  network  might  not  always  be  to  hand.  There  are  other  ways  for  a  key  person  to  put 
forward a multi-level governance approach, as illustrated in Timisoara. The key person here was 
persistent  and  reminiscent  of  a  Romanian  saying  ‘if  you  can’t  go  though  the  door  then  jump 
through  the  window’  (‘Dacă  nu  poți  să  intri  pe  ușă  atunci  intră  pe  fereastră ’),  this  key  person 
relied on pursuing the aim, despite negative replies or barriers along the way.  

21 

 
 
Final Report 

Individuals  initiating  multi-level  governance  processes  usually  have  wide  networks 
across  levels  and/or  sectors.  Within  these  networks  these  people  are  often  also 
accepted  as  ‘leaders’,  which  helps  to  create  mutual  trust  and  interest  in  the  issue. 
Given  their  experience  in  networks,  such  individuals  can  build  strong  links  across 
sectors and levels and may also communicate more easily between the different actors 
since they are comfortable moving between levels or sectors. 

2.4  WHO? 

SELECTING AND MOTIVATING ALL CRUCIAL STAKEHOLDERS 

By  definition,  multi-level  governance  processes  include  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders, 
no  matter  how  they  were  originally  initiated.  Local  and  regional  authorities  that  are 
pivotal stakeholders engage with public authorities at other administrative levels, with 
stakeholders from different policy sectors and with non-public institutions.  

The  methods  for  selecting  stakeholders  and  motivating  them  to  become  part  of  the 
process  are  a  critical  factor  for  developing  successful  governance  arrangements.  It  is 
not  easy  to  identify  and  motivate  all  crucial  actors.  Furthermore,  there  is  a  trade-off 
between  the  widest  possible  inclusion  of  relevant  actors  and  establishing  an  efficient 
governance  process.  Mobilising  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders  can  be  beneficial,  for 
instance for facilitating the commitment of additional funding resources, as in Alsace. 
It  may  also  create  greater  ownership,  as  in  Lombardy.  At  the  same  time,  motivating 
and coordinating substantial numbers of actors is time-consuming, thereby hampering 
any  urgency  or  at  least  inducing  time  lags  in  achieving  policy  outcomes.  Therefore, 
limiting the involvement of actors to core stakeholders can speed up decision-making 
processes  and  reduce  bureaucracy44.  The  development  of  different  degrees  of 
involvement for different types of stakeholders can help in structuring a more efficient 
process while giving crucial actors the opportunity to contribute. 

Furthermore,  complex  policy  processes  are  fragile  if  they  involve  a  wide  range  of 
stakeholders  from  various  sectors  and  levels  of  governance.  Mutual  trust  among 
stakeholders  is  a  key  pre-condition  for  smooth  and  successful  cooperation.  For  policy 
objectives, trust helps to create mutually approved agreements with broad ownership. 
In Lombardy, the involvement of the University of Bergamo resulted in trust being yet 
another important pre-condition for effective multi-level governance.  

Figure 5 A new cooperation culture is needed with regard to …  

cross-level  

 cross-sector 

disagree or non-
relevant 

agree 

fully agree 

Source:  Online  survey  to  local  and  regional  stakeholders  participating  in  the  study  and  other  interested 
actors (n = 53) 

In most of the case studies the key actors are skilled and experienced in cooperating 
with  different  stakeholders  and  sectors  and  with  finding  process  partners.  In  other 
words, in these cases a cooperation culture exists. Participants from the twinning cities 
and  regions  underlined  that  in  their  case  new  cooperation  cultures  would  be  needed 

44 Jollands et al. (2009) p.25. 
22 

 
 
 
                                                 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

for  the  process  to  work  in  a  similar  manner,  for  both  cross-sector  and  cross-level 
cooperation (see Figure 5).  

However  the  case  studies  illustrate  that  even  where  cooperation  structures  have 
evolved;  this  does  not  ensure  minds  open  to  new  cooperation.  Indeed,  there  is  also 
the  danger  of  getting  stuck  in  previously  tested  coordination  structures.  In 
consequence, experience from these cases provides lessons on how to identify, select 
and motivate crucial actors, though these lessons may be ambiguous. 

2.4.1  Stakeholders from multiple sectors and administrative levels get 

involved 

Success factors for multi-level governance:  
Selection of actors 

The combination of crucial and relevant sectors varies strongly from case to case. It depends on 
different  factors  including  local  /  regional  structures,  past  governance  experience,  the  policy 
issue at stake and the dominant rationale for taking action.  

• 

• 

From the very beginning, a careful mapping of stakeholders can help to determine the most 
influential stakeholders.  

Principally,  stakeholders  need  to  be  decisive.  The  extent  to  which  the  different  levels 
influence and cooperate with each other directly varies between policy fields.  

•  Addressing social inclusion often demands an integrated approach and the inclusion of more 
policy  sectors,  which  suggests  the  inclusion  of  actors  from  more  diverse  policy  fields,  as 
compared to energy efficiency. 

• 

There  are  different  types  of  non-public  actors  who  may  deliver  important  input. 
Policymakers do not always seem to be aware of these choices. 

•  Trust facilitates sustainable coordination between stakeholders.  

Multi-level governance processes usually build on the involvement of a wide range of 
different stakeholders, from different levels of governance, from different policy fields 
and  from  different  parts  of  society,  e.g.  politicians,  civil  servants,  civil  society, 
knowledge institutes and private enterprises.  

Figure 6 Most influential stakeholders in multi-level governance processes  

Source:  Online  survey  to  local  and  regional  stakeholders  participating  in  the  study  and  other  interested 
actors (n = 55) 

In  general,  the  public  sector  is  most  influential  in  multi-level  governance  processes 
according  to  the  survey.  In  particular  national  and  regional  authorities  are  important 
stakeholders.  In  the  perspective  of  local  stakeholders  local  authorities  are  considered 
to  be  of  equal  importance  (see  Figure  6).  Although  public  authorities  are  the  most 

23 

 
 
Final Report 

important  stakeholders,  the  importance  of  politicians  should  not  be  underestimated. 
Local stakeholders tend to emphasise the importance of politicians more than regional 
stakeholders (see Figure 6).  

Overall,  the  eight  case  studies  show  the  need  for  a  good  mix  of  stakeholders,  which 
naturally differs from case to case. For each multi-level governance approach, this mix 
needs  to  be  refined,  taking  into  account  local  and  regional  structures  as  well  as  the 
issue  at  stake.  The  case  studies  also  show  that  involvement  of  stakeholders  that  are 
central  to  the  processes  and  developments  is  crucial.  If  some  actors  cannot  be 
involved  for  various  reasons,  this  may  endanger  the  overall  policy  success  or  require 
the approach to be refined.  

This  is  illustrated  by  the  example  of  energy  efficiency  in  existing  buildings.  Energy 
efficiency  may  be  increased  in  public  as  well  as  private  buildings.  If,  for  instance, 
private  housing  is  more  energy  efficient,  dominating  ownership  structures,  private 
households  or  housing  associations  must  be  included  as  actors.  They  need  to  be 
approached  in  different  ways.  If  they  cannot  be  successfully  included  in  the 
governance process, the policy approach may have to be reviewed to focus on public 
buildings only, or on other types of energy consumption, such as street lightning.  

Involvement of stakeholders from different sectors  

Multi-level  governance  processes  for  energy  efficiency  and  social  inclusion  involve  a 
wide  range  of  stakeholders  from  other  sectors.  Overall,  the  case  studies  show  that 
social inclusion policies follow a more interdisciplinary approach than energy efficiency 
policies.  

The  social  inclusion  examples  include  more  policy  sectors  than  the  energy  efficiency 
examples.  Employment,  education  and  urban  and  regional  planning  are  the  sectors 
that  were  most  often  involved  in  social  inclusion.  Urban  planning  authorities  play  the 
most  central  role  in  Stockholm  and  Pomorskie,  whereas  Timisoara  mainly  involved 
actors  dealing  with  migration.  In  Liverpool,  business  support  and  entrepreneurship 
actors played a crucial role.  

For energy efficiency policies, the number of sectors per policy approach seems to be 
considerably  smaller  than  for  social  inclusion  policies.  In  addition  the  variety  of 
different sectors is lower. The main policy sectors included in these cases are regional 
development, environment and housing.  

The interdisciplinary dimension of energy policies  

Whereas  energy  issues  have  to  be  included  in  a  wide  range  of  policies,  it  appears  that  the 
energy  sector  itself  involves  other  policies  less  often.  The  Committee  of  the  Regions  (CoR) 
Background  Paper  stressed  the  importance  of  energy  efficiency  as  a  guiding  principle  of  EU 
policies  across  several  fields,  referring  to  energy,  transport,  climate  change,  industry,  raw 
materials,  agriculture,  fisheries,  biodiversity,  water  and  waste  management,  land  use  and 
regional development45. However, the literature also shows that energy efficiency issues need to 
focus  on  increased  integration  and  coordination  between  sector  policies  that  are  traditionally 
conceived and implemented in parallel. Thus, the examples may still reflect the more traditional 
approach. 

While  the  number  of  sector  policies  involved  in  energy  efficiency  is  lower  than  for 
social  inclusion  policies,  two  sectors  were  included  in  only  one  case  study  each  – 
transport and education. Transport is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. It 
plays a role only in the strategy of Prignitz-Oberhavel and even there, transport policy 
perspectives are of minor importance. The role of education and change of behaviour 
in favour of energy efficiency is also mentioned. However, a local representative of the 
education sector, i.e. the headmaster of the local school, was actively involved only in 
Vrhnika. 

45 Committee of the Regions, 2013, p. 2. 
24 

 
                                                 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

Figures 7 and 8 show the main sectors addressed with respect to the government level 
and  the  main  sector  focus  of  each  of  the  examples.  Government  levels  and  sectors 
that  provide  a  framework  without  being  actively  involved  are  depicted  by  more 
transparent  dots.  Policy  sectors  here  not  only  refer  to  public  authorities  but  also 
explicitly  include  non-governmental  and  other  private  actors  who  are  active  in  the 
policy field. 

The distribution of dots in each line and across levels indicates that the inclusion of a 
policy sector at one level does not automatically imply the inclusion of the same sector 
at  other  levels.  This  is  particularly  visible  for  Liverpool,  where  several  sectors  are 
involved  at  the  local  level,  whereas  the  regional  level  is  involved  in  only  two  policy 
fields.  

Figure 7 Sectors involved in multi-level governance processes on social inclusion  

Local&

Regional&

Na-onal&

European&

Employment*

Urban*planning*

Housing*

Transport*

Educa7on*

Health*care*

Migra7on*

Culture*&*Leisure*

Business*&*
entrepreneurship*

Stockholm 
Source: Own elaboration 

Pomorskie 

Liverpool 

Timisoara 

Figure 8 Sectors involved in multi-level governance processes on energy efficiency  

Local&

Regional&

Na-onal&

European&

…economic(and(
regional(
development(

…environmental(
issues(

…spa3al(planning(

…housing(/(built(
environment(

…transport(

…educa3on(

Prignitz - Oberhavel 

Alsace 

Lombardy 

Vrhnika 

Source: Own elaboration 

The  importance  of  involving  a  mix  of  representatives  from  different  sectors  in  multi-
level governance arrangements was also confirmed in the survey. Respondents largely 
agree  with  the  statements  on  strengthened  governance  mechanisms  across  different 
policy  sectors.  The  need  for  strengthened  coordination  across  sectors  is  perceived  as 

25 

 
 
 
Final Report 

most  relevant,  whereas  respondents  tend  to  disagree  more  with  the  statement  that 
new organisational capacities are needed to improve this coordination (see Figure 10). 

Links between Policy sectors and levels in Stockholm 

In  Stockholm,  the  Urban  Game  was  designed  to  encourage  discussion  and  increase  awareness 
about  the  interdependencies  of  developments  and  decisions  in  various  sectors  and  at  various 
levels of governance. More specifically, the Urban Game helps visualise how different measures 
implemented  at  different  governance  levels  and  sectors  relate  to  each  other,  for  both  vertical 
and horizontal coordination.  

Approximately  100  possible  measures  (playing  cards)  identify  what  is  important  in  order  to 
achieve  social  inclusion.  By  using  the  game  as  a  tool,  participating  stakeholders  are  asked  to 
place a given measure (playing card) in a ’square’ of their choice on the ‘playing field’ – hence, 
contemplating  the  governance  level  and  sector  they  think  has  the  mandate  to  implement  that 
measure.  

The playing fields are defined by the most relevant sectors and levels of governance. The most 
important  sectors  for  social  inclusion  in  Stockholm  are  health  &  welfare,  culture  &  leisure, 
education,  housing,  urban  &  green  structure,  enterprise  &  employment,  and  traffic  & 
infrastructure. The most important levels of governance are individual, city district, municipality, 
sub-regional, regional, national and EU.  

Figure 9 Policy sectors and levels in the Urban Game  

Source: Stockholm County Council 

26 

 
 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

Figure 10 Reflections on cross-sector governance mechanisms  

Reflections on cross-sector governance mechanisms 

1. Strengthened coordination across 
different policy fields is needed, e.g. 
making use of fora or shared visions. 

2. Governance arrangements benefit 
from an enlarged group of stakeholders 
involving different sector policies. 

3. Governance arrangements benefit 
from clear leadership or increased 
initiative by politicians across sectors. 

4. New organisational capacities are 
needed to enhance coordination 
between policy sectors. 

5. A new cooperation culture between 
policy sectors is needed. 

fully agree 

agree 

disagree 

fully disagree 

not relevant 

Source:  Online  survey  to  local  and  regional  stakeholders  participating  in  the  study  and  other  interested 
actors (n = 55) 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

Involvement of stakeholders from different levels of governance 

Figures  7  and  8  illustrate  various  sectors  and  the  involvement  of  different 
administrative levels.  

The majority of actors in energy efficiency and social inclusion respectively are at local 
and  regional  level.  Differences  between  the  policy  fields  refer  to  involvement  at  the 
local  level.  At  the  same  time,  actions  at  local  and  regional  levels  often  depend  on 
policies at national and EU levels, giving the framework and providing funding.  

The  main  participants  in  both  policy  fields  come  from  either  local  or  regional  levels. 
However,  local  drivers  seem  to  be  more  common  in  social  inclusion  policies  and 
regional drivers are more often found in energy efficiency policies. The local level was 
crucial  in  Pomorskie,  Timisoara,  Liverpool  and  Vrhnika.  The  regional  level  was  crucial 
in  Stockholm  and  the  energy  efficiency  examples  of  Prignitz-Oberhavel,  Alsace  and 
Lombardy.  It  is  worth  noting  that  for  Prignitz-Oberhavel,  two  regional  levels  are  at 
play – the Land and the spatial planning region. The crucial role after initiation is with 
the planning region. Given that there is no relevant regional level in Slovenia, it is not 
surprising  that  national  and  local  levels  interact  directly.  This  absence  of  a  regional 
level may also be the reason for the dominant role of the local level in Vrhnika.  

In both policy fields, the EU level mainly provides framework conditions without being 
directly and actively involved. This shows that the local and regional levels usually do 
not interact directly with the EU level. This is not only a consequence of predominating 
governance  and  government  structures  but  also  results  from  regional  and  local 
capacities  to  interact  with  higher  levels.  The  study  conducted  by  Martinková46 
highlights  that  only  regional  governments  with  a  significant  capacity  for  cross-level 
cooperation  may  interact  with  the  EU  level.  They  can  use  this  capacity  to  deliver 
regional  interests  to  the  EU.  However,  even  this  type  of  interaction  is  not  an  active 
involvement of the EU level in multi-level governance approaches in the sense of this 
study. 

The  importance  of  the  mix  of  representatives  from  different  levels  of  governance  in 
multi-level  governance  arrangements  was  also  confirmed  in  the  survey.  There  were 
strengthening coordination across different policy fields (see Figure 11). Respondents 

46 See Martinková (2013) 

27 

 
 
                                                 
Final Report 

largely  agree  with  the  statements  on  strengthened  governance  mechanisms  across 
different levels of governance. The need for strengthened coordination across levels is 
perceived  as  most  relevant,  whereas  respondents  tend  to  disagree  more  that  new 
organisational capacities are needed to improve this coordination. 

Figure 11 Reflections on cross-level governance mechanisms  

Reflections on cross-level governance mechanisms 

1. Governance arrangements benefit from 
an enlarged group of stakeholders that 
represent different geographical levels. 

2. Governance arrangements benefit from 
clear leadership or increased initiative by 
politicians from different levels. 

3. Strenghtened coordination across 
European, national, regional and local 
authorities is needed. 

4. A new cooperation culture between 
geographical levels is needed. 

5. New organisational capacities are 
needed to enhance coordination between 
different levels. 

fully agree 

agree 

disagree 

fully disagree 

not relevant 

Source:  Online  survey  to  local  and  regional  stakeholders  participating  in  the  study  and  other  interested 
actors (n = 55) 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

Involvement of public and non-public stakeholders  

In general, key stakeholders in multi-level governance arrangements related to energy 
efficiency  or  social  inclusion  are  politicians  at  different  administrative  levels  and  civil 
servants  working  at  different  levels  and  in  different  policy  sectors.  In  addition, 
stakeholders  from  civil  society,  the  private  sector  or  universities  can  be  involved,  as 
well as the general public, including households.  

The  involvement  of  actors  other  than  public  authorities  varies  strongly.  They  may  be 
crucial  stakeholders,  as  in  Timisoara,  or  one  that  gets  involved  only  during 
opportunities for communication with non-public actors.  

The main groups beside public authorities that need to be considered are: 

• 

• 

• 

the  third  sector.  Depending  on  the  issues  to  be  approached  and  the 
responsibility  of  local  and  regional  governance  structures,  stakeholders  from 
the  third  sector  can  be  important  actors.  The  examples  from  Timisoara  and 
Liverpool  provide  insights  into  the  importance  of  the  third  sector  and  the 
different ways diverse stakeholders can be involved.(see box);  
the knowledge sector. Stakeholders representing the scientific or knowledge 
sector can play different roles. The example of Lombardy shows that they can 
be  important  partners  in  providing  evidence  for  the  policy  process.  In  Alsace, 
they  play  a  much  larger  role  as  stakeholders  with  their  own  interests  in  the 
clustering process; 
the private sector. Governance arrangements can also involve private sector 
stakeholders  that  are  needed  for  implementation.  In  particular,  Alsace 
underlines  the  role  of  the  private  sector  as  direct  stakeholders  in  various 
processes,  where  companies  are  crucial 
into 
marketable products. 

for  developing  research 

28 

 
 
 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

Third sector involvement in Liverpool 

integration 

While  addressing  social 
increasing  numbers  of  deprived 
neighbourhoods with relatively high unemployment, the Liverpool City Region had to cope with 
changes in the economy and governance at higher levels. Accordingly, the focus shifted towards 
the cooperation of various stakeholders on a large business support project, rather than a larger 
number of small projects.  

issues  and  the 

The  Liverpool  Local  Enterprise  Partnership  (LEP)  works  with  a  network  of  intermediary 
organisations  (including  charities  and  social  enterprises)  that  are  involved  across  wards  in  the 
Liverpool  city-region  to  deliver  business  start-up  support  to  individuals,  as  well  as  advice  and 
support to businesses. For example, Social Enterprise North West (SENW) is the lead agency for 
the  Big  Enterprise  in  Communities  (BEiC)  project.  SENW  is  a  social  enterprise  whose  role  is  to 
act  as  a  regional  network,  bringing  together  other  social  enterprise  networks  from  across  the 
region. SENW is actually the leader of the BEiC project. The key delivery partners in the project 
are mainly from the third sector. 

Due  to  these  partnerships  and  inclusion  of  the  third  sector,  the  city  region  can  continue  to 
increase social inclusion and encourage social entrepreneurship. 

2.4.2  Different motives for mobilising stakeholders 

Success factors for multi-level governance processes:  
Motivations 

Stakeholders  only  become  involved  if  they  are  motivated.  This  motivation  may  have  to  be 
‘activated’. 

• 

• 

If motivations are complementary, successful governance processes are more likely than if 
there are conflicting motivations and interests.  

Each stakeholder may have several interlinked motivations, adding to a complex picture.  

Stakeholders  have  different  motivations  for  becoming  involved  in  multi-level 
governance  processes.  All  eight  case  studies  and  several  twinning  partners  underline 
the benefit of involving stakeholders from different levels and different sectors in their 
policy processes. Lessons refer, inter alia, to ways to mobilise stakeholders. The case 
studies highlight lessons on the selection, mobilisation and motivation of stakeholders. 
The mobilisation of stakeholders needs:  

the interest of stakeholders to be involved; 
the capacity to act; 

• 
• 
•  all relevant competences for the issue should be covered; 
• 

stakeholders should share responsibilities without conflicts; 

The  motivation  of  stakeholders  to  get  involved  is  similar  in  the  energy  and  social 
inclusion  cases.  The  main  motivations  for  stakeholders  are  illustrated  in  the  table 
below.  The  dark  shaded  cells  indicate  primary  motivations,  whereas  lightly  shaded 
cells  represent  secondary  aspects  that  may  motivate  involvement  in  multi-level 
governance processes.  

Knowledge  of  different  motivations  is  important  for  getting  the  relevant  stakeholders 
involved.  They  may  not  always  be  self-motivated  at  the  start,  but  have  to  be 
motivated  by  the  person  or  institution  driving  the  governance  process.  Thus,  the 
different motivations provide access points for the driver to motivate stakeholders.  

29 

 
Final Report 

Table 3 Motivating factors by types of stakeholders  

s
O
G
N
/

y
t
e
i
c
o
s

l
i

i

v
C

s
t
n
a
v
r
e
s

l
i

i

v
C

s
n
a
i
c
i
t
i
l

o
P

r
o
t
c
e
s

e
t
a
v
i
r
P

/

c
i
l

b
u
P

l

a
r
e
n
e
G

l

s
d
o
h
e
s
u
o
h

s
e
i
t
i
s
r
e
v
n
U

i

Influence 

Funding possibilities 

Cost savings 

Local challenge 

Durability  

‘Belonging to the club’ 

Attention / ‘fame’ 

Source: Own elaboration 

Differences  in  motivation  between  the  two  policy  sectors  are  mainly  related  to  the 
different levels that play a crucial role in their different governance arrangements. At 
the  neighbourhood  level,  there  is  a  tendency  for  local  challenges  to  be  a  particularly 
strong  motivation.  NGOs  are  highly  aware  of  these  challenges.  At  higher 
administrative levels, these challenges may not be as visible and other motivations are 
more important. 

For  politicians  and  NGOs,  it  is  important  to  influence  the  governance  processes  and 
policy outcomes. This influence may be linked to motivations such as ‘belonging to the 
club’  or  ‘fame’  since  influence  can  be  mirrored  in  these  other  two  motivations.  Civil 
servants  may  also  aim  at  exerting  influence,  which  can  vary  depending  on  cultural 
backgrounds  and  the  type  of  influence.  It  does  not  necessarily  refer  to  influencing 
policy  outcomes,  but  could  also  be  having  influence  within  the  civil  servant’s 
institution, including personal career development. 

The possibility of additional funding is a trigger to engage in multi-level governance 
for  all  stakeholders.  Generating  funds  not  only  enables  additional  activities,  but  is 
often  considered  to  be  an  indicator  for  the  actors’  success  or  ‘importance’.  For  NGOs 
and the private sector, it is an economic necessity. Multi-level governance approaches 
may help in raising funds, since the involvement of multiple actors can create a critical 
mass for the application.  

Furthermore,  some  actors  may  be  needed  to  provide  supplementary  funds  that  are 
beneficial to the project; this is evident in the cases of Liverpool and the Alsace. The 
cluster  initiative  in  the  Alsace  builds  on  the  experience  and  resources  of  non-public 
partners in the cluster. The participants in the ENERGIVIE cluster even pay a fee to be 
part of the cluster and make use of the network. This creates a multiplier effect for the 
policy  to  increase  the  energy  efficiency  of  buildings  in  the  region.  At  the  same  time, 
this  example  shows  how  important  network  access  is  for  companies  in this  cluster  to 
be economically successful.  

Cost  savings  are  also  a  motivation  for  stakeholders  to  get  involved.  Cost  savings 
include  administrative  cost  and  increasing  policy  coherence.  This  is  based  on  the 
assumption  that  partners  supplement  each  other’s  activities.  By  contributing  to  a 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

common project, the individual partner activities are worth more than the sum of the 
parts.  Cost  savings  are  a  particularly  relevant  motivation  for  civil  servants  and  the 
private  sector.  While  this  is  economically  driven  in  the  private  sector,  including 
households,  the  rationale  may  be  different  for  civil  servants.  The  need  to  fulfil 
compulsory public activities on limited budgets creates the need for cost savings. 

In  particular,  Liverpool  shows  the  importance  of  cost  savings  as  a  motivation  for 
stakeholders  to  change  their  governance  approach.  Other  examples  are  Stockholm 
and  Pomorskie.  Additionally,  the  lessons  from  the  twinning  partners  illustrate  this 
aspect, as described below (see box). 

Policy coherence and cost efficiency gains in Reus 

Based on the twinning meeting between Pomorskie and Reus, the municipality of Reus took the 
initiative  of  cooperating  more  with  the  neighbouring  municipality  of  Tarragona.  Both  towns  in 
the  Catalan  Region  in  Spain  have  similar  challenges.  Through  cooperation  and  policy 
coordination  between  the  two  Spanish  municipalities,  the  representatives  try  to  manage  their 
costs and capacities more efficiently. 

A  first  bilateral  commission  between  Reus  and  Tarragona  took  place  one  month  after  the 
twinning  meeting  and  the  best  way  to  exchange  best  practices  and  common  strategies  was 
discussed. This included not only social inclusion topics, but other common challenges. 

These cooperation initiatives were not only a result of the twinning meeting with Pomorskie, but 
also the twinning meeting on energy issues with Prignitz-Oberhavel.  

Addressing a local challenge can be a typical motivation for civil servants and NGOs. 
For  NGOs  there  may  also  be  an  ideological  motive.  For  politicians,  this  type  of 
motivation  may  be  related  to  future  elections,  whereas  the  general  public  are  often 
motivated by the ‘NIMBY syndrome’47. Local challenges were most explicit in the case 
of Timisoara, which illustrates the motivation of NGOs that typically voice concerns of 
civil society that are not properly addressed by public authorities. Thus, by publicising 
local  or  regional  issues,  the  NGO  raises  awareness  not  only  among  the  wider  public 
but also in public authorities. The example of Timisoara shows how this motivation can 
trigger a response from the public administration.  

Including  more  partners  and  sharing  ownership  can  increase  the  durability  of 
policies. The case studies show the relevance of elections, which may exert positive or 
negative  effects.  They  can  prompt  multi-level  governance  arrangements,  enhance 
these mechanisms or terminate partnerships between different administrative levels or 
policy sectors. This affects the timing. Thus, governance processes relying on several 
stakeholders may be considered less vulnerable to change than those with only a few 
actors.  An  exception  may  be  organisational  changes  that  affect  the  driver  of  the 
governance process.  

The last two motives for engaging in multi-level governance processes are even more 
interlinked  than  the  other  motives.  A  sense  of  belonging  or  additional  attention 
may  also  motivate  participation.  Belonging  to  a  ‘club’  gives  rise  to  other  network 
opportunities  and  is  often  an  important  source  of  information.  Being  well  informed 
may,  in  turn,  be  beneficial  for  fund-raising  opportunities  and  exerting  influence. 
Belonging  to  the  ‘club’  is  often  used  to  interact  with  other  relevant  stakeholders  in  a 
more informal though legitimate way. For politicians, this is important since they can 
gain the attention needed to win future elections.  

This  discussion  of  different  motivations  also  shows  that  they  are  interlinked  and  that 
often  more  than  one  motivation  may  drive  the  participation  of  stakeholders.  The 
different  combinations  of  motivations  between  different  stakeholder  groups  may  be 
crucial not only for their participation, but also for further development of the process. 

47 Not In My Back Yard. 

31 

 
                                                 
Final Report 

The  different  motivations  may  have  complementary  effects  or  could  create  conflicts 
that prolong or endanger the process.  

Different stakeholder groups and motivations in Timisoara 

The  Migrants  in  Intercultural  Romania  (MiIR)  project,  initiated  by  the  Intercultural  Institute  of 
Timisoara  (IIT),  worked  towards  a  trilateral  communication  mechanism  between  migrant 
communities, civil society and public administration. In short, the main cornerstones of this new 
approach are: 

• 

• 

• 

local working groups bringing together local stakeholders to solve local challenges by using 
local resources and administrative tools; 

national  thematic  working  groups  focusing  on  policy  and  legal  solutions,  which  require 
interventions at national level;  

intercultural  mediators  facilitating  communication  and  cooperation  between  all  players, 
considering each individual community or cultural context. 

Figure 12 Trilateral communication on the case of Timisoara 

Source: Own elaboration  

Public and private stakeholder involvement in ENERGIVIE in Alsace  

The ENERGIVIE programme and cluster in the Alsace region has a broad participatory approach 
and  includes  many  different  stakeholders.  The  cluster  contains  both  public  and  private  sector 
members. Some examples from the private sector are representatives of companies working in 
energy, housing, tourism and agriculture. Public bodies include state services, research, training 
and other experts in the field of energy. They were carefully selected to represent all sectors in 
the development of renewable energy in the Alsace region.  

Public partners are sometimes involved in the multi-level governance process due to obligations 
from  senior  public  authorities.  Furthermore,  public  sector  participants  bring  not  only  their 
institutional competence in terms of environment and energy efficiency, but also want to foster 
the economic position of the region and regional industry. 

Private partners recognise opportunities for the regional economy that ENERGIVIE creates. For 
private  participants,  the  cluster  provides  the  opportunity  to  join  forces  and  work  together  on 
innovation in the region’s energy efficiency sector, creating products and new employment and 
strengthening the Alsace region as a frontrunner. 

32 

 
 
 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

2.5  HOW? 

DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS OF MODES OF GOVERNANCE  

Success factors for multi-level governance:  
Role of different modes of governance 

Vertical  relations  in  multi-level  governance  processes  suggest  different  relationships  between 
the authorities, which may affect the motivations and roles of the stakeholders.  

• 

Through  developing  multi-level  governance  processes,  traditional  modes  lose  importance 
and are increasingly replaced by more cooperative structures. 

•  Multi-level governance processes usually build on more than one mode. 

•  Different modes may shape the relations between different vertical levels. 

•  Some  modes  are  only  applied  during  certain  phases  of  the  policy  cycle,  i.e.  governing  by 
provision,  whereas  other  modes  can  play  different  roles  at  different  stages,  e.g.  self-
governing.  

Modes of governance describe the relation between local and regional authorities with 
other administrative levels of governance, focusing on the vertical dimension of multi-
level  governance.  Different  modes  require  different  stakeholders,  with  different 
motivations and roles, for multi-level governance processes. The initiation also differs. 

Four modes of governance are differentiated in theory (see chapter 1): 

•  Governing  by  authority  refers  to  traditional  forms  of  authority  such  as 

regulation and direction.  

•  Governing by provision shapes practice through the delivery of services and 

resources, including providing incentives for regional or local action.  

•  Governing  through  enabling  includes  supporting  local  government  in 

facilitating, co-ordinating and encouraging action through partnership.  

•  Self-governing  includes  the  capacity  of  local  government  to  govern  its  own 

activities and is characterised by self-motivated action48.  

In  practice,  these  modes  may  not  always  be  clearly  differentiated.  In  fact,  vertical 
governance relations can be characterised by combinations of different modes, which 
may  also  evolve  over  time  or  be  applied  at  different  stages  of  the  policy  cycle.  The 
eight case studies made it clear that at least two of the modes were always employed. 
The table below provides an overview. 

Table 4 Prevailing modes of governance in the case studies 

l

m
o
h
k
c
o
t
S

X 

X 

X 

l

o
o
p
r
e
v
L

i

i

e
k
s
r
o
m
o
P

X 

 X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

a
r
a
o
ș
i
m
T

i

X 

X 

l

e
v
a
h
r
e
b
O

-
z
t
i
n
g
i
r
P

X 

X 

X 

i

a
k
n
h
r
V

 X 

X 

X 

X 

y
d
r
a
b
m
o
L

X 

X 

e
c
a
s
l
A

 X 

 X 

X 

X 

Governing by authority 

Governing by provision 

Governing through enabling 

Self-governing 

Source: Own elaboration 

48  For  more  details  on  the  different  modes  see  Bulkeley  H.  and  Kern  K.  (2006),  Local  government  and  the  governing  of 
climate change in Germany and the UK, Urban Studies, 43, pp. 2237-2259. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Final Report 

Governing  by  authority  in  Vrhnika  and  Alsace  was  through  adopting  national  acts 
and regulations, so the local and regional levels respectively were required to follow or 
implement  the  legal  provisions.  Thus,  national  authorities  used  this  mode  to  trigger 
lower  level  activities.  In  Pomorskie,  this  governance  mode  is  applied  in  a  somewhat 
different  way.  The  Managing  Authority  of  the  regional  ERDF  programme  steers 
stakeholders into the governance process through its authority. 

Governing by provision encourages stakeholders to initiate or engage in governance 
processes and work towards the objectives. This can be seen in Pomorskie, Liverpool, 
Prignitz-Oberhavel  and  Vrhnika.  In  all  of  them,  ERDF  plays  a  crucial  role.  ERDF 
programmes provide a financial incentive to the regional or local levels to tackle their 
challenges  while  simultaneously  contributing  to  the  objectives  of  a  higher 
administrative level.  

Governing  through  enabling  supports  stakeholder  groups  in  engaging  and  in 
developing solutions. This mode of governance can be seen in various forms in all the 
examples,  although  it  is  less  prominent  in  Alsace  and  Vrhnika.  Support  can  be 
provided  in  different  ways.  It  is  often  offered  during  different  phases  of  the  policy 
cycle,  especially  during  policy  formulation  and  development.  Given  that  the  different 
examples  often  include  more  than  two  levels  of  administration,  this  mode  may  be 
applied to different vertical relations than the other modes.  

Self-governing  focuses  on  the  capacity  of  local  or  regional  governments  to  govern 
their  own  activities,  which  can  also  be  seen  in  all  eight  cases.  Self-governing 
mechanisms sometimes even contribute to initiating the process; in others it refers to 
selected activities. Vrhnika is an example of the latter, where the local primary school 
initiated activities and measures to implement the local energy concept.  

The eight examples highlight several lessons for the use of governance modes during 
the change towards multi-level governance. 

-  Shift from governing by authority to self-governing. With the change to more 
multi-level  governance,  the  traditional  method  of  governing  by  authority  and 
provision  is  replaced  by  enabling  as  well  as  self-governing  by  local  and  regional 
authorities. Lombardy is a good example of this.  

Change of governance favoured new modes of governance in Lombardy 

Traditional governance arrangements in Lombardy are not based on a coordinated approach and 
the  clear  ‘top-down’  approach  in  some  policy  sectors  may  be  described  as  governing  by 
authority. However, a regional territorial plan caused a change in governance arrangements to 
governing through enabling. The regional territorial plan (PTRA) for the Alpine Valley Area is an 
example  of  a  process  led  by  the  regional  institution,  enabling  local  actors  to  change  their 
approach to governing the area. 

-  Different  policy  phases  go  with  different  modes  of  governance.  In 
Stockholm,  governing  by  authority  started  the  process,  whereas  self-governing 
became  the  focus  of  the  Urban  Game.  The  Urban  Game  was  developed  through 
‘bottom-up’ incentives and  the self-motivated actions of the main actors/initiators 
representing the county council and the county administrative board. Furthermore, 
the Urban Game supports self-governing processes and provides an opportunity to 
discuss the whole governing system that affects sustainable urban projects. 

Pomorskie illustrates the change in the prevailing mode of governance as well as the 
predominance of different modes at the different administrative levels (see box). 

34 

 
 
 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

Modes of governance at play in the Pomorskie region 

The new approach to incubating and implementing urban revitalisation in the Pomorskie region 
was  to  a  large  extent  dependent  on  funding  from  the  regional  ERDF  programme.  At  the  same 
time,  this  change  led  to  more  effective  negotiation  procedures  across  different  levels  and 
broader horizontal partnerships. Thus the main governance structures can be described as:  

•  governing by provision, where the process of negotiation for each deprived area resulted 
in  a  balanced  combination  of  ‘bottom-up’  and  ‘top-down’  approaches.  This  combination 
helped  to  meet  the  interests  and  expectations  of  local  urban  authorities  with  specific 
requirements; 

•  governing  through  enabling,  when  effective  negotiation  procedures  on  different  levels 
inspired  and  created  a  framework  for  a  coherent  combination  of  horizontal  partnerships. 
Local  stakeholders  were  involved  in  the  preparation  and  implementation  of  the  projects  as 
decision makers and cooperation partners. 

Other governance modes are: 

•  governing by authority (at regional level): when using the regional ERDF programme, 
the  regional  Managing  Authority  made  different  local  stakeholders  work  in  partnership, 
encouraging  community  and  business  activity  in  deprived  urban  spaces  and  raising  the 
development potential of major cities;  

• 

self-governing  (at  local  level),  when  the  consultation  process  with  local  communities 
resulted  in  changes  in  the  revitalisation  projects.  The  changes  focused  on  infrastructure 
investments and self-motivated social actions. They contributed to changing the perception 
of  revitalisation  in  the  local  community.  This  is  no  longer  just  a  city  authority  concept  and 
concern,  since  the  local  community  has  started  to  understand  its  own  role  in  the 
revitalisation process. 

2.6  HOW?  

FACILITATING MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE PROCESSES 

Success factors for multi-level governance:  
Tools for multi-level governance 

Facilitating  coordination  among  many  stakeholders  needs  communication  methods  and  specific 
tools that support agreement.  

•  Multi-level  governance  needs  specific  approaches  to  facilitate  the  governance  process 

highlighting the partnership principle and allow communication among stakeholders.  

•  Several  approaches  are  usually  applied,  each  facilitating  different  elements  of  the 
governance  process.  The  mix  may  be  crucial  for  a  successful  arrangement.  These  are 
different communication methods and cooperation practices supporting agreement.  

While  the  modes  of  governance  provide  the  framework  for  the  principal  vertical 
relations  between  the  stakeholders,  putting  governance  arrangements  into  practice 
requires specific approaches. These develop, maintain and enhance the processes and 
were identified as relevant lessons by participants in the study.  

When new partnerships are created to enhance policy outcomes and contribute to the 
Europe  2020  strategy,  it  is  important  to  facilitate,  monitor  and  evaluate  the 
cooperation and to ‘keep all stakeholders on board’. Different approaches may be used 
for different aspects of the multi-level governance arrangements. The same approach 
may even be used for different objectives. Facilitation processes are most apparent in 
the  implementation  phase,  but  may  also  be  relevant  at  earlier  stages  of  policy 
development. 

35 

 
 
 
 
Final Report 

Key  success  factors  in  the  eight  case  studies  include:  (a)  the  partnership  dimension; 
(b) communication and awareness-raising capacities without hidden agendas; and (c) 
the  need  to  build  on  existing  platforms  and  structures  (see  section  2.1).  In  addition, 
lessons  can  be  drawn  from  specific  approaches  to  maintain  multi-level  partnerships 
and  to  increase  the  effectiveness  of  policy  coordination.  Several  approaches  were 
often combined to facilitate different elements of the multi-level governance process. 

for  creating 

Contracts  and  other  tools 
legal  obligations  between  different 
stakeholders  tend  to  be  used  when  governing  by  authority.  Contracts  were  used  in 
Alsace  between  the  state  and  the  region  (see  box).  Vrhnika  showed  similar  legal 
obligations,  since  the  municipality  was  required  to  adopt  a  Local  Energy  Concept  in 
compliance  with  the  National  Energy  Act.  The  case  studies  provide  lessons  on  other 
contracts as well. The relationships between actors in the Alsace ENERGIVIE cluster is 
to  some  degree  based  on  a  contract,  i.e.  membership,  since  each  participant  pays  a 
fee to be part of the cluster.  

‘State-Region’  contract  between  the  central  government  in  France  and  the  region  of 
Alsace 

With the State-Region contract (Contrat de Projets État-région/ CPER), the state and the region 
commit  themselves  to  programming  and  multi-year  funding  for  major  projects  such  as 
infrastructure development, or support for promising niches, like renewable energy and energy 
efficiency,  as  determined  by  ENERGIVIE.  The  government,  through  the  Secretary  General  for 
Regional Affairs, together with the region, agrees on projects relating to regional planning and 
the funding for each entity. Other authorities, such as councils or urban communities, can join a 
CPER for help to finance projects.  

The  first  ENERGIVIE  Programme  was  included  in  the  CPER  2000-2006.  Together  with  an 
agreement between the region and the French Environment and Energy Agency, EUR 3.6 million 
was  made  available.  The  ENERGIVIE  programme  was  developed  between  2003  and  2005, 
funded by EUR 5.5 million, half of which came from EU funds. In November 2005, a framework 
agreement  with  the  government  was  signed.  Alsace  officially  became  a  pilot  region  for 
renewable energy and low-consumption buildings for the 2006-2008 period. 

Providing  evidence  and  sound  analysis.  Empirical  evidence  is  important  when 
addressing local needs via multi-level governance approaches. Empirical evidence can 
provide  a  common  ground  for  discussions  and  can  assist  in  decision-making  where  a 
large  number  of  different  actors  come  together,  each  with  their  own  interests  and 
perceptions.  A  sound  analysis  of  the  territory,  its  development  challenges  and 
potential  is  frequently  used  to  define  a  common  understanding  of  local  needs.  In  the 
case  studies,  this  was  most  prominent  in  the  Lombardy  region.  This  region  in  Italy 
involved the University of Bergamo at an early stage of the process (see box). Sound 
empirical  evidence  provided  by  ‘neutral’  external  experts  played  an  important  role  in 
the acceptance of the findings as objective grounds to inform the policy process.  

Needs based on sound analysis for the regional territorial plan in the Lombardy Alpine 
Valleys 

The University of Bergamo provided strong evidence for the regional territorial plan in the Alpine 
Valleys  in  Lombardy.  The  university  offered  the  scientific  background  around  which  all  the 
reflections  and  debates  could  revolve.  This  ensured  a  common  understanding  that  made  it 
easier to 'identify' and 'focus' on the core issues. 

The region’s choice to engage the University of Bergamo as an academic partner from a nearby 
area  provided  another  key  element  in  overcoming  initial  distrust  of  the  traditionally  rather 
insular, mountain-based local authorities with respect to any initiatives 'coming from Milan', the 
capital of Lombardy. Furthermore, the specific technical contribution offered by the University of 
Bergamo proved to be a key factor in persuading local stakeholders of the quality and reliability 
of  the  regional  territorial  plan  (PTRA)  for  the  Alpine  Valley  Area.  The  identification  of  specific 
sub-areas of the PTRA territory with a high level of natural and socio-economic uniformity, with 
10  specific  territorial  framework  settlements,  was  particularly  crucial  since  it  was  based  on 
scientific evidence.  

36 

 
 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

Key success factors for needs analysis are: (a) solid evidence and knowledge to inform 
priority setting processes; (b) the proactive involvement of relevant stakeholders from 
different  governance  levels  and  sectors;  (c)  including  local  communities  in  the 
identification of needs, making use of their tacit knowledge. 

A  shared  vision,  objective  or  strategic  plan  can  create  ownership  among 
stakeholders  and  guide,  maintain,  or  reinforce  multi-level  governance.  During  policy 
formulation  and  development,  the  mutual  development  of  strategy  or  vision  creates 
ownership  among  representatives  of  the  multi-level  governance  arrangement.  For 
later phases of the policy cycle, they provide evidence for the overall objectives. 

In  addition,  communication  plays  a  crucial  role  for  raising  awareness  and  facilitating 
cooperation. Different types of communication and approaches are useful for different 
purposes. This includes publicity for raising awareness among the wider public, group 
seminars,  conferences,  or  round  table  discussions  to  facilitate  cooperation  and 
exchange  among  the  stakeholders  as  well  as  the  provision  of  targeted  information. 
This includes examples of successful projects from other regions to provide showcases 
that initiate action at the local level.  

Multi-level  governance  processes  can  also  put  a  strong  focus  on  raising  awareness. 
The Urban Game was developed to address urban segregation in the Stockholm region 
and  is  an  example  of  a  tool  to  facilitate  discussion  and  raise  awareness.  The  Urban 
Game  stimulates  discussions  across  different  levels  and  sectors.  Players  are 
encouraged  to  think  ‘out-of-the-box’  and  consider  not  only  the  level  and  sector  they 
represent,  but  consider  whether  decisions  or  policy  implementation  could  be  more 
efficient at other levels and sectors.  

Also the case of Timisoara includes multi-level governance designed as a sort of tool. 
The trilateral consultation mechanism put forward by stakeholders from Timisoara and 
promoted  by  national  authorities  includes  discussions  between  migrant  communities, 
civil  society  and  public  administration.  The  trilateral  consultation  mechanism  can  be 
identified  as  a  tool  which,  by  including  different  stakeholders  in  the  cooperation, 
explicitly  addresses  the  need  for  better  integration  of  non-EU  migrants  in  Timisoara 
from a cross-sector perspective. 

Combination of different tools in Prignitz-Oberhavel 

Collecting  empirical  evidence  about  energy  supply  and  consumption  provided  the  basis  for 
discussions  among  the  stakeholders.  By  setting  out  this  evidence,  it  was  not  only  possible  to 
provide comparable information to all stakeholders but the discussions became a more objective 
starting point, contributing to a positive exchange. 

The development of the regional energy strategy was not only aimed at formulating targets for 
energy  consumption  and  the  production  of  renewable  energy.  These  targets  were  embedded 
into an overall strategic plan with actions that were defined for different levels. Furthermore, a 
shared  vision  was  developed  as  part  of  the  strategy,  to  become  the  ‘sustainable  and  active 
energy region Prignitz-Oberhavel’. 

Different  types  of  information  exchange  facilitated  the  inclusion  of  different  stakeholders  and 
the  mutual  development  of  objectives  and  visions.  This  included  regular  meetings  of  the 
steering  group  established  at  the  level  of  the  state  of  Brandenburg,  open  workshops  at  the 
planning  region  level  while  the  strategy  was  being  set  out,  a  regular  working  group  with 
different  topics  for  local  representatives  in  the  planning  region  to  improve  implementation  and 
providing showcases to illustrate different approaches for local actors.  

37 

 
 
 
Final Report 

2.7  WHAT? 

NEED FOR CLEAR OBJECTIVES, DEMANDS AND ROLES  

Success factors for multi-level governance:  
Need for clarity  

Clarity of processes and contents has several dimensions:  

•  Clear rules set the framework. 

•  Clear roles of different stakeholders avoid misunderstandings, delays etc. Everybody should 

be aware of their roles. 

•  Clear  demands  may  be  defined  externally  or  internally  within  the  multi-level  governance 

arrangement.  

•  Clear  objectives  support  the  definition  of  actions  etc.  in  order  to  implement  the  policy  at 

later stages. The benefit of clear objectives may not be natural for all those involved. 

Multi-level  governance  processes  are  more  efficient  when  they  are  based  on  clear 
objectives,  demands  and  roles  for  the  different  stakeholders.  Regular  reporting  and 
transparent  monitoring  are  also  important  to  keep  the  participatory  approaches  on 
track. 

Clarity was vital in many of the processes. It addresses all the above aspects and the 
main lessons learned on multi-level governance. Clarity concerns both the aims of the 
processes and the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder.  

Clarity was crucial for:  

•  external  demands.  Some  of  the  cases  employed  multi-level  governance 
processes  to  develop  appropriate  responses  to  external  demands.  Such 
external demands include national regulations or policies to which the regional 
and  local  actors  have  to  respond.  Vrhinka  and  Prignitz-Oberhavel  show  that 
clarity is important so: (a) the processes respond to national demands; and (b) 
these  national  demands  are  formulated  sufficiently  clearly  so  the  stakeholders 
can make a cooperative effort to relate to them; 

•  own demands. Some of the cases were clear about their own demands. This 
followed  the  logic  that  the  process  can  only  start  with  clear  expectations  and 
demands.  Such  demands  can  be  expressed  as  clear  success  criteria  or 
monitoring systems, as in Pomorskie, Alsace and Lombardy; 

•  clear division of labour. A clear division of labour and responsibility between 
the  various  stakeholders  has  been  highlighted  in  all  cases.  In  actuality, 
transparent  processes  with  unclear  roles  and  responsibilities  for  the  different 
stakeholders  are  a  major  obstacle  to  successful  multi-level  governance 
processes.  

Clear division of labour for developing the Energy Concept in Prignitz-Oberhavel 

A  new,  clear  division  of  labour  was  introduced  in  Prignitz-Oberhavel  due  to  a  changed  multi-
level  governance  approach.  A  hierarchical  system  fosters  efficiency  and  broadens  the 
involvement of stakeholders 

Developing  the  regional  energy  strategy  improved  cooperation  between  different  levels  of 
governance. Clearly assigning responsibilities to administrative levels and stakeholders helps to 
clarify  their  different  roles.  Vertical  relationships  become  increasingly  integrated.  The  regional 
energy  manager  ensures  efficient  coordination  and  communication  with  the  local  level,  as  well 
as  coordination  with  the  state  level.  Overall,  coordination  within  administrations  and  between 
civil  servants  is  more  advanced  than  among  political  stakeholders  of  different  levels.  This 
coordination has also been tackled by the ‘Energy tours 2013’ with the Brandenburg Minister of 
Economic Affairs. 

38 

 
 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

3  LESSONS FOR TRANSFERABILITY 

The  exchange  on  policy  practices  is  often  reduced  to  a  diffusion  of  best  or  good 
practices. In these cases, a central assumption with the transfer of ‘good practices’ is 
that  ‘they  are  equally  applicable  and  effective  in  another  setting’49.  Clearly,  such  an 
assumption does not take into consideration the diversity of EU territories and regions, 
with  substantial  differences  in  governance,  administrative  cultures,  and  professional 
capacities,  as  a  limitation  for  such  learning  processes50.  Hence,  the  idea  that  a 
‘governance  practice’  can  be  effectively  replicated  in  other  geographical  and 
institutional settings is questionable51.  

The  transfer  of  practices  based  on  mutual  learning  rather  than  the  dissemination  of 
‘good practices’ was embedded into the overall context of this study. Several elements 
appear  to  be  crucial  for  achieving  a  policy  transfer  (see  Figure  13).  The  exchange  of 
policy  frameworks,  institutional  conditions  and  other  relevant  context  aspects, 
determines  the  overall  transfer  process.  Transfer  approaches  tackle  several  central 
questions that deal with: 

•  how  to  design  the  learning  processes,  i.e.  the  exchange  between  the  transfer 

partners, building on trust and cognitive proximity; 

•  what should be transferred and in which form or type of action. 

These  lessons  on  ‘how’  and  ‘what’  to  transfer  are  discussed  in  terms  of  the  principle 
characteristics of a good transfer process that takes into account regional differences. 

Figure 13 Lessons for transferability of multi-level governance (MLG) processes  

3.1 

Policy'
frameworks'of'
partners'

3.2 

HOW 
Policy 
transfer 
2.0 

LESSONS&FOR&
TRANSFER+
ABILITY&OF&
MLG&
PROCESSES&

3.3 

WHAT 
Transferability 
delivered 

3.4 

RESULT 
Characteristics 
of “good” 
transfer 
processes 

Source: Own elaboration  

49 Stead, 2012, p. 107. 
50 Stead, 2012, p. 107. 
51 Vettoretto, 2009; Stead, 2012, p. 107. 

3.1 

Policy'
frameworks'of'
partners'

39 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Final Report 

3.1  THE POLICY TRANSFER SETTING OF THE STUDY 

Transfer success factors:  
Relevance of policy framework  

Collecting  good  practice  examples  is  only  useful  if  the  examples  are  further  utilised,  so  if  they 
help the transfer of successful practices. For successful transfers regional or local conditions set 
the framework:  

• 

• 

Territorial  and  institutional  settings  need  to  be  taken  into  account  when  designing  the 
transfer.  They  cannot  be  changed  rapidly  nor  should  they  be  changed  for  the  policy.  In 
contrast, the practice needs to be adjusted before embedding it into the regional context.  

For  an  effective  transfer,  all  participants  need  to  understand  each  others’  specific  contexts 
(or  develop  this  understanding  in  the  process).  This  requires  mutual  interactions  with 
intensive knowledge exchange and trust. 

The diffusion of ‘good practices’ within and across Member States can be beneficial in 
the  sense  that  it  demonstrates  to  local  and  regional  public  authorities  that  it  is 
possible  to  cope  with  ambitious  objectives.  If  it  has  been  done  in  one  region,  this 
‘success’  could  be  replicated  in  another.  Several  challenges  can  be  identified  in  that 
regard. 

Governance  arrangements,  however  well  designed  and  implemented,  are  highly 
location-sensitive.  The  combination  of  specific  territorial  challenges,  institutional 
settings  and  even  individuals  have  led  stakeholders  to  develop  a  specific  form  of 
collaboration, coordination and partnership in order to tackle the problems they face. 

Such arrangements are the visible outcome of a long and slow process of incremental 
evolution  in  collective  behaviour  and  are  rarely  the  result  of  a  successful  transplant. 
New governance arrangements are often outcomes of long-term changes in collective 
attitudes  and  behaviours  in  a  locality  or  region.  Thus  it  is  a  long-term  incremental 
process and there is no quick fix if the changes are meant to be long-term. 

Good  practice  can  be  transferred  if  it  resonates  in  another  region.  The  literature  has 
voiced the risk of shallow policy transfer. Countries or regions that tend to adopt ‘best’ 
practices,  without  adapting  these  new  governance  arrangements  to  the  institutional, 
economic and social context of a region, run the risk of problems in the long-term. In 
that  sense,  effective  policy  transfer  necessitates  both  relevant  and  sufficient 
knowledge  and  information52  combined  with  effective  channels  and  trust  among 
participants. 

Policy  learning  is  a  complex  process.  It  requires  mutual  interactions,  some  level  of 
empathy  and  trust.  The  policy  transfer  process  in  this  study  has  been  designed  as  a 
set  of  collaborative  and  relational  exercises  for  regional  and  local  authorities.  The 
European  Commission,  which  commissioned  this  study,  acts  as  an  enabler,  while  the 
experts  act  as  knowledge  brokers,  exchange  facilitators  and  brokers  of  the  process, 
rather than implementers. This design may provide a good example for different roles 
to  be  considered  when  designing  policy  transfer  processes,  though  the  roles  of  the 
enabler and knowledge brokers may be taken by other players. 

52 Stead, 2012. 
40 

 
 
 
                                                 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

3.2  HOW?  

POLICY TRANSFER 2.0 

Transfer success factors for transfer:  
Designing policy learning  

Ownership plays a crucial role in developing and implementing successful policy approaches. In 
particular, the main actors need to feel ownership throughout the process:  

• 

• 

• 

interest  voiced  by  local  or  regional  actors  in  a  ‘bottom-up’  approach  indicates  motivation 
and is beneficial for building ownership for transfer; 

give all parties enough space for presenting, explaining and discussing their case and their 
perspectives; 

pin  down  results  in  actions  that  are  as  concrete  as  possible  to  create  and  document 
commitment. 

Transferability  processes  are  complex  and  involve  a  lot  of  policy  stakeholders. 
Typically  they  bring  together  different  actors  such  as  politicians,  civil  servants, 
planners and academics representing different regions in different countries. From the 
outset, these actors are likely to have very little in common and have a high degree of 
‘cognitive  distance’,  which  is  the  difference  in  thought  processes,  experiences  and 
practices  between  different  organisations53.  Significant  cognitive  distance  typically 
induces novelty, whereas cognitive proximity fosters trust and enhances the likelihood 
of inter-organisational relations to jointly achieve shared goals54.  

Transferability  processes  need  to  reduce  cognitive  distance  by  inducing  trust  among 
actors.  To  a  certain  extent,  trust  necessitates  face-to-face  interaction  to  create 
acquaintances  and  foster  informal  discussions.  Trust  is  a  necessary  precondition  for 
open dialogue among stakeholders.  

The  transfer  of  policy  processes  and  governance  arrangements,  rather  than  the 
transfer of objectives, is particularly demanding for the players. Policy actors are likely 
to be more used to exchanging policy content, rather than findings on processes and 
governance arrangements. The exchange of this type of information not only needs to 
be  embedded  into  the  abovementioned  framework  information,  but  also  requires 
constant  refocusing  of  the  discussion.  For  this,  a  neutral  moderator  for  the  meetings 
can be of help.  

The  transfer  of  good  practices  across  national  (and  regional)  boundaries  is  more 
effective  with  policy  dialogue  and  learning.  The  ownership  of  the  process  should  be 
shared by all participants. In order to achieve this, it is important that each participant 
engages.  By  doing  so,  the  responsibility  for  implementation  of  an  effective  policy 
transfer process becomes shared among the group. Thus, the transfer process needs 
careful  designing.  Apart  from  the  already  mentioned  elements  needed  for  building 
trust,  the  exchange  needs  to  focus  as  clearly  as  possible  on  the  aspects  to  be 
transferred. 

Thus matchmaking, exchange and focusing on the issues at stake are critical elements 
in  the  overall  design.  The  box  on  the  next  page  illustrates  the  approach  followed  by 
the study.  

The way to approach matchmaking can be crucial, since it affects the initial position of 
the regions, in actuality or in their perception. In many policy transfer processes, the 
potential recipients of good practices are appointed by a third party, often at a higher 

53 Nooteboom, B. (2006) Innovation, learning and cluster dynamics, in Asheim, B., Cooke, P. and Martin, R. (Eds) Clusters 
and Regional Development: Critical reflections and explorations (137-163), Routledge, London. 
54  Nooteboom,  B.  (2000)  Learning  by  Interaction:  Absorptive  Capacity,  Cognitive  Distance  and  Governance,  Journal  of 
Management and Governance, 4 (1-2):69-92. 

41 

 
                                                 
Final Report 

tier  of  government.  This  usually  puts  these  potential  recipients  in  an  unfavourable 
situation  because  it  is  implies  that  ‘they  have  things  to  learn’.  Thus,  ‘bottom-up’ 
initiatives,  where  the  potential  recipient  region  or  city  indicates  their  wish  to  learn, 
avoids such a negative perception. Given their knowledge of their own needs they may 
be better able than an external player from another government level to identify other 
cases in which they are interested. 

The exchange may be deepened step by step. It is useful to start with aspects that are 
easy  to  digest  for  participants  such  as  policy  elements  and  objectives.  The  more 
advanced  the  exchange  the  more  questions  are  raised  concerning  details  that  may 
affect  the  transfer  of  the  policy  or  elements  of  the  policy.  If  interesting  governance 
arrangement  elements  are  identified  and  translated  for  the  new  context,  it  is 
important  to  obtain  commitment.  This  may  be  done  by  documenting  the  approaches 
for the transfer. One form of documentation is an action plan that depicts the actions, 
objectives, activities and players to be involved, as well as the timing.  

Any  policy  may  be  transferred  by  implementing  the  translated  actions  in  the  new 
context.  As  the  examples  of  multi-level  governance  arrangements  show  (see  chapter 
2), policy development and implementation are time-consuming.  

Governance  processes  applied  in  one  region  cannot  be  exactly  copied  to  another 
region,  but  need  to  be  adjusted  to  the  local  conditions,  which  takes  time.  Key 
challenges  in  a  transfer  process  are  differences  in  institutional  systems,  different 
cooperation cultures and the need to convince relevant stakeholders back home, who 
did not participate in the exchange of experience.  

Figure 14 Challenges for transferring lessons  

Challenging aspects to make use of the lessons learned 

Differences in institutional 
systems 

Differences in cooperation 
cultures 

Convincing relevant 
stakeholders 

Gaining political 
commitment 

Other (please specify) 

Source: Online survey (n = 26) 

42 

 
 
 
 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

Design of policy transfer steps 

Stage 1: Matchmaking between ‘case study’ and ‘twinning’ partners 

At the same time as drafting the case study reports, the selection process for ‘twinning partners’ took place. 
In  this  study,  the  potential  recipients  had  to  step  up  and  take  the  initiative  to  be  part  of  the  process  by 
replying  to  a  ‘call  for  partners’.  In  that  sense,  the  potential  twinning  partners  were  proactive  by:  (a) 
identifying  a  need  for  them  to  change  their  way  of  implementing  public  action  with  respect  to  energy 
efficiency or social inclusion; and (b) by identifying a region that they see as a ‘good match’. Thus from their 
perspective, the region was sufficiently similar to their own and learning from that region would be practical, 
logical  and  potentially  beneficial.  Based  on  the  responses,  the  project-team,  together  with  DG  REGIO, 
selected two or three twinning partners for each of the eight case study regions. 

Stage 2: Making a ‘case’ about the cases 

Interaction  between  the  case  study  regions  and  the  twinning  partners  was  kicked  off  at  a  multilateral 
meeting.  During  those  events,  the  overall  structure  of  the  study  was  presented  with  key  aspects  of  the 
learning arrangements. The results of the four case studies in each theme were presented and discussed in 
small  groups  of  stakeholders  from  different  regions.  The  multilateral  meeting  gave  the  opportunity  for 
participants  from  the  case  study  and  twinning  regions  to  get  acquainted  with  each  other  and  with  the 
specific challenges of each region. Furthermore, it allowed fine-tuning of the matchmaking. 

The  multilateral  meetings  led  to  many  informal  and  constructive  discussions,  during  both  the  plenary  and 
the table sessions. In the Stockholm meeting Timisoara’s presentation was lively and participants got very 
engaged.  As  a  result,  many  could  see  how  the  Timisoara  experiences  could  actually  relate  to  their  own 
challenges.  Hence,  overcoming  the  cognitive  barriers,  conscious  or  not,  can  be  identified  as  an  important 
added value of multilateral meetings. 

Stage 3: Exchanging experiences 

Following  the  multilateral  meetings,  the  participants  had  to  organise  one  or  two  twinning  meetings.  These 
meetings  gave  the  participants  another  opportunity  to  discuss  the  good  practices  that  emerged  from  case 
study  experiences  in  more  depth.  The  twinning  partners  could  understand  the  successive  steps  that  were 
taken  in  the  case  study  regions  that  led  to  successful  initiatives.  For  the  case  study  regions,  having  to 
describe  their  experiences  and  argue  carefully  with  external  actors  induced  a  reflective  process  that  often 
led to the identification of further room for improvement. In that regard, the case study regions also learned 
through direct interaction with other stakeholders. At the meetings, it was challenging to keep the focus of 
the dialogue on ‘governance arrangements’ and the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy, since these are abstract notions 
that can be difficult to explain properly during a conversation. 

Stage 4: Developing action plans 

Based  on  the  key  elements  discussed  during  the  twinning  meetings,  facilitators  of  the  twinning  meetings 
noted down what was discussed and agreed during the meetings following the structure of an action plan. 
The  draft  action  plan  was  circulated  and  commented  by  the  participants  to  ensure  that  it  contained  the 
approaches and actions as developed by the participants from the participating regions. The main aim was 
to develop action plans for the twinning regions but, when possible, an action plan was also developed for 
the  case  study  regions.  The  actions  in  the  plans  could  differ  and  have  different  timespans.  Some  actions 
could  be  very  concrete  and  immediate;  some  could  be  more  abstract  at  first  and  take  more  time  to 
implement, such as when cooperation with other regional stakeholders was needed. The action plans were 
very pragmatic and ‘down to earth’. The objective was to change the attitudes, behaviours or ways of doing 
things in a specific region, but the plan should remain as operational as possible, and be incremental, thus 
inducing a step-by-step evolution of current governance practices in one region.  

The proposed actions all had different time spans:  

- Twelve regions proposed actions with a time span of 1-2 year.  

- Four regions proposed actions running until 2020. 

Stage 5: Implementation and monitoring of action plans 

Given  the  limited  time  period  of  the  study,  transfer  implementation  could  not  be  analysed  in  detail. 
Nevertheless,  within  a  few  months  of  the  meetings  some  progress  could  be  seen  when  surveying  the 
participants, such as: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

The  twinning  cities  and  regions  all  highlighted  the  increased  awareness  of  different  governance 
approaches that could also be applicable in their home region.  

Finding  ’new’  stakeholders  and  looking  for  new  cooperation  possibilities.  After  the  twinning  meeting, 
e.g.  Reus  contacted  its  neighbouring  municipality  of  Tarragona,  to  discuss  addressing  common 
challenges jointly. This led to an agreement for more cooperation. 

Continued  contact  with  the  twinning  partners.  For  example  the  partners  from  Lisbon  and  Nea 
Propondita are still in contact with their twinning regions discussing future cooperation possibilities.  

Adjusting and further developing the proposed actions to the local situation. A concrete example of this 
is application and running of the Urban Game in the Helsinki region.  

Examining options towards implementing new ideas achieving social inclusion or energy efficiency. For 
instance the show cases on energy efficiency in the Alsace inspired discussions in Oradea. 

43 

 
 
Final Report 

3.3  WHAT?  

TRANSFERABILITY DELIVERED 

Transfer success factors for transfer:  
Policy component of interest for transfer  

Each policy consists of several components, which may not be similarly useful to transfer. When 
multi-level  governance  experiences  are  transferred,  the  following  components  may  be  of 
particular interest:  

• 

• 

• 

• 

interesting actions may have to be transformed before being embedded in the new context; 

the  individual  facilitating  a  multi-level  governance  process  should  be  trustworthy  and 
neutral. The institutional affiliation is of less importance; 

empirical evidence is a pre-condition for multi-level governance processes; 

resource-efficient practices are needed. 

Much  of  the  focus  on  policy  transfer  is  about  making  the  process  as  efficient  as 
possible. Recent research on policy transfer has also raised the importance of the type 
of know-how that may be transferred and the varying effectiveness of the process. A 
good practice is only worth transferring if it is not too context-dependent. Otherwise, 
only regions that are similar would benefit from the transfer. 

Based on the findings of a report commissioned by the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development, Stead puts the level of visibility into perspective, so this 
feature  can  be  understood  by  external  observers.  In  addition,  it  should  have  the 
capacity to be ‘exported’ to another context.  

An  interesting  conclusion  is  that  features  with  a  high  degree  of  visibility,  such  as 
programmes, institutions, modes of organisation, practitioners and joint projects, have 
a  seemingly  low  degree  of  transferability.  This  means  that  transferring  such  features 
may prove to be difficult and inefficient in practice. On the other hand, features with a 
medium level of visibility, such as methods, techniques, know-how and operating rules 
have  a  high  degree  of  transferability.  These  findings  from  Stead  are  important 
because  they  provide  an  understanding  of  what  types  of  information  are  most 
efficiently transferred. This was also confirmed in the twinning meetings. The lessons 
from twinning meetings were to focus on tools and methods for governance processes 
as illustrated in the action plans. 

In addition, transferability needs to take into consideration:  

• 

• 

• 

the  scope,  i.e.  is  the  purpose  of  the  action  the  same  in  the  regions  of  origin 
and destination; 
the  extent,  i.e.  can  the  practice  be  translated  and  applied  in  its  entirety,  or 
just partially; 
temporality,  i.e.  does  the  translation  and  application  of  this  good  practice 
necessitate implementation of other enabling practices upstream? Should it be 
followed-up by other actions downstream? 

An  interesting  way  to  monitor  the  transferability  process  is  to  compare  how  good 
practices  were  identified  and  formulated  by  the  representatives  of  the  case  study 
region  with  the  types  of  actions  this  has  led  to,  i.e.  how  this  knowledge  has  been 
interpreted, translated and re-formulated by representatives of the twinning regions. 

44 

 
 
 
 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

Transferring the Stockholm Urban Game to the Helsinki context 

The  Helsinki  City  Region  translated  the  Stockholm  Urban  Game  to  its  own  context  and  played 
the  game  during  their  twinning  meeting  with  representatives  from  the  Stockholm  region.  The 
Urban  Game  is  an  example  of  a  concrete  mechanism  to  facilitate  exchange  of  experience  and 
discussion  among  stakeholders,  which  made  it  relatively  easy  for  the  representative  of  the 
Helsinki region to make a first attempt to apply this tool in their context. 

The  governance  structure  in  Finland  and  Sweden  is  quite  similar  with  the  national  level 
providing  guidance  and  a  strong  municipal  level  with  large  responsibilities  and  operational 
power.  

The  ‘urban  game’  is  seen  as  inspiring,  creating  new  ways  of  understanding  multi-level 
governance  in  practice,  It  raises  awareness  of  how  more  effective  multi-level  governance  can 
help  reach  policy  goals  of  the  participants.  In  the  Helsinki  case,  the  discussion  mainly  focused 
on  cross-sector  coordination  of  different  actors  and  activities  as  well  as  cooperation  between 
these in relation to housing and urban development.  

The  session  included  participants  from  Lisbon,  Portugal  who  also  learnt  from  the  game.  Based 
on  the  experience  of  Stockholm,  representatives  from  Helsinki  acknowledged/proposed  an 
increased awareness for thinking ‘out-of-the-box’ in policy implementation and that it facilitated 
more cross-sector coordination to address local needs. 

This is a relatively advanced example of transferability of governance processes, made possible 
within a relatively short time frame due to similar socio-economic and institutional contexts.  

The table in annex 2 highlights insights from the transfer of good practices during this 
study. Looking at how these lessons led to different actions is illustrative of the ‘tailor-
made’  nature  of  the  policy  transfer  process.  There  are  indeed  clear  discrepancies 
between,  on  the  one  hand,  what  regional  stakeholders  from  each  case  study  region 
could  see  as  potential  good  practices  and,  on  the  other  hand,  what  was  identified  by 
the twinning partners as an interesting practice and how it ended up being formulated 
in the action plan. The box above gives a more detailed example of a transfer process 
in which the identification of interesting policy elements led to a very straightforward 
translation  by  adjusting  the  tool  from  Stockholm  to  the  Helsinki  context.  In  contrast, 
for  much  more  complex  and  step-wise 
the  box  below  provides  examples 
interpretation,  translation  and  re-formulation  processes  for  adjusting  elements  to  the 
new context. 

Transfer  of  governance  processes  in  different  contexts  –  the  cases  of  Warsaw  and 
Bayreuth 

The  bilateral  meetings  between  cities  and  regions  across  Europe  illustrated  possibilities  to 
transfer  lessons  learned,  even  when  the  socio-economic  and  /  or  institutional  context  was 
different. In these cases, the transferable elements boiled down to more practical methods and 
tools regarding stakeholder involvement and awareness raising, often using existing structures. 

Participants from the Warsaw region recognised the differences in context between their region 
and their twinning partner, Liverpool. Despite the institutional differences, the action plan based 
on the meeting contains interesting and valuable elements to transfer. Based on the experience 
in  Liverpool,  the  Warsaw  region  proposed  discussing  different  funding  opportunities  and 
developing  the  duties  of  the  region’s  territorial  forum  for  consultations.  Following  the  example 
from  Liverpool  this  forum  could  also  be  used  for  coordination  between  local  and  regional 
authorities in the region. 

The  representatives  of  Bayreuth  in  Germany  also  acknowledged  their  institutional  differences 
with  the  Lombardy  region  in  Italy.  The  participants  in  the  twinning  meeting  from  Bayreuth 
recognised  different  contexts,  but  saw  similar  problems  as  in  Lombardy  such  as  population 
decline,  the  need  for  energy  efficiency  solutions  and  an  ageing  population  in  rural  areas.  The 
similarities  in  their  needs  meant  that  practical  elements  could  be  transferred.  These  included 
working groups and the inclusion of scientific evidence to raise awareness among stakeholders. 

45 

 
Final Report 

Each  good  practice  underwent  a  process  of  interpretation,  adaptation  and  translation 
that was unique for each case study and twinning pair. The aim of a good practice is 
not to be applied as such in other regions, but rather to act as a catalyst for changing 
the  ways  of  coping  with  persistent  issues.  This  process  of  re-embedding  is  facilitated 
through  a  direct  dialogue  between  the  region  of  origin  and  the  region  of  its  potential 
adaptation. 

Key principles for transferring governance mechanisms 

Comparison  of  the  outcomes  from  the  multiple  twinning  processes  enables  key 
principles to be identified. 

1.  Who should initiate and facilitate the multi-level governance process? The 
basic  idea  of  multi-level  governance  is  the  collaboration  of  public  actors  from 
different  tiers  of  government,  different  sectors  and  different  spheres,  public, 
economic and social. In theory, the process should not be steered by one specific 
actor,  but  jointly  by  all  participating  actors.  However,  in  practice,  the  study  has 
shown  that  it  is  often  necessary  for  one  actor  to  step  up,  identify  the  need  for 
doing  things  in  a  more  innovative  manner  and  facilitate  the  process  of 
collaboration and coordination. More precisely, it often boils down to identifying an 
individual that can take this role of knowledge broker and network facilitator. The 
organisation  that  this  individual  is  associated  with  can  differ  depending  on  the 
specific  needs  of  each  region.  Such  an  individual  should  have  the  trust  of  all 
organisations  participating  in  the  multi-level  governance  process  in  order  for  the 
process  to  be  sustained  over  longer  periods  of  time.  This  trust  is  based  on  the 
perception of the relative neutrality of this facilitator towards the outcomes of the 
process.  This  can  be  secured  either  by  appointing  a  facilitator  that  is  external  to 
the  process  itself  but  nonetheless  knowledgeable  about  both  the  regional  context 
and  multi-level  governance  processes,  typically  a  researcher  or  consultant;  or  by 
delegating  this  task  to  the  most  powerful  government  authority  within  the 
arrangement,  typically  the  regional  authority  or  the  local  authority  of  the  largest 
municipality  in  the  region.  In  the  former  case,  the  type  of  brokering  is  based  on 
external  network  facilitation;  in  the  latter,  it  relates  to  a  participatory  leadership 
approach.  

2.  Implementing  evidence-based  strategies  regionally.  In  many  of  the 
examples  in  this  study,  the  lessons  led  to  the  understanding,  in  the  twinning 
region,  that  the  stakeholders  need  to  know  more  before  changing  their  practices 
and behaviours. Thus several regions identified the creation of a shared knowledge 
base  using  data  and  socio-economic  analysis  as  the  first  step  towards  the 
implementation  of  multi-level  governance  arrangements.  Such  actions  often  take 
the shape of a database of socio-economic data or a feasibility study by a research 
institution.  In  that  respect,  the  role  of  research  institutions  could  become  greater 
as  partners  for  regional  and  local  authorities  in  their  attempt  to  better  base  their 
governance  on  concrete  and  properly  framed  challenges.  More  efficient  public 
management is based on systematic follow-up and monitoring. 

3.  Exchanging operational knowledge on actions promoting energy efficiency 
or  social 
inclusion.  Inducing  policy  transfer  across  national  boundaries 
necessitates  the  organisation  of  face-to-face  meetings  in  order  to  promote  the 
joint  ownership  of  the  stakeholders  with  regard  to  the  multi-level  governance 
arrangements  and  to  improve  the  level  of  trust  among  them.  There  were  46%  of 
the participants that mentioned that a key benefit from the study was establishing 
contacts with other regions other than the twinning region. Therefore the learning 
took  place  in  much  more  complex  configurations  than  primarily  intended,  which 
targeted more specific exchanges between pairs of regions. 

The  stakeholders  from  the  local  and  regional  authorities  that  participated  in  the 
study identified that the main added value of the twinning process was improving 

46 

 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

their  understanding  of  what  actions  could  be  taken  at  local  or  regional  level  for 
promoting energy efficiency or social inclusion. This was deemed as more relevant 
than  understanding  how  to  implement  them,  i.e.  governance  arrangements  (50% 
against 43% of respondents). Participating regions seemed to have benefited from 
the  opportunity  to  tap  into  a  pool  of  operational  knowledge  from  other  regions, 
especially knowledge that could be used to solve a tangible problem. This points to 
the important challenge that participants felt in looking at governance as opposed 
to policy actions. 

4.  Financial dimension of multi-level governance processes. An important point 
of  discussion  referred  to  the  financial  schemes  that  were  designed  and 
implemented in the case study cities and regions, and how twinning partners could 
apply such schemes in their own region. Some partners discussed the possibility of 
using  European  funds  such  as  the  ERDF  (incl.  European  Territorial  Cooperation 
programmes)  as  a  way  to  co-finance  public  actions.  However,  most  of  the  focus 
was  put  on  finding  new  forms  of  finance  collectively  within  the  region.  A  stronger 
involvement of industrial actors was identified as a potential way forward. A clearer 
prioritisation in the use of local and regional finances was identified as a potential 
improvement.  Making  savings  in  one  field  of  public  intervention  that  is  ‘over-
funded’  could  unlock  financial  resources  that  could  be  more  efficiently  used  for 
removing  bottlenecks  in  the  promotion  of  energy  efficiency  or  social  inclusion  in 
the  region  or  locality.  In  fact,  the  twinning  meetings  were  instrumental  in  raising 
the  awareness  of  local  and  regional  stakeholders  on  the  fact  that,  even  though 
multi-level  governance  arrangements  are  resource-consuming  to  set  up  and 
implement in the short term, they can lead to more efficient practices over longer 
periods of time.  

3.4  FINAL REMARKS ON TRANSFERABILITY PROCESSES AND 

OUTCOMES 

Success factors for transfer:  

Transferability of good practices should be: 

…mutual, i.e. resulting from a dialogue between the sender and the receiver of this knowledge; 

…concrete, i.e. focusing on practices that can be changed or influenced at the receiver’s end; 

…incremental,  since  new  practices  need  to  be  embedded  into  current  practices  and  future 
prospects; 

…context-specific,  i.e.  if  there  is  a  certain  degree  of  similarity  in  the  geographical,  socio-
economic and institutional preconditions of participating regions; 

…critically undertaken, since even the most obvious success story can never be fully transposed 
elsewhere; 

…realistic,  since  some  good  practices  may,  in  theory,  have  a  high  impact,  but  are  actually 
difficult to apply outside their home context; 

…durable, i.e. no magic solution or quick fixes will foster long-term changes of attitude or have 
long-standing impacts. 

The transfer process carried out during the study confirmed the insights presented in 
the literature but the time frame of the study was too short to evaluate the outcomes 
of the transfer processes. 

A key lesson from the twinning meetings was the increased awareness of many local 
and  regional  stakeholders  about  the  need  to  change  the  way  they  deal  with  such 
ambitious  objectives.  Some  simple  points  can  be  highlighted  for  stakeholders  to  get 
the  most  out  of  such  complex  processes.  Thus  the  transferability  of  good  practices 
should  be  mutual,  concrete,  incremental,  context-specific,  critically  undertaken, 
realistic and durable (see box).  

47 

 
Final Report 

Transferability  should  result  from  dialogue  and  exchanging  knowledge.  The  dialogue 
should focus on practices that can be changed or influenced at the receiver’s end. The 
more  concrete  the  change,  the  easier  it  is  for  stakeholders  to  implement  something 
that may initiate further steps and actions. These new practices need to be embedded 
into  current  practices  and  future  plans,  which  takes  time  and  proceeds  one  step  at  a 
time. Furthermore, if there is a certain degree of similarity in the geographical, socio-
economic and institutional preconditions of participating regions, the transfer tends to 
be  easier.  Whenever  this  similarity  does  not  exist,  translation  and  interpretation 
processes tend to be more demanding and more difficult to achieve. 

Even  the  most  obvious  success  story  can  never  be  fully  transposed  to  another 
location.  There  should  be  a  critical  review  of  the  truly  interesting  elements  for 
transfer. The aim should be to enhance governance processes only in support of policy 
objectives;  rather  than  for  ‘better’  governance.  Some  good  practices  may,  in  theory, 
have  a  high  impact,  but  are  actually  difficult  to  apply  outside  of  their  home  context. 
High-end  objectives  may  raise  interest  but  are  deemed  to  be  difficult  to  achieve, 
thereby  risking  overall  failure  of  the  whole  transfer  process.  All  in  all,  no  magic 
solution or quick fixes will foster long-term changes of attitude or have long-standing 
impact. The table below indicates some findings of the study by type of transferability. 
Though  linear  learning  processes  (transfer  without  translation)  are  to  be  questioned, 
they may nevertheless be part of the transfer processes, especially when it comes to 
understanding  the  potential  elements  to  be  learned.  At  later  stages  of  the  transfer 
process, more complex modes usually dominate as indicated in the table.  

Table 5 Modes of transferability highlighted in the study 

Transferability 
modes 

Transfer 

Diffusion 

Convergence 

Translation 

Institutional 
Learning 

Key theoretical elements 

Elements evidenced in the study 

‘Voluntary process undertaken by civil 
servants and politicians to emulate 
best practice’. (Stone 2012, p485) 

Mode of governance was enforced in a 
new regional context. 

Mode of governance spread from one 
context to another by slow and 
successive adoption (Stone 2012) 

‘process by which policy choices in one 
country affect the policy choices in 
other countries’. (Obinger et al., 2013) 

Process where policies or modes of 
governance in two or more countries 
become mutually more alike. (Stone, 
2012) 

‘Policies can be packaged into forms 
amenable to travel and translation on 
policy circuits […] occasionally 
resulting in a new, mutated policy 
approach for release back onto the 
circuit’. (Prince 2012) 

Actors learn to work at new scales and 
in new types of networks in order to 
better address certain issues of 
transnational importance or they learn 
from other actors to better deal with 
specific local and regional issues. 
(Colomb, 2007) 

Regional stakeholders actively and 
voluntarily applied to take part in the 
process, based on their assumption 
that they had something to learn from 
other regions. 

Some practices were directly applied in 
another region, e.g. the Stockholm 
‘Urban Game’ was played at a 
workshop in Helsinki and may induce 
direct, immediate effects on regional 
policymaking. 

Convergence was witnessed in relation 
to the congruence between targets and 
priorities identified in the Europe 2020 
strategy and how it may relate to 
specific needs and challenges ‘on the 
ground’. This process made the EU 
targets more understandable and 
actionable at lower tiers of 
governance. 

Dialogue between the actors led to the 
repackaging of good practices into a 
series of transferable elements that 
could be translated and reapplied in 
the new regional context. 

Learning how energy efficiency or 
social inclusion could be concretely 
tackled at the regional level was 
identified as the main outcome of the 
process from the participants’ own 
perception (see survey results). 

Source: Own elaboration  

48 

 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

4  CONCLUSIONS  

Regional  and  local  public  authorities  play  an  important  role  in  conceiving  and 
delivering  public  policies  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  –  although  they 
do  not  always  explicitly  refer  to  the  Europe  2020  strategy.  Since  the  issues  at  stake 
are  very  complex,  there  is  often  no  single  actor  with  the  necessary  decision-making 
capacity.  Therefore,  multi-level  governance  approaches  are  employed  to  move 
towards  collective  decision-making  processes  where  authority  and  influences  are 
shared  between  stakeholders  at  multiple  levels  of  governance  and  in  multiple  policy 
areas.  

Based on a literature review and four case studies in the field of social inclusion, four 
case  studies  in  the  field  of  energy  efficiency,  discussions  between  local  and  regional 
stakeholders  from  the  case  study  areas  and  16  twinning  areas,  a  number  of 
conclusions can be drawn. Throughout the report, we have highlighted the diversity of 
development  needs  as  well  as  governance  contexts  and  arrangements.  Accordingly, 
conclusions  and  overall  recommendations  on  multi-level  governance  in  support  of 
Europe  2020  remain  general  in  view  of  the  small  sample  of  cases,  the  short  time 
period  and  the  difficulties  of  separating  the  causal  links  between  governance  and 
policy effects. 

In  the  previous  chapters  these  lessons  were  developed,  first  for  multi-level 
governance  arrangements  in  support  of  the  Europe  2020  strategy  (chapter  2)  and 
second on the transferability of these arrangements and processes (chapter 3). Figure 
15  illustrates  how  these  lessons  are  linked.  For  both  types  of  lessons,  several  crucial 
elements  could  be  identified  during  the  study.  The  lessons  on  multi-level  governance 
arrangements  provided  a  central 
lessons  on 
transferability. This is for two reasons: 

for  the  development  of 

input 

•  a deeper and detailed understanding of ‘good’ multi-level governance processes 
supporting  the  two  selected  policy  objectives  of  energy  efficiency  and  social 
inclusion, was needed to feed the transfer processes efficiently; 
the  analysis  of  case  studies  showed  how  to  link  context  and  governance 
effectively and what to take into account when approaching the transfer. 

• 

Figure 15 Linking lessons on multi-level governance (MLG) process and transferability  

Context,&external&
forces&&&
development&

2.1 

WHEN 
to call on 
MLG? 

2.2 

WHY to 
initiate 
MLG? 

Elements&of&mul89dimensional&processes&

3.1 

Policy'
frameworks'of'
partners'

3.2 

HOW 
Policy 
transfer 
2.0 

2.7 

WHAT 
are the 
objectives 
and roles? 

2.5 

2.6 

HOW to 
run a 
MLG 
process? 

LESSONS&FOR&
MLG&
sjdhf&
SUPPORTING&
EUROPE&2020&

2.4 

WHO needs 
to 
participate? 

2.3 

WHO can 
initiate & 
drive 
processes? 

Context,&external&
forces&&&
development&

Source: Own elaboration  

LESSONS&FOR&
TRANSFER+
ABILITY&OF&
MLG&
PROCESSES&

3.3 

WHAT 
Transferability 
delivered 

3.4 

RESULT 
Characteristics 
of “good” 
transfer 
processes 

3.1 

Policy'
frameworks'of'
partners'

49 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Report 

4.1  Key lessons on governance arrangements  

The  delivery  of  the  Europe  2020  strategy  benefits  from  clear  coordination  and 
coherence  between  European  institutions  and  national,  regional  and  local  authorities, 
as well as across different policy sectors. 

Marrying  ‘top-down’  and  ‘bottom-up’  governance  approaches.  EU  and  national 
policy  frameworks  can  play  an  important  role  for  stimulating  the  development  of 
multi-level  governance  processes.  At  the  same  time,  ‘bottom-up’,  multi-level 
governance  processes  are  needed  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  Europe  2020 
strategy.  The  actions  taken  on  the  ground,  implementing  Europe  2020  objectives 
originate  from  local  development  needs.  Although  embedded  into  national  and 
European  policy  frameworks,  the  governance  arrangements  developed  for  these 
policies  focus  on  the  local  and  regional  level  and  their  stakeholders.  In  other  words, 
the  subsidiarity  principle  is  important  for  successful  implementation  of  the  Europe 
2020 strategy. 

Fostering  diversity  of  multi-level  governance  arrangements.  There  are  many 
approaches  to  multi-level  governance,  depending  on  the  issue  at  stake  and  the 
stakeholders  with  influence  in  the  field.  Since  the  development  and  governance 
context is decisive in determining who should be involved and when, there will always 
be a huge variety of approaches. 

The  case  studies  show  that  governance  processes  linked  to  social  inclusion  policies 
normally put more emphasis on the local level and involve a larger number of policies 
from  different  sectors.  On  the  other  hand,  processes  in  the  field  of  energy  policies 
tend to be more strongly influenced by EU or national policy frameworks.  

Local  development  needs  play  a  crucial  role.  Most  of  the  multi-level  governance 
processes  studied  were  based  on  local  needs.  Although  they  can  be  seen  in  the 
context of European or national policy frameworks, the focus on cooperation between 
stakeholders was on local or regional development issues and needs. 

National  level  plays  an  important  role.  This  ranges  from  being  a  cooperation 
partner,  or  a  framework  builder,  to  being  the  object  to  be  influenced.  In  terms  of 
governance arrangements, national actors in many cases have a wide range of options 
at  their  disposal.  The  key  lessons  on  raising  awareness  of  governance  options, 
mapping  the  relevant  stakeholders  and  actors  that  have  important  policy  roles,  the 
use of different tools and processes to facilitate consensus building and clarity on roles 
and retaining a focus on the policy objectives are all relevant for national players also. 

Governance processes are driven by individuals rather than institutions. There 
is  no  single  stakeholder  designated  to  drive  multi-level  governance  processes. 
Individuals  with  good  networks  and  a  broad  understanding  of  governance  in  the 
respective policy field can help to make a start.  

Determine  the  stakeholders  who  influence  the  field.  The  number  and  type  of 
stakeholders, across levels of governance and policy sectors, to be involved depend on 
the policy issues at stake. In any case, stakeholders whose decision-making power or 
political and social influence are needed to solve the issue at stake must be involved. 
Beyond public stakeholders, this may also involve NGOs and private actors. 

However,  there  is  a  trade-off  between  the  number  of  stakeholders  involved  and  the 
effectiveness  of  the  processes.  In  addition,  the  involvement  of  stakeholders  can 
change over time. It is important to adjust the composition of the stakeholder groups 
during  the  process  in  order  to  find  the  most  appropriate  arrangements  for  different 
steps in the policy development. 

50 

 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

Keep  stakeholders  motivated.  All  stakeholders  have  different  motivations  for 
becoming  involved  in  multi-level  governance  processes,  which  may  also  change  over 
time.  Knowledge  of  the  different  motivations  is  important  for  getting  relevant 
stakeholders  involved  and  keeping  them  on  board.  Among  the  motivating  factors  are 
influence, funding possibilities, cost savings and responses to their own challenges.  

Communicate and create ownership. Facilitating governance processes involving a 
large number of stakeholders needs communication routines and cooperation practices 
that  support  agreement.  These  can  include  awareness-raising  techniques  for  a 
common understanding, consensus among stakeholders, shared visions, objectives or 
strategic  plans  and  contractual  agreements.  The  crucial  factor  is  the  ability  to  create 
ownership and commitment among the stakeholders.  

Complex processes need time. It is necessary to plan for enough feedback loops at 
the  stakeholders’  institutions  and  consider  external  dynamics  such  as  upcoming 
elections, that may influence decision-making processes.  

Clarity  is  important.  Despite  the  flexibility  in  governance  arrangements,  it  is 
important  to  be  clear  on  contents  throughout  the  process.  This  involves  clear  rules 
that  set  the  cooperation  framework,  clear  roles  for  different  stakeholders,  and  clear 
objectives of the process to support the definition of actions. 

4.2  Key lessons on transferability 

The  key  lessons  on  multi-level  governance  can  be  transferred  across  regions  in 
Europe.  Learning  from  others  can  help  with  ’thinking  outside  the  box’,  even  if  the 
learning cannot be transferred directly and first needs to be translated to the specific 
context.  

European  diversity  needs  to  be  considered  when  lessons  are  transferred. 
There  are  substantial  differences  in  governance,  administrative  cultures,  and 
professional  capacities  that  limit  such  learning  processes.  Different  territories  have 
their own governance legacies. Good examples of governance arrangements from one 
city  or  region  cannot  be  directly  replicated  in  other  regions.  There  is  a  need  to 
interpret and translate the lessons to the new context before transferring them.  

Transferring  methods  and  techniques  are  more  promising.  Programmes, 
institutions,  modes  of  organisation  and  joint  projects  can  be  difficult  to  transfer,  as 
they  are  very  context  specific.  Methods,  techniques,  know-how  and  operating  rules 
tend to be easier to transfer. In particular lessons on the stakeholders to involve and 
techniques to involve them can be of interest.  

Adopting  new  governance  mechanisms  takes  time.  The  transfer  of  governance 
approaches focuses on concrete actions raising awareness among stakeholders in the 
regions.  The  involvement  of  stakeholders  for  implementing  actions  in  support  of  the 
Europe  2020  strategy  has  often  been  an  eye-opener  for  new  cooperation  and 
involving  the  right 
coordination  approaches 
stakeholders to deliver policies contributing to the Europe 2020 strategy takes time.  

in  cities  and  regions.  However, 

Measuring  the  effects  of  transfer  remains  challenging.  European  territorial 
cooperation  programme  have  already  acquired  a  rich  body  of  knowledge  and 
experience  concerning  policy  learning  and  the  transfer  of  governance  arrangements. 
These  correspond  largely  to  the  results  concerning  transferability  deriving  from  this 
study.  There  are,  however,  difficulties  of  time  scale  and  identifying  cause  and  effect 
relationships between multi-level governance actions and policy outcomes. This leads 
to  difficulties  for  European  cooperation  initiatives  to  demonstrate  their  results  or 
benefits of time limited cooperation actions.   

51 

 
 
Final Report 

Key discussions points raised a the final conference 

During  the  final  conference  in  March  2015,  the  results  of  this  study  have  been  presented  and 
discussed. Some of the key points from this discussion are:  

Get  active  yourself!  Do  not  wait  for  others!  One  key  message  of  the  discussion  was  the 
potential  of  stakeholders  to  take  the  initiative  instead  of  waiting  for  other  players  to  become 
active. Municipalities or regional administrations do not need to wait for national legislations to 
define  what  they  have  to  do,  or  civil  society  stakeholders  raising  awareness  and  actively 
contributing to searching for new governance solutions. 

Individuals: In many cases, passionate individuals take the initiative and cooperate. They can 
be  pictured  as  ‘spiders’  and  to  use  their  potential,  they  need  a  wide  and  stable  ‘web’.  The 
question, however, is how to identify them and how to support them.  

Paradigm  change  for  public  administration:  Working  across  sectors  and  across  levels  of 
governance  requires  a  new  culture  of  working  and  decision-making  in  the  public  sector. 
Accordingly, strengthening multi-level governance is also about the mind set of people working 
in the public sector.  

Trust  and  ownership:  Many  tasks  traditionally  conducted  by  civil  servants  involve  –  in  the 
case  of  multi-level  governance  –  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders,  including  civil  society.  This 
requires trust among stakeholders and new approaches to ownership.  

Responsibility:  Shared  decision-making  processes  also  raise  questions  concerning  the 
responsibility  for  the  process  and  its  final  outcomes.  The  question  remains,  who  is  actually 
responsible in the end? If everybody is responsible, it may be that nobody feels responsible. 

Institutional  capacity:  Involving  a  wider  range  of  stakeholders  also  calls  on  the  institutional 
capacity of stakeholders. They need to have the resources and stability over time to develop an 
active  long-term  participation.  Especially  where  the  participation  of  individuals  is  important, 
ensuring continuity can be challenging. Shifting towards institutional arrangements may help. 

Resources  and  funding:  Multi-level  governance  certainly  demands  resources.  At  the  same 
time, multi-level governance can be the way pool resources.  

National level: As regards social inclusion and energy efficiency, national level policies play an 
important role. This ranges from being a cooperation partner, or a framework builder, to being 
the object to be influenced. 

Local  level  left  on  its  own:  Some  issues  end  up  at  local  level  because  none  of  the  higher 
levels  take  responsibility.  This  may  follow  the  logic  of  subsidiarity,  but  there  are  also  cases 
where the local level is simply left on its own with an issue it cannot solve.  

European  Commission  supports  multi-level  governance:  The  2014-2020  European 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds  put  a  stronger  focus  on  the  partnership  principle,  which  in 
association  with  the  European  Code  of  Conduct  on  partnership,  may  open  up  opportunities  for 
improving multi-level governance arrangements and collaborative actions in the future. 

The  conference  is  also  available  as  a  video-stream  via  this  link  and  was  also  followed  by 
discussions  on  twitter  @EU_Regional♯RegioMLG.  The  full  report  on  the  conference  is  available 
at  http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index.cfm/en/conferences/mlg2015 

52 

 
 
 
Local and regional partners contributing to Europe 2020 

REFERENCES  

Bieling,  H.-J.  (2012)  EU  facing  the  crisis:  social  and  employment  policies  in  times  of 
tight budgets, Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 2012 18: 255 

Bulkeley  H.  and  Kern  K.  (2006)  Local  government  and  the  governing  of  climate 

change in Germany and the UK, Urban Studies, 43, pp. 2237-2259. 

Bulkeley,  H.  and  Betsill,  M.  (2005)  Rethinking  Sustainable  Cities:  Multilevel 
Governance  and  the  'Urban'  Politics  of  Climate  Change,  Environmental  Politics, 
Volume 14, Issue 1, 2005, pp 42-63 

Colomb,  C.  (2007),  The  Added  Value  of  Transnational  Cooperation:  Towards  a  New 
Framework  for  Evaluating  Learning  and  Policy  Change,  Planning,  Practice  & 
Research, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.347-372. 

Committee  of  the  Regions  (2013)  A  resource-efficient  Europe  –  Contribution  of 
Regions and Cities, Background note Conference of the Committee of the Regions, 
Lithuania, 2/3 September 2013 

Committee of the Regions (2013) 4th Monitoring Report on Europe 2020, final report 
Committee of the Regions (2013) Fighting Poverty and Social Exclusion. What role for 

regions and cities? Brussels 29th May 2013, Background Note 

Daly,  M.  (2012)  Paradigms  in  EU  social  policy:  a  critical  account  of  Europe  2020, 
Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research August 2012 vol. 18 no. 3 273-
284 

ESPON  TIPSE  (2014)  The  Territorial  Dimensions  of  Poverty  and  Social  Exclusion  in 

Europe, Applied Research 2014 Final Report 

ESPON  TIPSE  (2012)  The  Territorial  Dimensions  of  Poverty  and  Social  Exclusion  in 

Europe, Applied Research 2013/1/24, Interim Report 

European Commission (2013) Commission delegated regulation on the European code 
of  conduct  on  partnership  in  the  framework  of  the  European  Structural  and 
Investment Funds 9651 final 

European  Commission  (2011)  An  EU  Framework  for  National  Roma  Integration 

Strategies up to 2020, COM (2011) 173/4 

Golubchikov,  O.  and  Deda,  P.  (2012)  Governance,  technology,  and  equity:  An 
integrated  policy  framework  for  energy  efficient  housing,  Energy  Policy  41  (2012) 
pp 733–741 

Jollands,  N.,  Gasc,  E.  and  S.B.  Pasquier  (2009)  INNOVATIONS  IN  MULTI-LEVEL 
GOVERNANCE  FOR  ENERGY  EFFICIENCY  -  Sharing  experience  with  multi-level 
governance  to  enhance  energy  efficiency,  Information  Paper,  Energy  Efficiency 
Series, International Energy Agency 

Jollands,  N.,  Gasc,  E.  and  S.B.  Pasquier  (2009)  INNOVATIONS  IN  MULTI-LEVEL 
GOVERNANCE  FOR  ENERGY  EFFICIENCY  -  Sharing  experience  with  multi-level 
governance  to  enhance  energy  efficiency,  Information  Paper,  Energy  Efficiency 
Series, International Energy Agency 

Monstadt,  J.  (2007)  Urban  Governance  and  the  Transition  of  Energy  Systems: 
in  Berlin, 
Institutional  Change  and  Shifting  Energy  and  Climate  Policies 
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 326–
343 

OECD  (2013)  Investing  Together:  Working  Effectively  across  Levels  of  Government, 

OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264197022-en 

Prince,  R.  (2012)  Policy  transfer,  consultants  and  the  geographies  of  governance, 

Progress in Human Geography, 36, pp 188-203 

Puppim de Oliveira, J. A., Doll, C. N.H., Balaban, O., Jiang, P.,Dreyfus, M., Suwa, A., 
Moreno-Peñaranda, R. and Dirgahayani, P. (2013) Green economy and governance 
in  cities:  assessing  good  governance  in  key  urban  economic  processes,  Journal  of 
Cleaner Production 58 (2013) 138e152 

53 

 
 
Final Report 

Ryghaug,  M.  and  Sørensen,  K.H.  (2009)  How  energy  efficiency  fails  in  the  building 

industry, Energy Policy, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 984–991 

Stead,  D.  (2012)  Best  Practices  and  Policy  Transfer  in  Spatial  Planning,  Planning 

Practice & Research, 27:1, 103-116, DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2011.644084 

Stone, D. (2012) Transfer and translation of policy, Policy Studies, 33:6, pp483-499 

SUME.  (2011)  Planning  Resource  Efficient  Cities:  SUME  Synopsis  &  Synthesis  Report. 

7th Framework Program. Available at www.sume.at 

Vettoretto, L. (2009) A preliminary critique of the best and good practices approach in 
European  spatial  planning  and  policy‐making,  European  Planning  Studies,  17(7), 
1067‐1083. 

54 

 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

• one copy:

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

• more than one copy or posters/maps:

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);
from the delegations in non-EU countries
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm)
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may
charge you).

Priced publications: 

• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions: 

• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

K
N
-
0
2
-
1
5
-
4
7
2
-
3
A
-
N

[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]

 doi: 10.2776/74666