This report aims at combining the research results of the previous Work Packages (1–7) of the MEDRESET project with a view to evaluating the effectiveness and potential of EU policies. It does so through an analysis of the EU’s framing of the Mediterranean and how it is perceived by its Southern and Eastern Mediterranean (SEM) partners, how the key stakeholders depict the region as such, and how these conceptions and perceptions of the Mediterranean are reflected in their interaction in substantive issue areas, on the geopolitical and sectoral level. The major argument of this report is that the EU’s depoliticizing, technocratic and securitized approach towards the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean erodes the Union’s credibility, detracts from its effectiveness and seriously limits its potential in terms of providing bottom-up policies geared towards promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law, prioritizing development, favouring youth employment and gender equality, and creating an open, inclusive and integrated Mediterranean region. The findings of the WPs 2–7 proved that the arguments put forward by WP1 were accurate and the research conducted through interviews with key stakeholders and bottom-up actors in the region and in Europe demonstrated that they also regard the EU’s approach towards the region as highly Eurocentric, interest-driven, top-down and thus unequal/asymmetric, as well as depoliticizing, technocratic and highly securitized.
1. Constructions of the Mediterranean
2. The EU’s Fragmented Approach the Mediterranean: Problems of Coherence at the Horizontal and Vertical Levels
3. Visibility of EU Policies
4. The Norms–Interests Dichotomy in the EU’s Relations with its Southern and Eastern Mediterranean Partners
5. The EU’s Securitized Approach towards the Mediterranean
6. The EU’s Technocratic Approach to the Mediterranean: Selectivity and Lack of Knowledge of and Sensitivity towards Local Conditions and Needs
7. The EU’s Depoliticizing Approach towards the Mediterranean: Unilateralism, Top-down Policies, and Lack of Participation of Local Non-governmental Stakeholders