Three Euro-MED territories · Three governance models · Your reflections
This Genially presents three real governance design cases from Euro-MED territories. Each case shows the territorial challenge, the key governance decisions made, and the outcomes achieved — with enough detail to evaluate the decisions and relate them to your own context.
How to use it: Navigate through the three cases. At the end of each case you will find reflection questions — write your answers in Activity 2.2 (Governance Self-Assessment template). After completing all three cases, open Activity 2.2, then Activity 2.3.
Sequence: Read all three cases here → write reflections in Activity 2.2 → complete Activity 2.3 Canvas
Three cases · Choose your starting point
Which territory is most like yours?
You can read all three or start with the one most relevant to your context. Reflection questions appear at the bottom of each case — record your responses in Activity 2.2.
High forest cover but no local transformation capacity. Biomass sold as commodity to northern Italy companies. Municipal buildings heated by imported diesel at rising cost. Young population leaving ~150/year. No single actor could organise the value chain: the Comunità Montana had forest management competence but not investment capacity; forest cooperatives had labour but not market access; private companies had capital but no interest in local transformation.
Outcomes achieved (5 years)
Cooperative manages 40% of forest harvests (from 8% in Year 0). Biomass district heating serves 14 public buildings — saves €180,000/year in diesel costs. Pellet plant produces 2,400 tonnes/year, 60% sold at premium price (FSC certified). Forest employment +34%. Three entrepreneurs under 35 started businesses linked to the forest value chain. Invited to present at the EU Startup Village Forum. Three international study visits received.
Key governance design decisions
Decision 1 — Cooperative governance model
Created a second-degree cooperative: 7 forest cooperatives + Comunità Montana (public partner) + 3 municipalities. Preferred over a public consortium because forest producers hold equity and incentives align with collective success.
Decision 2 — Deliberate territorial scale
Chose Comunità Montana level (27 municipalities), not provincial. Small enough for governance proximity to producers, large enough to justify a pellet plant and district heating network.
Decision 3 — Bottom-up investment sequence
Year 1: shared forest management service. Year 2: wood-chip heating line via EAFRD loan. Year 4: pellet plant with ERDF co-financing. Generated own revenues before taking on larger debt.
Decision 4 — Institutional anchoring of financial model
Signed 10-year supply contracts with municipalities for district heating. Those contracts were the guarantee that unlocked the EAFRD loan — without a long-term public contract, no lender would have engaged.
Reflection questions — record your answers in Activity 2.2
1.
Which governance design decision is most relevant to your territory, and why?
2.
Which actor missing in this territory is also missing in yours — and what would prevent it from playing the same role?
3.
Which element of this model would NOT work in your context, and how would you adapt it?
Case 2 · Greece · Agri-Food Innovation
Rural Agri-Food Innovation Hub — Drama Plain, Eastern Macedonia
Regional unit · Public-knowledge-enterprise steering committee · ITS-anchored hub
Territorial challenge
Lost main industrial employer in 2014. Youth unemployment 38% in 2018. Bio-based potential existed — diversified agriculture, ITS of agronomy with 320 students, solid local technical knowledge — but no governance structure to connect them. A bioeconomy strategy had been approved in 2019 but with no implementation mechanism. ERDF funds available with only 34% absorption rate due to lack of mature projects. ITS graduates emigrating because no local companies hired them.
Outcomes achieved (4 years)
67 agri-food entrepreneurs supported, 41 formalised as companies. 3-year enterprise survival rate 78% (vs 54% national average for sector microenterprises). 23 ITS graduates employed in local bio-based companies in first two years. ERDF absorption rate for SME support rose from 34% to 71% in the following call. Cited as national good practice in CAP Strategic Plan review for 2025–2027.
Key governance design decisions
Decision 1 — Public-knowledge-enterprise alliance as the core
Hub anchored in the existing ITS (not a new agency). Steering committee: regional government (financing + political mandate) + ITS (technical capacity + training) + association of young agricultural entrepreneurs (demand + market orientation). All three indispensable — the hub cannot function without any of them.
Decision 2 — Specialise in the pre-commercial segment
Focused on entrepreneurs with a product but no formalised enterprise. Three integrated services: quality certification (ITS laboratories), online market access (regional B2B marketplace via ENRD), and technical mentoring by ITS faculty members.
Decision 3 — Structural public funding not dependent on projects
Regional government committed €120,000/year fixed budget for hub operations regardless of Interreg or LEADER project co-financing. This enabled hiring the hub director on a 3-year contract rather than typical 12-month project contracts.
Decision 4 — Measure from Year 1
Four simple indicators from the start: entrepreneurs supported, first sales outside the territory, ITS graduates in local employment, user satisfaction. That evidence convinced the regional government to maintain structural funding beyond the initial period.
Reflection questions — record your answers in Activity 2.2
1.
Is there in your territory an actor equivalent to the ITS of agronomy — a technical knowledge institution with local credibility that could anchor a similar hub?
2.
The hub specialised in the pre-commercial segment. What is the most underserved entrepreneurship segment in your territory — pre-commercial, scale-up, or market access?
3.
What would you commit institutionally to guarantee the continuity of a similar initiative beyond a project funding period?
Case 3 · Spain · Territorial Strategy
Territorial Bioeconomy Strategy — Pallars Sobirà County Council, Catalan Pyrenees
7,000 inhabitants · 15 municipalities · 70% forest · County council as facilitator
Territorial challenge
Three converging problems identified in 2020: forest biomass accumulation as a growing fire risk, energy dependence on diesel heating in mountain municipalities, and declining profitability of extensive livestock farming threatening the maintenance of open landscapes. None had a viable individual solution — only a systemic response could address all three simultaneously. No bioeconomy priority in the regional S3, making ERDF co-financing for bio-based innovation inaccessible.
Outcomes achieved (4 years)
Catalan S3 now includes mountain bioeconomy as a specific priority with its own ERDF allocation. Consell Comarcal recognised as a pilot territory within the EU Startup Village Forum. 6 bio-based investment projects received ERDF co-financing in 2023–2024 (€2.1M total, vs 0 in the previous period). Biomass district heating in two municipalities saves €95,000/year. Extensive livestock net value per head +22% through collective certification and direct sales channels. Three community cooperatives established or strengthened.
Key governance design decisions
Decision 1 — S3 anchoring as the immediate priority
Invested 8 months in securing mountain bioeconomy inclusion in Catalonia's S3 revision (2021–2027) before designing any intervention. That advocacy succeeded and structurally changed the territory's financing horizon — ERDF measures for bio-based innovation investment became accessible that previously were not.
Decision 2 — County-level governance as the right scale
Operated at inter-municipal county level: small enough for governance proximity to producers, large enough to aggregate biomass volume and justify shared investments, and with formal competences in forest planning and local development.
Decision 3 — Three integrated value chains instead of separate sectoral projects
Defined three priority value chains — forest biomass energy, mountain livestock, and nature tourism — with explicit connections designed between them. Extensive livestock maintains the open landscape that reduces fire risk and attracts tourism; tourism generates demand for livestock and forest products. The circle is systemic, not sectoral.
Decision 4 — Community cooperatives as the implementation vehicle
One cooperative promoted or strengthened per value chain. Chose facilitator not operator role — this was what made the model sustainable beyond the political mandate of the current administration.
Reflection questions — record your answers in Activity 2.2
1.
The Consell Comarcal invested 8 months in securing bioeconomy inclusion in the regional S3 before designing any intervention. Is bioeconomy included in your regional S3? What would it take to include it in the next revision cycle?
2.
What would be the right territorial scale for a similar strategy in your context — and who holds the formal competence at that scale?
3.
What three converging problems in your territory could a systemic bioeconomy strategy address simultaneously, that none of them can solve individually?
Synthesis
What are you taking with you?
Before opening Activity 2.2, take a moment to consolidate what you have read across the three cases.
Of the three cases, which governance design decision most changes how you think about your own territory — and why?
Record your answer in Activity 2.2, Section: Synthesis. This reflection will directly inform how you complete Elements 1 (Regional Vision) and 3 (Partnerships) of your Governance Model Canvas in Activity 2.3.
Italy takeaway
Build the governance platform before seeking funding. The cooperative model aligns incentives. Long-term public contracts unlock private finance.
Greece takeaway
Anchor in an institution that already has credibility. Specialise in the most underserved segment. Structural public funding beats project-by-project uncertainty.
Spain takeaway
S3 anchoring before anything else. The right territorial scale is not always the obvious one. Facilitation is more sustainable than direct operation.
Next steps
You have completed the Case Study Explorer
Your governance case exploration is complete. Here is the sequence to follow.
Step 1 — Now
Activity 2.2
Open the Governance Self-Assessment template. Complete the five governance dimension questionnaires (Yes/Partial/No scoring). Draw your radar chart profile. Record your case study reflections in the synthesis section.
Step 2 — Primary output
Activity 2.3
Open the Circular Bioeconomy Governance Model Canvas. Complete all ten elements in sequence. Use your Activity 2.2 Self-Assessment results as input to Elements 4, 9, and 10.
Step 3 — Save
Keep your Canvas
The completed Canvas is a living document. Return to it as you progress through subsequent modules. It becomes the governance design annex of your Regional Action Plan in Module 10.
The completed Canvas (Activity 2.3) feeds directly into Module 10, Strategic Area 1: Governance and Institutional Development. It is the primary output of this module.