Cultural creation centres as SEE territorial ecosystems: A cross-border diagnosis for the socio-ecological transition

CULTURAL CREATION CENTRES AS SEE TERRITORIAL ECOSYSTEMS A cross-border diagnosis for the socioecological transition Ricard Espelt | [email protected] CIRIEC International Conference 2025 –Bordeaux In this paper, Iexplore how cultural creation centers contribute to the development of Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) territorial ecosystems,with aparticular focus on rural contexts and cross-border cooperation between Catalonia and Occitanie.My research draws on the culturESS project, which adapts SSE evaluation frameworks —originally developed by the Solidarity Economy Network of Catalonia (XES)—to the cultural sector. Through this work, Iseek to understand how these centers, operating at the intersection of artistic creation, community development, and ecological awareness, can become agents of socioecological transition. The communication was prepared within the framework of the CIRIEC International Social Economy Research Conference 2025, under the theme “SSE territorial ecosystems and transition”.My central argument is that cultural creation centers already possess many of the collective capacities and relational infrastructures characteristic of SSE ecosystems.They are rooted in territory, practice collaboration as amode of governance, and generate cultural and social value through collective engagement.Yet, they also face structural fragilities —especially concerning governance institutionalization, gender equality, openness and energy transition—that limit their potential as fully-fledged drivers of transformation. To frame this inquiry, Icombine two theoretical perspectives that, although distinct, converge in meaningful ways.The first is the SEE understood as ameso-economic space,that is, alevel of economic organization between individual enterprises and the macroeconomic system.- 1 - -2 - Following recent contributions by Richez-Battesti and Lamarche (2023), I interpret the SSE as asystem of collaborative arrangements that generate “system effects” across production, finance, knowledge and care.These effects are not simply the sum of individual organizations but emerge from the interrelations, shared rules, and mutual dependencies that compose the ecosystem.In this sense, the SSE can be seen as an institutional architecture capable of shaping socio-ecological transition processes through cooperation and reciprocity. The second perspective comes from cultural geography, particularly from the notion of geocreativity (Dear 2011;Hawkins 2014, 2017), which situates artistic creation within alandscape of territorial imaginaries.From this standpoint, creation centers are not just venues where art happens;they are mediators between people, places and ideas. They host residencies, convene communities and cultivate a sense of belonging that re-embeds artistic practice into local ecosystems of meaning and livelihood.In this way, cultural creation centers operate as both infrastructures of imagination and laboratories of social cooperation. These two lenses —the SSE as ameso-economic ecosystem and geocreativity as aform of situated production—help me explore how cultural centers articulate the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of transition.They also allow me to approach culture not as aseparate domain but as a driver of territorial transformation that can bridge artistic practice, solidarity-based economic models, and ecological ethics. -3 - The empirical work on which this communication is based took place in June 2025,during the Euroregion Network of Creation Centers (REC) cross-border gathering between Envall and Farrera, in the Pyrenees.This meeting brought together nine rural creation centers from Catalonia and Occitanie.Rather than treating the event as aconventional survey site, Iapproached it as asituated laboratory,where participants could collectively reflect on their practices and co-produce afirst diagnosis of their social, cultural and territorial impacts (Figure 1). To do this, Idesigned and implemented the culturESS diagnostic, an adaptation of the Pam aPam tool created by the Solidarity Economy Network (XES) of Catalonia. The instrument comprises fifteen dimensions of SSE evaluation—ranging from democratic governance and labor conditions to intercooperation,transparency, environmental sustainability, ethical finance and gender equality. Each dimension includes both quantitative indicators and qualitative prompts. Figure 1. Participants filling the pliegOS form. -4 - The methodological innovation of my work lies in translating this structured instrument into an analog co-publishing format called pliegOS: a one-page, foldable chapbook or fanzine that participants completed collectively on-site.The pliegOS method draws inspiration from action research traditions that privilege conviviality, material engagement and immediate circulation of ideas. Participants filled and folded their own chapbooks, discussed their responses, and annotated them with drawings, notes and reflections. These artifacts were then archived and analyzed both as data and as situated traces of collaborative thought. I complemented these materials with two semistructured interviews —one with the coordinator of XarxaProd (Catalonia) and another with Air de Midi (Occitanie)—to contextualize differences in governance and policy environments. The results, aggregated in aradial chart (Figure 2), reveal acomplex yet coherent picture. The strongest areas across the nine centers are territorial embeddedness,intercooperation and social transformation. Most centers display deep local anchoring and are well integrated into community networks. They collaborate actively with other cultural and social actors, co-program activities and share resources.This collaborative fabric allows them to function as local socio-economic catalysts,animating cultural life while fostering community cohesion and rural regeneration. Asecond cluster of dimensions shows intermediate consolidation,including democratic governance, personal development and environmental sustainability. -5 - Figure 2. Radial chart of the fifteen ESS dimensions studied. While most centers express astrong commitment to participation, they lack formal facilitation methods and clear decision-making protocols.Training and care practices exist but are inconsistent, often dependent on individual initiative rather than organizational policy.Environmental sustainability is addressed through pragmatic actions —local procurement, reuse of materials, energy awareness— but lacks systemic implementation. Finally, the weaker dimensions —those requiring more attention—are the feminist perspective,transparency and open licensing,ethical finance and energy use. -6 - Although gender equality and care are gaining visibility, few centers have established gender commissions or monitoring mechanisms.Open knowledge and transparency are similarly underdeveloped: Creative Commons licenses are rarely used, and few centers publish detailed information about governance or funding.Financially, most depend on conventional circuits, with limited access to ethical or cooperative banking.Energy transition practices are almost absent, revealing agap between ecological awareness and infrastructural feasibility. From abroader perspective, these results portray cultural creation centers as meso-level actors already embedded in SSE dynamics but still consolidating their internal structures and ecological transitions. The tension between strong collaborative values and fragile institutionalization is arecurring theme. In the discussion section, Iinterpret these findings through the lens of SSE territorial ecosystems and transformative social innovation (Pel et al.2020). The centers’ relational strengths —cooperation, territorial anchoring and community engagement—are precisely the features that enable SSE ecosystems to operate as drivers of socio-ecological change.Yet, to move from isolated initiatives to systemic impact, these strengths must be infrastructured:codified in governance routines, supported by networks, and connected to enabling policies. Governance emerges as acentral area for improvement. The presence of participatory intent without facilitation techniques results in uneven inclusion. Introducing structured methods —clear rules, feedback loops, and conflict resolution protocols—could transform goodwill into democratic durability. -7 - Similarly, integrating feminist and care perspectives into daily routines would strengthen the alignment between organizational values and lived experience. The ecological block deserves particular attention. While waste reduction and sustainable consumption are advancing, energy efficiency remains the weakest dimension, largely due to lack of investment and technical support.Here, the network level becomes crucial:shared audits, pooled energy procurement, or cooperative retrofitting funds could translate existing collaboration into tangible environmental improvements. Cross-border collaboration between Solidarity Economy Network (Catalonia) and Mouvement pour l'Economie Solidaire (Occitanie) offers apromising pathway. Their current pilot to adapt the Balanç Social (Social Balance) across the Pyrenees could provide ashared framework for transparency, ethical finance, and environmental reporting —strengthening the accountability and comparability of centers operating within different institutional contexts. Methodologically, the combination of structured indicators and analog participation aligns with current debates on impact measurement in the SSE (OECD 2023). By embedding evaluation in the centers’ own cultural practices, the pliegOS approach democratizes research and turns data collection into a form of collective reflection.It also shows that measuring the SSE’s impact can be done without reducing complexity —by valuing narrative, visual, and embodied forms of knowledge alongside quantitative indicators. In conclusion, my research shows that cultural creation centers already perform key functions of SSE territorial ecosystems. -8 - They anchor culture in place, generate social cohesion, and weave networks of cooperation that extend across local and cross-border scales.However, their capacity to sustain and scale these contributions depends on institutional consolidation. To advance the socio-ecological transition, we need to transform the existing collaborative capital into structured instruments:shared facilitation tools, care and gender protocols, open knowledge practices, and access to ethical finance and renewable energy mechanisms. Policy recognition of these centers as socio-economic actors is not symbolic —it is aprerequisite for accessing programs that can strengthen their weakest dimensions.Moreover, developing network-scale instruments such as cooperative energy procurement, ethical procurement frameworks, and governance accompaniment would allow small, under-resourced teams to collectively address systemic challenges. Ultimately, Iargue that the ecosystem of creation centers already holds the social capital and collaborative routines that the socio-ecological transition requires.The challenge ahead is to infrastructure these capacities —to translate shared values and collective practices into institutional designs capable of sustaining democratic governance, gender equality, openness, and ecological transition. By doing so, cultural creation centers can fully realize their potential as infrastructures of socioecological transformation, bridging culture, community, and the solidarity economy across territories and borders. Content subject to an Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license (CC BY-SA 4.0) This fanzine is made and share the principles of pliegos.net