Mountain regions and Europe Territorial cohesion what scales

Mountain regions and Europe: Territorial cohesion : what scales of policy intervention ? TCUM Workshop Friday 12 march 2010 Charlemagne Building, European Commission Association Européenne des élus de Montagne – AEM

AEM : European network of regional and local authorities with mountain territories 1991: creation of AEM: from Co. E to UE Institutions 2 main Status Objectives: sensibilisation and networking Direct and non direct Members Every political levels from Mayors to MEP (intergroup) with a majority of Regional actors Democratic Legitimity and political positions (policy makers and policy managers) Territorial stake in European debate , challenge of European governance (now based on Lisbon Treaty & Art 174 )

Mountain. S of Europe : unity in diversity Europe is a mountainous territory ! Mountain is a European continental challenge ! • • EU with 27 Member states: 21 concerned MS 35, 69% of its superficy 17, 73% of its population 30 744 municipalities From study Nord. Regio DG Regio 2004 (critère de pente, altitude, topographie et climat) But with a great diversity increased by enlargement Alps, Mediterranean, Nordic, Carpates, Balkans, Apennini, Iberic, Pyrenees, etc.

To reach coherence respecting diversity: AEM answer to green paper COTER Some experimented policies on sustainable development of mountain regions + some experiences from Interreg and territorial cooperations = A corpus of analysis and concepts usefull for a European political action EUROPEAN MOUNTAIN ISSUE IS MAINLY A QUESTION OF MULTI LEVEL GOVERNANCE What would the added value of European action for mountain ranges ? üNot only a mountain policy but also urban and rural, linking mountain, valleys and piedmount areas; üto imagine a step foward of multiregional/macroregional governance in a multilevel context; üTo avoid to act negatively (by not considering specificities and diversity). What are the main innovation mountain issue could bring to European policies ? üNeed of integrated or transversal policy: more coherence between cohesion policy and sectorial policies; üTerritorial dimension could give more efficiency and bring a closer dimension toward Europeans’ daily life by integrating geopgraphic, cultural, economical and environmental dimensions in policy making.

Challenges: going over permanent handicaps to valorise assets AEM answer to green paper COTER • A clear need of a specific attention and bigger coherence between actions; • A clear need of multiregional adaptation of the European strategies at a coherent territorial level : the range(massif) level (could be cross-border or not); cf DG Regio communication flyer in 2000 « structural funds and mountain regions » page 30; • A clear need of a close operationnal level for action and mobilsation of assets: valleys level (= a place based policy Barca’s report). Special attention to initiative opinion of Luis Durnwalder voted by the Co. R in June 2008.

What scale for a specific attention to mountain regions ? The experience of a mix of topographic and population indicators at NUTS III made by DG Regio : üHalf of the mountain areas as disapeared üThe territorial realities (organic links between mountain and valleys) have been ignored. Some limits of a « blind » stastistical analysis: no potential political use !

What scale for a specific attention to mountain regions ? Could geography help policy making ? ü The territorial issue is a analysis of the organic link between environment and humain being activities (place based policy). ü From a European point of view, ranges give a capacity of political action considering mountain specificities.

Two exemples of existing experiences and exciting debates regarding mountain macroregional strategies ( « massifs » or ranges). An exemple of integrated policy in favor of mountain ranges (French massifs): POMAC & POIA : ü From a national law (1985) to the creation of interregional operationnal programmes for Massif central and for the Alps; ü Coherence between national, regional, local and European political actions. ü Some details. What internal governance for an added value of political action ? (Comité de massif) What scales of policy definition and intervention?

Elements for analysis and for action 1. macro-regional strategies are key elements for Multi. Level. Governance : from Baltic sea level to an Alpine model (EU-Alpine. Conv° -euroregionscrossborder coop – valleys) 2. Economic crisis, relaunch plans and modification of general philosophy regarding competition and Internal market 3. A dynamic European networking to exchange best practices at local and regional level which the various associations, institutions (EGTC) and the Co. R are the visible part of interregionality (still out of the European core decision process).

Association européenne des élus de montagne Nicolas Evrard Secrétaire général nicolas. evrard@promonte-aem. net --http: //www. promonte-aem. net/ --AEM - siège technique Maison des Parcs et de la Montagne 256, Rue de la République F-73 000 Chambéry --Tél. : +33 (0)4 79 71 42 30 Fax: +33 (0)4 79 71 50 16 --AEM - délégation UE Avenue Boileau, 16 B-1040 Bruxelles --Tél. : +32 (0)2 739 15 45 Fax: +32 (0)2 739 15 39 ---