1. CPMR IN THE WORLD : From Periphery to Interface ? Communication at CPMR conference Bayonne, 3 Oct. 2008 Claude GRASLAND & the members of the project ESPON 3.4.1” Europe in the World” RIATE : B. Corminboeuf, C. Didelon, N. Lambert, I. Salmon, C. Dupuy-Levy - IGEAT : L. Aujean, G. Van Hammes, P. Medina, C. Vandermotten - ITPS: M. Johansson, D. Rauhut -LADYSS : P. Beckouche, Y. Richard, G. Motte -UMR Géographie-cités : N. Cattan, C. Grasland, C. Grataloup, G. Lesecq, C. Zanin - CRS HAS: G. Barta - TIGRIS O. Groza, ETH Zurich : M. Keiner -GRUPO SOGES : A. Vanolo – ORMES : M. Charef, A. Whabi – NORDREGIO : C. Smith

2. INTRODUCTION 2 questions about CPMR

3. Question 1 : What is a “peripheral” region ? So … a peripheral region is a region of EU located out of the « pentagon », but …

4. Question 1 : What is a “peripheral” region ? "We in Poland make a distinction between the southern dimension and the eastern dimension [of the ENP] and it consists in this -- to the south, we have neighbors of Europe, to the east we have European neighbors," Sikorski said.

5. Question 2 : What is «territorial cohesion » ? « Territorial cohesion is related to mechanism of solidarity between territories at different spatial scales:  States belonging to the same political entity  Regions belonging to the same political entity  Regions of the same state  Territories of the same region  Places of the same urban territory » Technical note of the general secretary of CPMR about « Territorial cohesion », May 2008

6. Question 2 : What is «territorial cohesion » ?

12. PLAN I.Mental maps & Political visions II. European « Neighbourhood » III. Proposals for EU & CPMR Jan. 2008 Dec. 2008

13. PART I MENTAL MAPS AND POLITICAL VISIONS

15. Question 1 : Draw on the following map a line defining YOUR delimitation of Europe ?

16. An example of (complicated) Answer

17. Result of the survey on ESPON members

18. Question 2 : Draw on the following map lines defining YOUR division of the World in 2 to 15 regions

19. An example of (very) sophisticated answer …

20. Turkey Russia Northern Africa Groënland

21. Part II DEFINITION OF ESPON (EU27+2) NEIGHBOURHOOD

22. A THEORETICAL APPROACH

23. AN EMPIRICAL APPROACH

24. Criteria 1 : ACCESSIBILITY

25. Criteria 2 : HISTORICAL LINKS

26. Criteria 3 : INTERACTIONS

27. Criteria 4 : COMPLEMENTARITIES

28. SYNTHETIC INDEX OF EU27+2 INFLUENCE

29. SYNTHETIC INDEX OF INFLUENCE

31. STRATEGIG TYPOLOGY

32. Type A : Integration (Ukrainia, Tunisia, Russia, Turkey, …) States localised in the immediate neighbourhood of EU+2 whose trade and air relations are strongly polarised by EU+2. They do not necessary share a common language or religion but they are fully integrated to EU+2 from functional point of view and their delimitation fit to the area of the neighbourhood policy What is at stake is not the question of membership to EU or belonging to “Europe” but the existence of an area of cooperation based on proximity and complementarities.

33. Type B : Responsability (Cameroon, Nigeria, Senegal, Congo, …) States for which EU+2 has a great responsibility in their future development. First because the historical responsibility of colonization and exploitation of African countries. Second because Africa could be a major centre of the World production in the future and its young population will be an opportunity. Many other world powers are actually investing in this area (Japan, China, Brazil, USA, …) and the historical influence of Europe is decreasing very quickly.

34. Type C : Opportunity (USA, Australia, Brazil, India, Israël, …) Countries located at relatively long distance from EU+2 but sharing a common language or a common history. They could be very precious allies for EU+2 in a global World were services represented the major part of added value and where scientific and cultural innovations are major factors of long term development. Concern English speaking developed countries like USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand which has always been in strong relation with European countries (both politically and economically), But also emerging countries (India, Brazil, Mexico) which are crucial strategic partners for the future of Europe as they are actually relatively independent from the influence of other major competitors of European Union (China, Japan, USA).

35. Type D : Challenge (China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq…) Countries on which EU+2 is less able to have an influence or to develop easily relations because of differences of languages, geographical distance, weakness of historical relations... But those countries are located in a space where energetic resources are great and the economies are the most dynamic. EU+2 countries and firms are actually very attracted and fascinated by this part of the World where they try to invest and to gain positions. But we can really ask if it is a reasonable strategy in long term. The geopolitical and cultural influence of EU+2 countries is indeed particularly week in this part of the world and they have no controls on what could happen in case of economic and political crisis.

36. PART III WHICH PROPOSALS FOR EU (in general) AND FOR PERIPHERAL REGIONS (in particular)?

37. PROPOSAL 1 : Link global and local perspectives

39. PROPOSAL 2 : Explore both northern, eastern and southern neighbourhoods

42. PROPOSAL 3 : Explore new type of flows and networks linking EU and the World

48. PROPOSAL 4 : Take into account space time dynamics

51. PROPOSAL 5 : Build strategic visions of Europe in the World

52. THE “CONTINENT” VISION: towards a protected and closed European territory

53. Expected impact of the “Continent vision” Territorial assets: (i) Trans European Networks implemented at a large European scale (ii) Central & Eastern European benefit from Western subsidies and FDI (iii) The Regional Policy focuses on CEEC’s less developed areas Shortcomings: (i) negative impact on EU’s peripheral territories (Eastward, e.g. Baltic States are no more the interface between Russia and UE; and Southward) (ii) Eastern markets are not sufficien per se for Western investors (iii) Europe as a « great Swiss »

54. THE “CENTRE-PERIPHERY” VISION: towards a dissymmetrical EU / neighbourhood pattern

55. Expected impact of the “Centre-Periphery” vision Assets : (i) a greater euromediterranean integration, despite dissymmetrical (2010 FTZ) (ii) Mediterranean European territories are boosted (iii) Europe catches up with Asian and American counterparts (although not on the high-tech base of the Lisbon strategy) Shortcomings : (i) the relocation of the environmental burden on the southern shore of the Mediterranean is not sustainable (iii) no de-pollution of the Mediterranean (iii) no change in the migration mix: lowly educated migrants toward mediterranean Europe (iv) Southern brain drain is not stopped (v) North Africa as the Europe’s gatekeeper against poor African migrants

56. THE “ARCHIPELAGO” VISION: toward rising territorial polarisation

57. Expected impact of the “Archipelago” vision Assets: (i) major European cities become highly internationalized metropolitan areas (ii) Western countries benefit much from such international metropolis (iii) these Wetern metropolis are most integrated in a top urban network Shortcomings: (i) increase of territorial disparities in Europe (ii) Eastern member states rapidly loose their competitive advantage (rise of costs in their capital cities) (iii) dramatic destabilisation of the Med neighbours (rough 2010 liberalisation) (iv)Border: toward the « continent » vision

58. THE “NORTH-SOUTH REGION ” VISION: an attempt of pro-active scenario

59. Expected impact of the “North-South Region” vision Assets: (i) Complementarity between Europe (capital, know how) and its neighbours (markets, labour forces) (ii) a regulated relationship (trade agreements but also environment, labour rights, …) (iii) Europe peripheral territories are boosted (iv) the European region becomes the major one in the World Shortcomings: 0 (it’s politics, stupid !)

61. CONCLUSION 2 answers to CPMR

62. + + + GLOBAL/ EUROPEAN CONTEXT EUROPEAN / NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTEXT EUROPEAN/ NATIONAL/REGIONAL CONTEXT NATIONAL/REGIONAL/ LOCAL CONTEXT TERRITORIAL COHESION ? Toward multiscalar governance

63. RETHINKING CPMR ? From peripheries to interface

64. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION !