Presentation on theme: "TCUM Workshop Friday 12 march 2010 Charlemagne Building, European Commission Association Européenne des élus de Montagne – AEM."— Presentation transcript:
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 CoE 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 )
MountainS 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 NordRegio 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 E UROPEAN M OUNTAIN ISSUE IS MAINLY A QUESTION OF M ULTI L EVEL G OVERNANCE What would the added value of European action for mountain ranges ? Not only a mountain policy but also urban and rural, linking mountain, valleys and piedmount areas; to imagine a step foward of multiregional/macroregional governance in a multilevel context; To avoid to act negatively (by not considering specificities and diversity). What are the main innovation mountain issue could bring to European policies ? Need of integrated or transversal policy: more coherence between cohesion policy and sectorial policies; Territorial 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 Barcas report). Special attention to initiative opinion of Luis Durnwalder voted by the CoR 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 : Half of the mountain areas as disapeared The 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 ? The territorial issue is a analysis of the organic link between environment and humain being activities (place based policy). From a European point of view, ranges give a capacity of political action considering mountain specificities.
An exemple of integrated policy in favor of mountain ranges (French massifs): POMAC & POIA : From a national law (1985) to the creation of interregional operationnal programmes for Massif central and for the Alps; Coherence between national, regional, local and European political actions. Some details. What internal governance for an added value of political action ? (Comité de massif) What scales of policy definition and intervention? Two exemples of existing experiences and exciting debates regarding mountain macroregional strategies (« massifs » or ranges).
1. macro-regional strategies are key elements for MultiLevelGovernance : from Baltic sea level to an Alpine model (EU-AlpineConv° -euroregions- crossborder 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 CoR are the visible part of interregionality (still out of the European core decision process). Elements for analysis and for action
Nicolas Evrard Secrétaire général email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org --- http://www.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 --- Association européenne des élus de montagne