‘Local endogenous development and urban regeneration of small alpine towns’ Highlights concerning the working groups held in Milan Gian Paolo Torricelli

‘Local endogenous development and urban regeneration of small alpine towns’ Foreword This contribution synthesizes the proposals and the observations of the SSC (Scientific steering committee) of AlpCity trans-national cooperation project, in the meeting of Milan in June The goals of AlpCity have been aggregated in the 4 Work Packages (WP): 1.(WP6 Economic development) the study of alternatives to supplying in consumer goods, compatible with new models of distribution for the local handicraft; 2.(WP7 Services and quality of life) the improvement of the quality of life in the small towns of the Alps, and in particular of the services addressed to the young generations; 3.(WP8 Urban environment) the recovery of the sense of belongings and the local identity through the valorisation of natural or cultural heritage (guidelines for the recovery of the built environment); 4.(WP9 Cooperation among towns) the networking, through the exchange of local experiences.

‘Local endogenous development and urban regeneration of small alpine towns’ The 4 WP / keywords WP5 Economic development : sustainable development / study of alternatives to supplying in consumer goods, compatible with new models of distribution for the local handicraft in the small alpine towns. The several local projects was well started and advanced, however the experts have expressed several questions: How the participatory processes and especially the population’s involvement were developed? Which kinds of quantitative data (e.g. which kind of socio- economic indicators) were considered? Which practical methodology was implemented (e.g. questionnaire, which kind of sample in the focus groups)? Were similar realities considered during the implementation of the case studies? And in which way?

‘Local endogenous development and urban regeneration of small alpine towns’ The 4 WP / keywords WP6: Services and quality of life / keyword: participatory process. Goals: to increase the quality of life making more attractive the life in the peripheral areas of the Alps, making a new policy of network (of youth interesting or librairies) addressed to the young generations. In terms of participatory process, in the several case-studies some differences have appeared. In the case of the Niederoesterreich Region (that have a longer experience in this task), the most important levers for the development of the local projects (and from the participation) and that could in future represent as many best practises, are: Transparency  it deals with quality and quantity of citizens’ involvement. Actually the problem is not the method, but its application. The principle of transparency also refers to the engagement of the most of stakeholders. Support  it refers to the support projects must provide local communities with (that he himself defined as “coaching” in his previous speech). Without this element local communities have many difficulties from an economic and a technical point of view in developing a participatory planning process.

‘Local endogenous development and urban regeneration of small alpine towns’ The 4 WP / keywords WP7: Urban environment Aim/Keyword: the valorisation of local identity by recovery actions of the heritage (natural or cultural landscape /built patrimony). Excellent panel of projects of recovery and remaking the image of the small towns. In the first place the tourism is appeared in a generalized manner like the only issue of the pilot cases. In the second place, the problems and the opportunities of a museum in the territory have focused the attention. The relationships between local development, tourism development and the local identity are not appeared sufficiently clear in the various projects. In fact, tourism is surely an important issue for the local development of mountains communities, but in truth it cannot and it could not be developed everywhere.

‘Local endogenous development and urban regeneration of small alpine towns’ The 4 WP / keywords WP8 Networking The entire WP is realized from the Rhône- Alpes region The villages, that answered to the Region’s call, asked for methods to go further in terms of strategies rather than for equipment or money. The resources for the local development are linked to the local cultural specificities. The small villages which don’t have a monumental patrimony, have some other resources such as mining resources or literature works that could became the enter key for the local sustainable development. The problem is that this kind of projects were developed only by one partner.

‘Local endogenous development and urban regeneration of small alpine towns’ Synthesis A red line between the projects in the several WP exists, since they pursue generally similar objectives. These general aims are: –Development of the participatory processes of the local population (all the pilot cases); –Development of the cooperation among small towns (9 pilot cases)? –Elaboration of model case studies or best practices (9 projects); –Creation of guidelines (6 projects all in the WP7).

‘Local endogenous development and urban regeneration of small alpine towns’ Synthesis In particular over the participatory process, that structure the entire AlpCity project, the SSC expressed the following questions, that we will see the answers this afternoon: what kind of reaction the participatory processes (PPs) receive from the local people and stakeholders?; what kind of difficulties the PPs have encountered up to now?; what PPs are doing to guarantee the sustainability of the project, and in particular in the economic issue of the projects?; what are the main obstacles encountered by the PPs for a fruitful co-operation (the WP8, in spite of the goods results, is objectively not very representative with a single partner)?

‘Local endogenous development and urban regeneration of small alpine towns’ Provisional conclusion In the final debate of Milan, the SSC expressed some general evaluations of the development of the local projects (or case-studies): 1.Different cultural background. We have seen that even the terminology is used differently. Therefore, sometime we don’t understand each other. 2.Different languages. Even if we choose a common project’s language, it is often very difficult its concrete adoption from all the actors involved in the project. Therefore, to speak different languages become a real problem, which creates different misunderstandings. 3.Different rules and laws. The different Partners have different national structures, rules and laws. These differences have some consequences in relation to the financial and administrative aspects. When we finalise a project’s budget it is very difficult to consider these aspects that later on affect the real project’s implementation. 4.Lack of time. A project usually lasts two or tree years. However if we consider that we normally need at least 6 months for its starting, the time for the real cooperation is reduced. 5.Have a good leadership. Actually a successful project’s implementation depends on the leadership role carried out by the Leading Partner. Without and efficient and effective leadership a project will fail. 6.Internal cooperation and internal communication. The presence of a large number of partners requires an efficient communication system. Each actor involved in a project has to contribute to the communication activities in order to achieve the suitable results.