AEM’s pre answers to question of the Green paper on Territorial cohesion

European association of Elected representatives from mountain regions

Association européenne des élus de montagne

Regarding the present debate on Territorial cohesion, AEM’s contribution is a mixed summary of the proposals gathered in the document “proposals for a green paper on the future of European policies for mountain ranges” and of the initiative opinion of Luis Durnwalder at the CoR on “ Toward a European Union policy for upland regions: a European vision for upland regions ”  which could be considered as a “European action plan for mountain ranges” (voted during the CoR plenary session on the 19^th June)

The final answer to the Green paper would be defined during the Conference organised in Chamonix on the 11^th of December, in the frame of the French Presidency.

1.     In your view what is the real added value of territorial cohesion as compared to economic and social cohesion (features, components, scales of intervention, etc.)?

This question, sets to define “what is territorial cohesion?» could be a double question: firstly, “what is European cohesion?” and secondly “what is a territory from an European point of view?

Cohesion seems to be well known for the long period it is a major topic for a commune policy. However, the debate on the indicators is still important to give more efficiency by really identifying where are the lack of social, economic and territorial cohesion as the territorial potentialities where and how to apply the European strategies (Lisbon, Gothenburg, Climate change, etc.).

A territory is defined throw some geographic elements that create an important number of combinations all around Europe; but it’s possible to identify some groups of territorial specificities and some coherent spaces.

Therefore, territorial cohesion is the better way to really get effective the European cohesion policy in a European Union composed of 27 Member states and 268 regions.

The diversity of Europe and its complexity bring difficulties to have a European commune policy both efficient and fair uniformly for every territory. How to find the balance position between growth (development) and solidarity or nature preservation for example, how to act both with efficiency and with equity?

There is, in a context of reduction of public funds, an urgent need of more coherence, more strategy and more efficiency. However, there is also a need of more partnership between various actors, various sectors at various levels of action.

Historically speaking, we could say that economic and social cohesion was shape to be the regional policy of the EEC; territorial cohesion should appear as the dimension of regional policy for the present and future European Union. The addition of the territorial dimension seems to be a clear progress if we consider the institutional and geographic evolution of the EU since its recent enlargements.

The territorial approach of cohesion policy could bring the EU directly to the concrete link between human factors and natural environment, core of every sustainable development policy.

The added-value of the territorial dimension of cohesion is mainly the opportunity to think and to act taking into account the diversity of territories in Europe, to open a new strategy closer to the European citizens’ daily realities, to reorganise one of the major commune policy in favour of a new European governance and to give coherence to the EU sectoral policies with territorial impact (as defined in the Territorial agenda).

2.     In what ways does territorial cohesion contribute to the Lisbon Agenda? How to prove that territorial cohesion/equity is not contradictory with competitiveness/efficiency?

The European territorial diversity revels various economic and social realities. Inside the European model, there are some territorial sub-models formed of some different economic rhythms, different economic cycles or different periods in the cycles. As an example, mountain economy is mainly defined by the additional costs due to permanent natural handicap (slope, climate, topography and dispersion of population) that CAP, Eurovignette or some other European policies have already identified and integrated.

Nowadays, if the Lisbon strategy as an economic and social policy is clearly related to local action by the economic and social cohesion policy; a problem of efficiency could be identified.

As a “pyramidal approach” policy (= “one size fits all”), turned mainly on innovation, growth and competitiveness, the Lisbon strategy could sometimes have created or accelerate the territorial disparity of Europe; because of being sometimes wrongly focused on “urban” biggest city centres and not sized for all the European Union.

Without an objective of territorial cohesion the Lisbon strategy would be, at midterm, an un-efficient policy creating unsustainable development. That seems almost clear in the new Member states where the earmarked development policy defined for the European integration is mainly focused on capital city centres, lacking behind to depopulation the rest of the country.

As an example, there are many opportunities to create jobs and growth in mountain regions, only if the Lisbon strategy would adapt its regional declination to the “mountainous sizes (or specificities)” of and not only trying to propose a “big city centre“ size. Territorial clusters are the best example of this historical reality that European industry or economy is not only made in capital cities.

Therefore, efficiency and equity are the two sides of the same figure and could also been called competitiveness and territorial cohesion.

Territorial cohesion helps to shape well the Lisbon strategy to the various potentialities and rhythms of the economic territorial realities; therefore, it’s both a factor of equity and efficiency.

3.     Why and how could more consideration to territorial cohesion be integrated in the future cohesion policy at different territorial levels – EU, trans-national, national, regional and local?

It seems that the real added-value of the integration of a territorial dimension in cohesion policy could clearly be at transnational level where it could find way to support regional or national policies, to be declined into local actions and to be structured on a geographic, economic, social and environmental coherence. For examples, mountain, as maritime, issues (which are with the border or low population dimension, two of the majors European challenges) could find a coherent lecture at range, as at “basin”, level.

There are Alpine, Carpathian, South-western (Massif central, Pyrenean and Iberic mountains), Balkanic, Nordic and Scandinavian, Mediterranean ranges; as there are Mediterranean, Atlantic, Adriatic, Northern, Baltic basins that have historically structured exchanges and daily living conditions of the Europeans.

This level of action could give sense to a real cohesion policy that could integer both the rural and the urban dimension. For mountain regions, the “ranges” concept is giving the capacity of commune strategies between the mountain area, the valley and the piedmont area, absolutely necessary for a sustainable development strategy[1].

The rural part of mountain regions as the urban part of mountain regions are linked in their destiny both by the environmental and human dimensions.

For example, the debate of the accessibility to General Interest Services is linked in mountain regions to the debate on innovation and competitiveness. The core answer of maintaining permanent population would find a opportunity of realisation only if the mountain area, the valley area and the piedmont area are working all together to valorise and preserve human knows-how and innovations as well as natural resources, to “fix” the population and give them the opportunity of good standards of living in the range limits.

This integration of territorial cohesion in the future European policy wouldn’t then be a revolution, but just a evolution of a mature policy that create the opportunities of gathering various actors (elected representatives and political authorities, socio-economic actors, environment actors) from various level (European, national, regional and local) to work on a share strategy for a coherent area.

4.     How to make EU sectoral policies decision –making more supportive of territorial cohesion and to improve the coherence between regional and sectoral EU policies? How to do it also at national, regional or local level?

The challenge is clearly the territorial coherence of the EU policies. First, there is a need of integration of cohesion policies (Regional, Employment) with rural development, as there are a need of integration between EU sectoral policies with territorial impacts and EU cohesion policies. As an example, TEN policies have a strong territorial impact; there is missing link between the two. Environmental policy has a clear territorial impact and a strong geographic dimension: where is the mountainous strategy of DG Environment concerning one third of the EU space? That’s the same EU policies for Enterprises, Information society, Transport and Energy, etc. even External relationships have a territorial dimension.

In term of efficiency, as Europe has a clear lack of public finance resources and continue to produce a lot of legal and normative frame (constrains); territorial cohesion would certainly help sectoral policies to be more strategic on some territorial specific dimensions.

Mountain regions because of their fragile environment and economic balance need integrated policy or strong territorial coherence of their institutions.

As declined in question three and in the various contribution of AEM to the Territorial agenda, we identified the challenge by looking for a coherent and large enough space of action to reinforce the hinterland solidarity between urban and rural areas. For mountain regions between mountain area, “suburban” valleys and the piedmont urban area, the range level is opening the opportunity to create more synergies between sectoral EU policies and EU regional policy (as regional policy should already do it inside cohesion policies) and to give them a regional impact and visibility and also a better image at local level. Transports, environment, agriculture, tourism, GIS, could be linked to the cohesion policy at the Alpine range level as the Alpine Convention and the Interreg B programme Alpine space are trying to do so together.

Once more a European strategy declined on coherent transnational spaces with local integrated action plans carried by local institutions at NUTS IV level (i.e. Ireland, Finland or Italian Comunita Montana …) would be a efficient solution taking into account subsidiarity and partnership as the territorial impact assessment without creating political competition with national or regional policies.

Many mountainous states or regions have developed “mountain” policies integrated or sectoral, but for all of them there is a need of having a share strategy with the EU regional and sectoral policies to become more efficient.

The French example of “politique de massifs” is therefore interesting as it gives the opportunity to make various actors of various levels and sectors working together to set up and manage a integrated territorial policy.

5.     How to tackle territorial specificities (targeted place-based approach based on the existence of natural or geographical handicaps) while ensuring the overall coherence with the wider strategic Community priorities?

The renewed Article 158 (now 174) of the Lisbon treaty gives the opportunity to define the “territorial cohesion objective” asking for a specific attention to regions with permanent natural and geographic handicaps like insular, sparsely populated, borders and mountainous regions.

The specificities of mountain regions could then be defined by the slope, the altitude, the topography, that create the climate amplitude, the dispersion of population, the additional costs, etc.

That is not enough at European level to understand what are these territories and how to structure a commune policy based on territorial specificities.

To be understood at European level, a “mountain policy” could only be a range strategy to answer the local specificities without falling into the “black hole” of local diversity. At this level of action, it would be possible to structure sustainable development strategies adapted to the thematic and political actuality (Lisbon, climate changes, etc.) but also taking into account both the diversities of institutional, economic, social and environmental situations and territorial specificities.

6.      Why and how to improve the rural-urban relationships on the ground? Do you have practical examples for this?

This answer is clearly completing the previous. A range policy is the best way to structure a strong and efficient solidarity or community of fate between the urban piedmonts and urban and suburban valleys and the rural or touristic mountain areas.

In term of competitiveness, innovation or GIS, the political conditions of an improvement of the rural-urban relationships have to be strengthened by a permanent transport and electronic networking, a permanent material effort of accessibility from the piedmont to the centre of the range and return. That means the development of high speed Internet communication and sustainable transport infrastructures across mountain regions. Policy would create the conditions of an endogenous development; the communication and transport infrastructures would keep open the possibility of a global open exogenous exchange.

7.     Territorial cooperation is one of the possible tools for assuring territorial cohesion; how do you consider it's current and future role at different territorial levels?

Since the Interact Pro Monte Project, AEM strongly believes that territorial cooperation could be one of the best inputs to reach the objective of territorial cohesion.

First, there is need of a deeper territorial integration, which is a need of more coherence between the three strands A, B and C (+ Interact). In particular, a strategy could be defined to create more synergies between the local crossborder projects and the regional transnational projects in the various transnational spaces.

Some strategic linked should also be strengthen between some institutional organisation as Euroregions, working communities and even inter-ministerial conventions (Alpine or Carpathian) working on the same territories.

Second, there is a need of a plurality of actors and a need of clarification of the who is doing what. To strengthen the partnership approach, the legitimacy, the role and the aim of the main actors have to be clear and transparent. It’s the necessary condition of an efficient partnership.

Third, there is a need of reinforce transnational cooperation throw a maximum of coherence of the spaces of cooperation taking into account that most of the regions have many territorial dimensions (the Mediterranean space is not only maritime but also mountainous and urban) and to have a better governance of the Interreg B programmes.

8.     What should be or could be the role of your Institution in promoting better territorial cohesion? What are the implications of the new Lisbon Treaty regarding the multi-level governance system and your own role?

AEM, as a network of local and regional authorities from mountain regions, is already strongly involved in the development of a European range policy by structuring progressively its work in “range committees” and thematic working groups of local and regional authorities, organising events on this transnational dimension.

AEM is also supporting at European level the declination of European thematic strategies into mountain specificities for a better impact.

AEM has proposed with Mr Durnwalder‘s opinion a European action plan for mountain ranges that could also set up a EU committee for territorial cohesion or even better a EU steering committee for the European mountain ranges strategy.

9.     How to communicate to the citizens on the complex subject of territorial cohesion? What would be the best means to convince them of the utility of the concept?

The communication to the European citizens could find a clear support throw the territorial cohesion if “territorial cohesion” wants to speak about territorial specificities more especially. European citizen mainly know in their daily life what are urban policies, maritime policies or mountain policies. If the EC needs to get closer to European citizens the best way is to speak of European maters throw a territorial point of view. That gives all the legitimacy to ask for territorial cohesion to be mainly the integration of territorial specificities into cohesion policy offering a better coordination between the EU regional policy and the EU sectoral policies, giving the opportunity to create coherence between, and even coordinate, the various national and regional policies.