For debate in the Standing Committee — see Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure

Doc. 9992

3 November 2003

Sustainable development of mountain regions

Report

Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs

Rapporteur: Mr Renzo Gubert, Italy, Group of the European People’s Party

Summary

European mountain regions constitute an exceptional heritage which must be developed and preserved. However, their particular characteristics (such as difficulty of access, low population density and ecological vulnerability) make living conditions there more difficult – which is why it is indispensable to guarantee mountain populations a standard of living equivalent to that found in other more favoured rural and urban regions.

Mountain policy must not be limited to protecting the natural heritage but also seek to guarantee sustainable socio-economic development because the specific nature of mountain regions needs a different approach to that of rural regions.

The Parliamentary Assembly, which gave its full backing to the European Charter on mountain regions in 1995 and to the European outline Convention on mountain regions in 2000 (both drawn up by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE)), fully supports the initiative of the CLRAE to transform the two aforementioned draft instruments into a European Charter for Mountains, with a view to arriving at a common pan-European policy on mountain regions.

I.       Draft recommendation

1.       Mountain regions have to contend with a set of problems stemming from their geoclimatic characteristics such as difficulty of access, low population density, ecological vulnerability. In addition, they supply other regions with vital services and products, such as water, high quality environment, quality products and the management of irreplaceable landscapes.

2.       The specific nature of mountain regions is such that, even though some of the problems facing these regions are the same as those of rural regions, in no circumstances can they be approached in the same way.

3.       Furthermore, it is indispensable that mountain regions policy is not solely a preservation policy aimed at protecting the natural heritage constituted by these regions but is also a conservation policy which seeks to guarantee sustainable socio-economic development of their communities.

4.       To do so, the development of Europe’s mountain regions must also form part of a strategy for achieving a better regional balance within an overall spatial planning policy for the whole of Europe.

5.       Aware of this situation, the Parliamentary Assembly has kept a close eye on the situation of Europe’s mountain regions, with a view to aiding the introduction of specific policies capable of meeting the needs and legitimate expectations of their communities.

6.       In this connection, it contributed to the drawing up of and gave its full backing firstly to the European Charter on mountain regions in 1995 and then to the European outline convention on mountain regions in 2000, both put forward by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE).

7.       The Assembly deeply regrets that the Committee of Ministers did not think it expedient at that time to adopt this instrument and open it to signature and ratification by the member states, not recognising the merits of an instrument that could provide a framework for a pan-European mountain policy, including for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

8.       It is with satisfaction that the Assembly has taken note of Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe Recommendation 130 (2003) to transform the two aforementioned draft instruments into a European Charter for Mountains, a document with strong political ramifications but non-binding for the member states, which could be the subject of a Committee of Ministers Recommendation to Council of Europe member states.

9.       In addition, the Assembly welcomes the outcome of the Conference organised by its Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs in Cavalese (Trento) from 16 to 18 June 2003 on “Sustainable Development of Mountain Regions, European Transit Policy and the Challenge of Globalisation”, which was a further contribution to discussion on the major problems facing European mountains. It supports the final declaration adopted by the Conference and in particular the backing voiced for the efforts of the Assembly and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities for a Charter for Mountains, which is unfortunately non-binding for the member states but which sets out the basic principles for a suitable pan-European policy on mountain regions.

10.       The Parliamentary Assembly therefore recommends that the Committee of Ministers respond positively to the initiative of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities as laid out in its Recommendation 130 (2003) by adopting a Recommendation to member states on the European Charter for Mountains, with a view to arriving at a common pan-European policy on mountain regions.

II.       Explanatory memorandum by Mr Gubert

1.       Introduction

1.       For many years the Parliamentary Assembly has been following the situation of mountain regions, mindful of their specific features and of the need to ensure that they make the most of their potential.

2.       It has been the Assembly’s constant concern to take account - at the regional, national and European levels - of the needs, expectations and difficulties of mountain regions, refusing to let them be considered as “disadvantaged” areas but rather demanding that particular attention be paid to them taking account of their special features.

3.       Given the importance of local and regional realities in this context, the Assembly has engaged in regular co-operation with representatives of mountain regions both at institutional level, eg through the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, and by means of voluntary associations such as the European Association of Elected Representatives of Mountain Regions (AEM), Euromontana and the International Centre for Alpine Environments (ICALPE).

4.       Where the Council of Europe is concerned, the Parliamentary Assembly has helped organise conferences of mountain regions and also contributed to the preparation of the draft European Charter of Mountain Regions, which was approved by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers in 1995. The same year, the Assembly came down in favour of this draft Charter and adopted Recommendation 1274 (1995) requesting the Committee of Ministers to make the Charter a contractual instrument to be submitted to member countries for adoption.

5.       In view of the then geopolitical context, the value of this instrument was to provide the countries of central and eastern Europe with a contractual framework laying down the main lines for sustainable development of their mountain regions which, following the opening up of these countries, would be confronted with various economic, tourist, agricultural, social and other challenges.

6.       Where western Europe was concerned, the authors would have liked the new instrument to operate in parallel to the Alpine Convention, without affecting the latter’s scope in any way.

7.       The first version of the draft Charter was deemed too binding on governments, and was not approved by the Committee of Ministers.

8.       Wishing to take account of the reservations expressed by some governments about any kind of binding instrument, the CLRAE, again fully supported by the Parliamentary Assembly, presented the Committee of Ministers with a draft outline Convention which was much less demanding on member States but which nonetheless still offered the advantage of an indicative frame for sustainable development of mountain areas.

9.       In spite of the efforts expended at various levels and the commitment shown by many members of the Congress and Assembly, this instrument fared no better than the first one, and the scruples, reservations, and obstacles to any binding instrument on the European mountains again won the day.

2.       International Year of Mountains 2002

10.       The year 2002, which the United Nations declared International Year of Mountains, was an opportunity for the institutions, specialised organisations and associations to draw the attention of the relevant sectors, including European decision-makers, to the problems facing mountain regions and the legitimate ambitions of mountain populations in ensuring sustainable development of their regions, as reflected in an economically, socially and also culturally satisfactory quality of life.

11.       The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe also used this opportunity to contribute to such efforts to promote mountain areas. The report presented at the June 2002 session by Enrico Borghi (Italy) and Miljenko Doric (Croatia) was very much aimed at such a goal.

12.       Entitled “A new political project for Europe’s mountains: turning disinherited mountain areas into a resource”, this report clearly stresses the function of the European mountain as a morphological, cultural and historic link, highlighting the fact that while many mountain regions (especially in central and eastern Europe) are facing major socio-economic problems, others, particularly in the Alps, are undergoing considerable development.

13.       We can only agree with the CLRAE Rapporteurs’ convictions concerning the need to address the whole territory and its development comprehensively, without drawing undue distinctions, by incorporating mountain regions into an integrated, global type of development planning.

14.       To that end we must stop classifying mountain regions as disadvantaged areas. Although some of them do face considerable difficulties, as mentioned above, not all the reasons for this situation stem from their morphological characteristics.

15.       However, we must give mountain regions the appropriate instruments for taking up the challenges of sustainable development.

16.       Nevertheless, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe has not confined itself to adopting the above-mentioned policy report. It has reaffirmed the need for a commitment to mountains, even a minimum one, on the part of Council of Europe member States.

17.       The decision was therefore taken to prepare a declaratory European Charter for Mountains, which, while drawing on the two previous texts, has the advantage of not necessarily requiring signature and ratification by the member States of the Council of Europe (see CLRAE Recommendation 130 (2003) and its appendix “European Charter for Mountains” in Appendix 1).

18.       In this way, the Congress aims to actively promote the mountain regions and, in framing future European policies, to confirm the major role played by local and regional authorities - with respect for the principles defended by the European Charter of Local Self-Government - in organising their respective territories.

19.       The new Charter as prepared by the Congress should help to define a joint pan-European project for mountain regions and to promote, at the local, regional, national and European levels, a new form of co-operation among all those who share in the resources of Europe’s mountains.

20.       Indeed, within a comprehensive, integrated approach to our territory, we must fully incorporate the mountain into a territorial project based on territorial interdependence.

21.       I am completely convinced of the need for and the usefulness of the Congress’ activities here, and consider that they should be fully backed by the committee and the Assembly.

3.       The Cavalese Conference

22.       The Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, in its determination to contribute to this new work on behalf of mountain regions, organised a Conference on the sustainable development of such regions in Cavalese (Trento, Italy) on 16 and 17 June 2003.

23.       The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe helped organise this event, and the Autonomous Province of Trento and the Municipality of Cavalese offered their hospitality and also took part in the Conference.

24.       One of the Conference’s aims (see programme in Appendix 2) was to look at the new problems facing the populations of mountain areas because of increasing globalisation.

25.       Obviously, such problems primarily concern economic activities and the service sector, but they also involve the maintenance of environmental quality and communication and transit networks.

26.       The Conference firstly noted that the transition from a rural subsistence economy to an industrial market economy, which has been taking place for over a century in Europe, has changed the geographical distribution of production, generally to the detriment of mountain areas, which are less able to take advantage of economies of scale and savings resulting from concentration.

27.       Nevertheless, the problems, that became increasingly evident, first in the major urban and industrial centres and then in the service metropolises, especially as regards the quality of life, and the new opportunities for countering them to some extent, stemming from the increase in leisure time and increased mobility within the territory as a result of technical progress, have provided mountain areas with new opportunities.

28.       In fact, they have become – especially where the development of tourism is concerned – residential areas, whether for people living there permanently, temporarily or as tourists, areas for leisure pursuits and places where people go for health reasons. Many mountain areas that are not too far from urban centres, and others which have valuable environmental assets, have reversed the demographic decline caused by the population exodus, while some have even been subjected to strong pressure from people wanting to settle there, which raises social, cultural and environmental problems.

29.       It was moreover noted that the growth in the disposable income of large sections of Europe’s population has made for higher-quality consumption that differs from mass consumption. This consumption of quality products is more profitable for the producers. Mountain areas are well placed to respond to this new demand from consumers, because of the pedoclimatic diversity of the territory and the continuing variety of cultural traditions, including production techniques. Some mountain areas have, for instance, specialised in particular types of farm produce and cottage-industry products that can provide an adequate income.

30.       However, it was reiterated that the progress of globalisation, which is particularly obvious in communication and transport systems and in the increased difficulty of screening the people, goods and messages crossing frontiers, throws up new challenges to the partial equilibrium achieved by many mountain areas as a result of new residential facilities, tourist amenities and types of production geared to market niches.

31.       Concerning the influence on mountain regions of new technologies, the information technology revolution should make it possible for service and production activities that are less amenable to economies of scale and concentration to be sited in mountain areas, bringing relative advantages. Are there any signs of this?

32.       Moreover, increased mobility is jeopardising the traditional balance of tourism patterns, exacerbating competition between tourist resorts. Is there any information about the effects of this? Does the new clientele from afar outweigh the lost clientele from the surrounding area or vice versa?

33.       What sort of restructuration is required of residential facilities and tourist amenities and what changes are needed in agricultural, cottage-industry and service activities in order to meet the demand for higher-quality goods and services, particularly for wholesome, high-quality food and a healthy and pleasant environment?

34.       In an increasingly global market, are there new forms of competition even for products for specialised markets? Are the new globalisation processes expected to increase or reduce the functional and cultural dependency of mountain areas?

35.       It was also underlined in this context, and particularly with regard to the prospect of market economy activities in mountain areas, that there is another challenge, concerning the range of public services available to mountain communities.

36.       Because of the rise in the standard of living in many socio-economic systems, there has generally been an increase in the quantity of services that the political organisers of these systems have seen fit to offer the population, alongside those that can be obtained through the market and self-help groups. In many cases this has also benefited mountain communities, which have seen increased educational, healthcare, cultural, sports and entertainment facilities.

37.       The increasing globalisation of the market, which is matched by ever-fiercer competition between socio-economic systems with different degrees of social and environmental protection, has, moreover, gradually prompted states to curb public spending so that they can reduce the tax on production and employers’ social security contributions.

38.       This has led to policies of cutting back on guaranteed public services, streamlining and privatising the provision of services, and converting the contributions required of users from taxes into charges (which are more closely dependent on production costs).

39.       These processes, in particular streamlining and privatisation, are likely to hit mountain communities much harder than others, because of the small number of inhabitants and low population density.

40.       Concerning minimum quantitative thresholds, it was noted that these are being established for the provision of certain services, often calculated on the basis of optimum scenarios taken from analyses of areas with medium population densities concentrated to an average degree in population centres, without taking account of the fact that densities are much lower than average in mountain areas and there are fewer transport and communication facilities and far fewer connections between networks. It is much more difficult for private-sector services to make a profit in areas with a low population density and scattered population centres.

41.       As a result, the number of places in mountain areas with public services, administrative offices, postal services, primary and secondary schools and local hospitals is dwindling. This is compounded by trends affecting private sector services, in particular shops.

42.       The issue the Conference addressed in this connection was that of the sustainability of these processes in the light of the need to ensure that there continue to be opportunities to live in mountain areas, particularly those where the population is scattered and there is a low population density.

43.       Is the "mobility revolution" throwing up new organisational opportunities that will make it possible to provide services in mountain areas? Are there elements of the prevailing culture that can be used to justify organising the geographical distribution of services on the basis of an accessibility threshold below which it is not permitted to fall?

44.       There are examples of cases where a novel approach has been taken in mountain areas to the organisation of schooling, healthcare, cultural amenities, social services and public transport so as to improve access to these services with due regard for the fact there are sectors of the population that are not very mobile.

45.       Both these sets of problems – those relating to business and those relating to public services – raise a third important issue – that of the ability of mountain communities, given their current political and administrative set-up, to address these challenges effectively and efficiently.

46.       This issue has often been dealt with hastily by forcing or encouraging municipalities to join together, with little regard for settlement pattern of the population. Grouping together numerous scattered mountain villages in a single municipality does not produce the savings and managerial skills that can be found in a municipality with the same population located in a single population centre.

47.       Moreover, the very processes of globalisation have extended the boundaries of the areas in which day-to-day social, business, cultural and political contacts take place. Villages have become less and less self-contained, and larger community hubs covering valleys, districts or whole areas have been set up. Attempts to give these areas "political" status have, however, been sporadic and timid, even in a country like Italy, which set up "mountain communities" over thirty years ago.

48.       In this connection, the conference discussed ways of breaking the current deadlock and dispelling uncertainty, highlighting the advantages and possible drawbacks of allocating political status to these new, broader communities, and drew up guidelines suggesting courses of action for all mountain communities, for they are all too often represented only at municipal level and sidelined in geographically larger and more functional administrative authorities.

49.       But mountain areas are not only a "problem" (or an asset) for the population living in them, but also for the lowland population and the inhabitants in big cities outside mountain areas. There are interaction problems, especially when it comes to transport. Globalisation has increased the demand for transport. This has had an environmental impact but has also given rise to new opportunities. The transport and communication (including electronic communication) connections between large metropolises facilitate

contacts between mountain areas and major centres, but the reduction in spatial friction may have a variety of contrasting effects: there may be increased functional dependency or it may be easier to perform certain functions in respect of which mountain areas have a competitive advantage. The environmental impact of these connections varies greatly according to the means of transport. The relationship between the availability of infrastructure and the demand for transport is anything but clear.

50.       In deciding on strategies for addressing global competition, moreover, the big metropolises can now choose between different options, some of which avoid the need to cross mountain ranges. In Europe, the large-scale process of integrating the economies of eastern Europe with those of the European Union has certainly undermined the importance of north-south connections across the Alps and the Pyrenees.

51.       The conference took stock of the main means of crossing mountain ranges and assessed the pros and cons, funding problems and compatibility with an adequate quality of life for the communities living along major transport routes. Under what conditions can what constitutes a problem for metropolises outside mountain areas be transformed into an asset for mountain areas?

52.       From all the contributions it was possible, with the help of appropriate documentation, to pinpoint the new opportunities that globalisation is throwing up for mountain regions and the new measures mountain communities need to take to tackle its potentially negative consequences.

53.       Lastly, the preparation of conventions for particular European mountain regions that can take account of the features of each one, and the production of a broader "Charter of mountain regions" provide an important opportunity to lay down principles and general rules in the interests of mountain communities generally. These form part of the common heritage of European society as a whole, faced as it is with the challenges of globalisation and the need to find the strategies most appropriate to Europe’s situation.

54.       The Conference was an opportunity for ascertaining the progress of such processes, contributing to their development and obtaining confirmation of the need for a non-binding legal instrument setting out the necessary framework for future sustainable development of the mountain.

55.       The two days’ work ended with the adoption of a Final Declaration (see Appendix 3). This document recalled the extent of the work carried out by the Council of Europe on mountain issues. The participants expressed the hope that the efforts to promote mountain regions would continue, despite the fact that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe had failed to act on the proposals of the Parliamentary Assembly and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe.

56.       It is important to realise that the major current problems with sustainable development - including climatic change, transport policies and management of natural resources - are even more difficult in the case of mountain areas.

57.       It is therefore vital to prioritise the problems of these regions in order to guarantee optimum economic, social and environmental development.

58.       It was stressed that the Parliamentary Assembly and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe could play an important role in achieving this goal by stressing the need for full participation by governments.

59.       It is important in this context that we do our utmost to ensure the success of a genuine pan-European mountain policy.

Appendix 1

Recommendation 130 (2003)1 on the European Charter for Mountains

The Congress,

1. Having regard to its Recommendation 75 (2000) on the draft European outline convention on mountain regions;

2. Taking account of its Resolution 136 (2002) on the International Year of the Mountains, in which the Congress considered it desirable to prepare a draft non-binding instrument of the Council of Europe on mountain regions;

3. Having prepared to this end the draft Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the "European Charter for Mountains" set out below;

4. Invites the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to support the draft;

5. Recommends that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopt a Recommendation to member States on the "European Charter for Mountains" on the basis of the draft set out below and to that end suggests that, after receiving the opinion of the Parliamentary Assembly, it transmit the draft Recommendation to the Steering Committee on Local and Regional Democracy.

The Committee of Ministers, pursuant to Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe,

1. Considering that the Council of Europe has as its objective to reinforce as much as possible both economic and social cohesion between its members and local and regional democracy in Europe;

2. Recalling in that regard the recommendations made and the commitments given at the Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and more particularly Chapter 13 of Agenda 21;

3. Taking into consideration also the European Landscape Convention (ETS No. 176);

4. Recalling also Action Theme 10 on mountain ecosystems of the European Biological and Landscape diversity Strategy approved by the Ministers of the Environment meeting in 1995;

5. Noting that the particular circumstances of mountain regions make it more difficult to meet the basic needs of their inhabitants but that it is none the less necessary to guarantee the populations of mountain regions the right to live and work in the mountains, the preservation of their living environment, and an environment, conditions and standard of living equivalent to other more favoured rural and urban regions;

6. Convinced that the populations of mountain regions and their natural environment constitute the basis of the richness of mountain regions and that these regions cannot fulfil the role demanded by the general interest unless their landscape and their natural resources are protected, an appropriate human presence is maintained and economic development and adequate protection and management of the environment are implemented;

7. Considering that any policy on the mountain regions must rely primarily on the local and regional authorities, which are closest to the territories, inhabitants and problems of mountain regions, and that it is appropriate, in full compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, to encourage cooperation between these authorities and to support any initiatives which they may take;

8. Recalling in this regard the European Charter of Local Self-Government (ETS No. 122);

9. Considering that the European mountains constitute an exceptional heritage which must be developed and preserved and that it is necessary to defend and foster their development by ensuring that the social identity, traditions and culture of their populations are respected and preserved;

10. Taking into account the fact that certain mountain regions are frontier areas and the problems in implementing coherent policies on both sides of frontiers;

11. Recalling in this regard the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities (ETS No. 106), known as the Madrid Convention of 1980, and the additional protocols thereto (ETS Nos 159 and 169);

12. Recalling all the Resolutions and Recommendations relating to mountains, the countryside, spatial planning and protection of the environment adopted by the relevant European Conferences of Ministers, by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (in particular Resolution 202 (1989) of the then Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe and Recommendations 14 (1995) and 75 (2000)), by the Parliamentary Assembly (in particular Recommendations 1274 (1995), 1433 (1999) and 1575 (2002) and by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe;

13. Taking account, for the Alps, of the 1991 Salzburg Convention on the Protection of the Alps;

14. Continuing on the path of its Recommendation (2002)1 to member States on guiding principles for sustainable spatial development of the European continent, which defines a pan-European policy for spatial planning that necessarily entails measures of economic and social development, the protection and management of natural resources and respect for local traditions and cultures, including in mountain regions;

15. Asserts that mountain regions, which occupy large territories in Europe and play a significant role in the general interest, especially at the environmental, economic, social and cultural levels and which in their diversity - that should be preserved and promoted - experience economic and social problems and common environmental problems owing to their particular geomorphological and climatic situations, must be the subject in member States, or where appropriate between a number of member States, of a special, integrated policy of development, planning, management and protection, such policy to be implemented by all appropriate means, in accordance with the text of the European Charter for Mountains set out in the Appendix to this Recommendation;

16. Accordingly, recommends that member States:

a. adapt their legislation and practices both at national level and within the European Union, in accordance with the text of the European Charter for Mountains set out in the Appendix to this recommendation;

b. promote cooperation between territorial communities in mountain areas: at domestic level, in particular by means of cooperation between municipalities or between regions or by any other specific form of inter-territorial cooperation, or, where frontiers between States within a group of mountains so require, by means of trans-frontier cooperation, with provision where necessary for international, bilateral or multilateral framework agreements on trans-frontier mountain areas, while insuring an effective and rapid implementation of the agreements;

c. inform the Council of Europe of the action taken at national level on the provisions of this recommendation;

Appendix to the Recommendation: "European Charter for Mountains"

Recognising that the European mountains constitute an exceptional heritage which must be developed and preserved, in particular by the protection and promotion of the diversity of their populations, which means ensuring that their social identity, traditions and culture are respected and preserved,

The member States of the Council of Europe will endeavour:

1. To make provision for legal recognition of the specific nature of mountain regions, which must be reflected both in the organisation of political and administrative structures and in specific policies in particular sectors of activity;

2. To draw up and implement a spatial development policy in mountain regions which will favour the sustainable development of traditional activities while respecting and protecting the environment, such policy being based an a global assessment of human and natural resources, breaking away from the traditional dichotomy between economic development and protection of the natural environment and seeking to strike a balance between human activities and ecological requirements. This policy must favour agriculture, forestry

and craft industries and must also be capable of ensuring the preservation of the natural environment and of forming the essential basis for any other complementary economic activity. The objectives of such a policy will include:

a. retaining the populations in the area and combating the exodus of young persons;

b. preserving the identity and dissemination of the cultural values specific to mountain regions and to each homogeneous mountain area;

c. establishing or modernising the infrastructures and facilities necessary for improving the quality of life of the populations and the development of the mountain regions and for making it possible in particular to guarantee access to these areas by an adequate transport system and also the maintenance and improvement of public services adapted to the specific features of mountain regions;

d. relocating certain State activities to mountain areas;

e. promoting the energy resources peculiar to the mountains and thus making it possible to take advantage of endogenous resources and to exploit the hydroelectric potential in a way compatible with environmental requirements, while allowing mountain communities to benefit from the income generated by their hydroelectric resources;

f. preserving farmland and pastureland and maintaining and modernising agricultural activities by an approach specific to mountain agriculture;

g. conserving existing industry and craft industries and establishing activities based on new technology;

h. developing the tertiary sector, and in particular tourism, as a complement to the traditional way of life;

3. To take into consideration and to recognise, so far as possible, the geographic entity constituted by each mountain area, in order to provide a democratic framework which will allow the populations concerned to express their views and also in order to ensure that existing or future administrative divisions do not constitute a barrier to the implementation of mountains policy;

4. To ensure that any policy on spatial planning and the development of mountain regions is conceived and implemented in such a way as to give priority to the interests of the populations concerned. To this end, the instruments of such a policy should take the form of global, integrated plans and programmes, drawn up at the most appropriate territorial level - local, regional, national or transfrontier - and applicable in areas reflecting both the affinities of the populations and criteria of geographic homogeneity and functional coherence;

5. To develop a policy of economic and financial aid and of tax incentives in mountain regions aimed in particular at:

a. introducing equalisation and aid systems, including tax aid, for less advantaged mountain regions, such systems having as their particular purpose the attainment of the objectives set out at paragraph 2 above and applying particularly to areas in which incomes are below the acceptable level;

b. compensating for the natural or ecological constraints inherent in mountain areas and for restrictions on use imposed by regulation or by contract;

c. remunerating the ecological services performed by mountain populations, particularly as regards the maintenance of the landscape and protection against natural risks;

d. facilitating the maintenance and establishment of farms and of craft, commercial or industrial undertakings which use non-polluting technologies;

e. facilitating the settlement of young persons in mountain areas, especially in the agricultural, craft and tourist sectors and in the public sector.

6. In accordance with the European Charter of Local Self-Government, to ensure that responsibility for decision-making on these matters lies with the authorities closest to the citizen. Where appropriate, States will establish and ensure the functioning of the procedures and measures necessary for local and regional authorities to be effectively associated with the definition, drafting and application of the measures dictated by this policy, in a manner consistent with their respective powers and with the principle of subsidiarity;

7. To ensure that the management and implementation of such plans and programmes are carried out in the most decentralised manner possible, in application of the principle of subsidiarity, since the local and regional authorities that operate directly in the mountain areas and are most familiar with their specific problems are in a position to mobilise local players to promote the widest range of social, economic and cultural activity.

8. To ensure that the powers and financial resources of the local and regional bodies are reinforced and extended in order to promote the mountains policy.

Appendix 2

Programme of the Conference on Sustainable Development of Mountain Regions, European Transit Policy and the Challenge of Globalisation

Cavalese (Italy), 16-17 June 2003

Monday 16 June 2003

9:30 am       Opening of the Conference

11:00 am       Introductory report:

2:30 pm       Sustainable development of mountain regions and the challenge of globalisation: environment, spatial development, agriculture …

4:30 pm       Discussion

Tuesday 17 June 2003

9:30 am       Transit traffic and communications

11:15 am       The viewpoint of NGOs and discussion

2:30 pm       Legal instruments

3:30 pm       Discussion

4:30 pm       Conclusions

Appendix 3

Final declaration of the Conference on the Sustainable Development of Mountain Regions, European Transit Policy and the Challenge of Globalisation

Cavalese (Italy), 16-17 June 2003

The participants at the Conference on the Sustainable Development of Mountain Regions, European Transit Policy and the Challenge of Globalisation representing mountain municipalities, regions, parliaments and associations, held in Cavalese (Trento, Italy) from 16 to 17 June 2003,

Thank:

Welcome the work the Council of Europe has been doing for many years to help mountain regions and enable them to benefit from sustainable development, thereby guaranteeing their social and economic development and the preservation and enhancement of their cultural, natural and landscape heritage;

Underline, in particular, the work undertaken in 1995 by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, with strong support from the Parliamentary Assembly, on the preparation of a European Charter of Mountain Regions with convention status, as adopted by the Congress (Recommendation 14 (1995)) and approved by the Parliamentary Assembly (Recommendation 1274 (1995)).

Regret that the proposal was not taken up at the time and welcome the fact that the CLRAE seized the opportunity of the International Year of the Mountains to reiterate the principles of the European Charter of Mountain Regions in Recommendation 130 (2003) to be submitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for adoption, which they fully support;

Reassert the need to take account of the specific features of mountain regions and the role they can play in the integrated and balanced development of the European continent, as well as the obligation to ensure satisfactory social and economic conditions for the population of mountain regions.

In addition, they also underline that sustainable management of the forestry resources, of mountain regions in particular, is essential to counter climate change across our continent;

Moreover, development opportunities in mountain regions are largely governed by climate change resulting from inappropriate energy policies, which the Kyoto Protocol seeks to curtail;

In this connection, underline the need to enable mountain regions to meet the challenges of globalisation without suffering its negative consequences and point out that the specific and original features of mountain regions give them a chance to assert their identity against the standardising trends of globalisation, thanks to their biological, cultural and socio-economic diversity. To that end, special importance must be attached to awareness-raising, training and educational measures in both the education system and information systems and electronic media;

Are aware of the crucial importance that must be attached to sustainable transport policies and particularly to the problem of transit traffic, which should not pose an unacceptable threat to the environment of the regions concerned. Where freedom of choice of means of transport conflicts with public health, the latter must take precedence. They therefore call for the development of base tunnels to enable lorry traffic to be transferred to railways, drawing on the Swiss authorities' policy choices; gradual harmonisation of pricing and regulations applicable to transit traffic across Europe's mountain ranges is also necessary;

Believe that all policies on mountain regions, including transport matters, must fit into the overall framework of a pan-European regional/spatial planning policy, while nevertheless being based primarily at local authority level and involving cross-border co-operation and co-operation between different authorities, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;

In this context, they consider that territorial units such as the Italian “comunità montane” provide a model for local governance that should not be undermined, but on the contrary encouraged and promoted;

Consider that mountains should not only be protected natural areas, tourist areas and dormitory areas for urban regions, but should be regarded as living areas capable of providing their inhabitants with employment and high-quality public services. European society should remunerate mountain regions for the resources with which they supply it, especially water, a high-quality environment, quality products and irreplaceable landscape assets;

In this connection, special thanks must go to farmers in mountain regions for the services they render in protecting the environment;

Are convinced of the potential advantages of a Charter for Mountains, setting out the principles of a European policy on mountain regions that would provide a coherent framework for action by European authorities, in particular local and regional authorities in the areas concerned, as well as for European co-operation processes such as the European intergovernmental consultation on sustainable development of mountain regions initiated in 1996 by the United Nations as part of the follow-up to Agenda 21, which it would be well worth reactivating under the aegis of the Council of Europe;

In view of the above, call on:

- the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe:

- the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe:

- the governments of member States of the Council of Europe and the European Union:

Reporting committee: Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs

Reference to committee: Doc. 9834 and reference No. 2848 of 23 June 2003.

Draft recommendation adopted by the committee (in conformity with Rule 46.4 of the Rules of Procedure) on 24 October 2003.

Members of the committee: Mr Martinez Casañ (Chairman), MM. Meale, Gubert, Schmied (Vice-Chairmen), Mr Açikgöz, Mrs Agudo, MM. Akselsen, Andov, Annemans, Mrs Anttila (Alternate: Mrs Krohn), MM. Ates, Bruce, Çavusoglu, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr Churkin, Mrs Ciemniak, MM. Cosarciuc, Deittert, Delattre, Dokle, Duivesteijn, Duka-Zolyomi, Ekes, Etherington, Frunda, Giovanelli, Götz, Graas, Grabowski, Grachev, Grissemann, Gunnarsson, Mrs Hajiyeva, Ms Herczog, MM. Hladiy, Högmark, Ilascu (Alternate: Mocioi), Mrs Jäger, MM. Jakovljev, Jevtic, Juric, Mrs Kanelli, MM. Karapetyan, Kharitonov, Klympush, Kortenhorst (Alternate: Platvoet) Kuzvart, Lachat (Alternate: Mrs Fehr), Libicki, Lobkowicz, Loncle, Masseret, Mauro (Alternate: Nessa), Mrs Mesquita, MM. Meyer (Alternate: Goulet), Milojevic, Mincevic, Mrs Muizniece, Mr Nazaré Pereira, Mrs Ohlsson, MM. Oliverio (Alternate: Rizzi), Opmann, Podeschi, Podobnik, Popov, Pullicino Orlando, Salaridze, Ms Schicker, MM. Sfyriou, Sizopoulos, Steenblock, Ms Støjberg, Mr Stoica (Alternate: Coifan), Ms Stoyanova, MM. Timmermans, Txueka Isasti (Alternate: de Puig), Vakilov, Velikov, Wright, Zhevago.

N.B. The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in italics.

Secretariat to the committee: Mrs Cagnolati, Mr Sixto, Mr Torcatoriu and Ms Trévisan.

1 Debated and adopted by the Congress on 22 May 2003, 3rd sitting, (see doc. CG (10) 9, draft recommendation, presented by Mr V. PRIGNACHI and Mr V. KADOKHOV, rapporteurs).