Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "The future of upland areas in the EU"
Date: 2002-09-18
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU action, Structural Funds, mountain region, structural policy

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/113

7.2.1.
But reform is only possible if the balance of power
between the international institutions is altered: this however
an understanding between the European
presupposes
countries to break the present mould and speak with a single
voice, resolving the myriad political problems which this
entails.

7.2.2.
Lastly, the Committee calls on all the international
organisations (IMF, World Bank, FATF, Global Forum on
Fighting Corruption, etc.) to enter into close and effective
cooperation with each other and with national systems. The
political will to strengthen control of off-shore markets and of
links between off-shore and on-shore markets is crucial in this
regard.

Brussels, 18 September 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘The future of upland areas in the EU’

(2003/C 61/19)

On 16 January 2002 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 23(3) of its Rules of
Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on ‘The future of upland areas in the EU’.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was
responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 25 June 2002.
The rapporteur was Mr Bastian.

At its 393rd Plenary Session (meeting of 18 September 2002) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 66 votes to one with 12 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

— CoR opinion of 21 April 1995 on the European Charter

on Mountain Areas;

1.1.
Now that the UN General Assembly has designated
2002 the International Year of Mountains, the European Union
should give thought to its policy for upland and mountain
regions.

— CoR opinion of 18 September 1997 on A policy for

upland agriculture in Europe;

1.2.
The European Economic and Social Committee, the
European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions have
all expressed their concern for upland and mountain areas on
a number of occasions, and have called on the European Union
to recognise the special nature of these areas and to conduct a
proper cross-sectoral policy for them. These views are set out
in the following documents:

— EESC opinion of 28 April 1988 on A policy for upland

areas;

— report of the European Parliament’s Committee on Agri-
culture and Rural Development of 16 October 1998 on
A new strategy for mountain regions, based on an earlier
study by the EP’s Directorate-General for Research entitled
Towards a European Policy for Mountain regions (AGRI
111/FR — available in French only);

— EESC opinion of 25 April 1996 on The Alpine Arc — an

opportunity for development and integration;

— European Parliament resolution of 6 September 2001 on
25 years’ application of Community legislation for hill
and mountain farming.

C 61/114

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

1.3.
The Committee is pleased to note that in its first
progress report following the second forum on economic and
social cohesion, the Commission has turned its attention to
the future of the Structural Funds and is considering the
possibility of setting new eligibility criteria which take account
of physical problems, including those faced by upland regions.
The seminar held by the Commission on 27 and 28 May
2002, on The Union’s regional priorities — Defining Com-
munity value added, offers encouraging confirmation of the
Commission’s efforts to steer Structural Funds policy in this
direction.

2. The special position of upland areas in the EU

2.1.
The main feature of upland areas is that they suffer
from a serious geophysical handicap as a result of slope,
altitude and climate and their generally isolated situation.
These areas also have outstanding but fragile natural assets and
resources. They are thus of unique concern, and a public policy
is needed to curb over-speculation in such areas.

2.2.
Upland or mountain areas cover 30 % of the EU and
are home to 30 million of its inhabitants. This percentage is
set to increase with enlargement.

2.3.
Broadly speaking, and subject to sometimes major
variations from one upland area to another, these areas face a
number of common problems which have a marked transna-
tional character and call for a public assistance or financing
policy:

2.4. Demographic situation

Despite the existence of some particularly dynamic areas,
uplands tend to have a vulnerable demographic structure (low
population density, and ageing population as the younger
generations move away and/or pensioners move in). This is
also the case in the more mountainous of the candidate
countries.

2.5.

Public services

By virtue of their social
impact, public services (e.g. postal
services, schools, medical care) play a crucial part in determin-
ing the vitality of upland areas. These services must be available
close to the user and must be adapted to local needs (in terms
of versatility of the service providers and/or the type of services
provided). However, these services are directly threatened

by the liberalisation of public services under Community
competition law. A deliberate policy of using public services
for regional development purposes is only possible if universal
public service provision is wide enough to include profitable
services that go at least some way to offset the inevitable extra
costs of such a policy.

2.6. Communication links

Communications infrastructure and networks are a key issue
in upland areas, where isolation seriously impedes competi-
tiveness and the rise in intra-Community freight traffic puts
pressure on mountain routes and on their populations. This
pressure must be controlled and counterbalanced.

There is an increasingly urgent need to develop
2.6.1.
combined transport, particularly piggyback transport. This can
only be done within a Community framework, partly in order
to get a proper overview of the problem, notably in the context
of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) (1),
and partly in order to guarantee EU co-funding of the requisite
infrastructure.

Access to new information and communication
2.6.2.
technologies is a serious problem in upland areas, where
physical relief creates a number of technical difficulties (poor
reception, distances to be covered on the ground). This brings
significant extra costs and puts upland areas at a serious
disadvantage vis-à-vis other areas.

2.7. Tourism

Although upland areas offer obvious attractions for tourism,
this type of development must be carefully controlled so that
it complies with sustainable development principles. This
remark is particularly pertinent in the case of the applicant
countries of central and eastern Europe, where upland tourism
potential remains largely untapped. Like agriculture, tourism
cannot be the sole mainstay of the upland economy, which
must be diversified and multi-layered.

2.7.1.
To this end, and with due respect for the need for
sustainable development, upland tourism must become more
diversified so that it is spread out more evenly over the year
(better seasonal balance of visitors) and spatially (better spatial
distribution of visitors).

(1) ESC opinion on the European Spatial Development Perspective

(ESDP), OJ C 407, 28.12.1998.

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/115

2.8.

Land use

2.13. The built environment

Agriculture is a mainstay of the upland economy and plays an
irreplaceable role in the upkeep of upland areas. It also helps
in the production of premium agricultural and food products.
Upland agriculture must therefore have a specific place within
the Common Agricultural Policy, so as to ensure its continued
existence in these areas.

2.8.1.
The creation of man-made landscapes poses special
challenges in upland areas, in terms both of town planning
(risk of urban sprawl) and of natural hazards.

2.9. Natural heritage

The EU’s upland areas are rich in outstanding fauna and flora,
and this can put pressure on land development.

2.10.

Soil

The sloping terrain makes upland areas especially vulnerable
to erosion, making soil quality a particular concern both
within the area (impoverishment of the soil) and downstream
(risk of natural disasters).

2.11. Water

Upland areas play a major role in the production of water
resources, both qualitatively and quantitatively. This important
role involves a service of general interest, and the regions
concerned must be compensated for the constraints which it
places upon them.

2.12.

Energy

Town planning in upland areas faces special challenges.
Management of the built environment must provide for new
buildings and see that existing ones do not become derelict,
while also protecting the integrity of outstanding natural
landscapes and ensuring that the development of holiday
homes in these areas does not sap the vitality of permanent
settlements. Steps must be taken to involve second-home
owners more closely in the life of the area.

2.14. Natural hazards

A number of major natural hazards are specific to upland and
mountain areas (avalanches, torrential floods, rockfalls). These
areas are thus especially vulnerable and potentially hazardous,
bringing a need for permanent information, forecasting and
prevention activities.

2.15.

Economy

The upland economy enjoys a certain number of advantages
but also has vulnerable aspects which need special treatment,
e.g.
the highly seasonal nature of key activities such as
agriculture and tourism, which encourages multi-jobbing,
innovation and in some cases excellence (e.g. micromechanical
industries); and the predominance of small businesses in an
environment made difficult by their relative isolation from
suppliers or advisory services.

3. Stocktaking of Community action to help upland

areas

Full account must be taken of the contribution which upland
areas make to energy production from sources other than
fossil fuels (principally hydro-electric power, but also wind
and solar power), as this helps to meet the commitments made
in the Kyoto protocol for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
An incentive policy involving preferential tariffs for renewable
energy sources should be encouraged, with subsidies for
regions which supply this type of energy.

2.12.1.
The considerable potential which upland areas offer
for wind power must be developed with great care to prevent
widespread disfiguration of the upland landscape. Local com-
munities must be given a legal framework obliging them to
establish an overall strategy for infrastructure and guaranteeing
them a fair quid pro quo in terms of local taxation.

3.1.

Identification of upland and mountain areas: A variable
approach based on very different situations

3.1.1.
The importance attached by Community policies to
upland areas has varied over the years. Under Community law
as it currently stands, and in the absence of any recognition of
their special characteristics, there is no uniform Community
concept of upland or mountain areas. The concept appears
only in one landmark directive — directive 75/268/EEC on
hill farming — where it is used to identify potential beneficiary
areas for the compensatory allowance for permanent natural
handicaps. By providing a basis for the payment of compensa-
tory allowances in these areas, the directive formed a long-
term initiative and was backed by specific implementing and

C 61/116

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

development measures. However, Member States’ commitment
to the directive has been very uneven, largely because of the
considerable latitude they have in setting detailed parameters
for applying the altitude, slope and climate criteria specified in
the Community definition. As a result, quantitative and
qualitative divergences remain to this day.

diversified use of individual upland areas, it would be worth
exploring the possibility of subdividing current zoning sys-
tems, for instance in order to distinguish between upland and
high mountain ranges or between arid areas and areas with
snowfall. Such distinctions already exist in some Member
States (e.g. in the Austrian land registry) and it would be
helpful if they were better known at Community level so that
they could be used to optimum effect when drawing up a
harmonised Community framework.

3.1.2.
There are thus significant discrepancies between
Member States. Objectively speaking, these are justified on the
grounds that two areas with the same altitude may have
very different climates and vegetation. However,
in France,
Germany and Italy,
the qualifying altitude for a hill or
mountain area is 700 metres. In Spain, it is 1000 metres.
France and Spain also take slope into account (gradient of over
20 %), while Italy does not quantify slope and Germany does
not consider it at all. It is surprising to note that the UK has no
mountain or hill areas under the terms of directive 75/268/
EEC although the Scottish highlands, for example, fit most
people’s picture of an upland region. The accession treaties
placed Sweden and Finland north of the 62nd parallel on a par
with upland areas on the grounds that the problems and
conditions of these regions are the same as in upland areas.

The main features which distinguish upland areas
3.1.3.
from other disadvantaged regions are their particularly harsh
climate and topography. For this reason, the slope, altitude
and climate criteria remain highly relevant for grasping the
upland situation, as all upland areas have to face problems
relating to these criteria. However, it is clearly neither logical
nor desirable that an area should be recognised as an upland
in one Member State and not in another. Whilst a certain
amount of subsidiarity should be retained in the final desig-
nation of the areas concerned, it would therefore be advisable
to standardise the concept of an upland area by adapting the
current EU definition and specifying a range for each of the
three criteria (or at least for altitude and slope).

Topography and climate have a permanent influence
3.1.4.
on the economy of disadvantaged upland areas. Compensatory
measures are thus needed to preserve the multifunctional
nature of these areas. With a view to distinguishing the
common features of the EU’s upland areas more clearly and
the various
providing a more consistent classification of
categories of disadvantaged area, it would therefore be helpful,
with due respect for the subsidiarity principle, to include
climate and topography among the typical features shared by
upland areas.

Nonetheless, conditions in the different upland areas
3.1.5.
vary considerably (pasturage systems, hill
farming, arid
uplands, high mountains, etc.). With a view to making more

3.2. A multitude of measures but no guiding thread

3.2.1.
Although the Community has no explicit common
upland policy, many Community measures and regulations
have a more or less direct impact on upland areas.

3.2.2.
The first and most explicit instrument is the com-
pensatory allowance for natural handicaps established under
directive 75/268/EEC. To this day, the directive provides the
basis for upland zoning within the EU and, despite its
undoubtedly wide implications for spatial planning, it remains
under the umbrella of the CAP.

3.2.3.
Three other types of Community measure are of
special importance for upland areas, although not particularly
targeted on them. Firstly there is the Structural Funds policy;
secondly, within that policy, there is the Interreg programme;
and thirdly, there are the Wild Birds and Habitats Directives.

3.2.3.1.

Structural Funds policy

The EU’s Structural Funds seek to help less developed or
structurally disadvantaged regions to bring their economic
performance up to the Community average. These funds have
had (former Objective 5b) — and continue to have (current
Objective 2) — a major impact on many upland areas, 95 %
of which are currently eligible for Objective 1 or 2 support.
However, it must be remembered that their eligibility is not
due to the typical disadvantages they face as upland areas. The
programmes financed may not
therefore fully match the
problems that need tackling.

3.2.3.2.

Interreg

As obvious natural frontiers, most of the EU’s upland areas
qualify for Interreg A programmes. For the same reason, a
number of regions on the EU’s external borders participate in
Phare and Tacis programmes as regards transport, tourism,
changes in land use, and conservation of the natural heritage.
Although upland areas also take part in some of the Interreg B
transnational cooperation programmes (especially in south

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/117

west Europe and the Alps), their participation is more inciden-
tal, and upland areas within these very large regions have to
take very forthright action to secure recognition of their status.
Finally, although the very open interregional cooperation
framework of Interreg C would appear conducive to the
establishment of
technical cooperation networks between
upland regions, these still have to be set up from scratch (1).

3.2.3.3. The Wild Birds and Habitats Directives

A large part of the Natura 2000 network — the importance of
which has been stressed by the Committee (2) — consists of
upland areas. This is not surprising, given the rich and fragile
biodiversity of these areas. The most obvious biogeographical
example is the Alps, but many other Natura 2000 upland sites
have been proposed: a ‘continental’ system (e.g. the French
Massif Central), a ‘Mediterranean’ system (e.g. the Pindus
mountains in Greece or the Italian Apennines), a ‘Moroccan-
type’ system (Gibraltar) and an ‘Atlantic’ system (e.g. the
Cantabrian mountains in Spain). This bears witness not only
to the high quality but also to the rich diversity of the EU’s
upland heritage.

Two other types of Community action concern
3.2.4.
upland areas: water policy and the Common Agricultural
Policy.

3.2.4.1.
Upland areas are the main source of water pro-
duction, and conservation measures obviously have to be
taken there to safeguard water quality and supply. It follows
that such areas should be compensated for the constraints that
this may impose on them.

3.2.4.2. Many CAP measures (apart from the hill farming
directive) are relevant for upland areas and can provide useful
support for upland agriculture. Examples include the agri-
environmental, forestry and rural development measures, the
farm products, organic agriculture,
rules on labelling of
sectoral modernisation, and the Leader programmes.

3.2.5.
It is clear from this brief overview that there is a
whole battery of Community measures either designed for or,
more commonly, relevant to upland areas, whether directly or
potentially. Nevertheless, there is as yet no systematic EU
policy comprising measures targeted specifically at upland
areas, recognising their special features and forming a deliber-
ate cohesive strategy. This is why the Commission’s current
spatial planning review is so important; the European seminar
on mountain areas which the Commission is to stage on
17 October 2002 will be a key event for the future of the areas
concerned.

3.3. The international context

International law is showing increasing concern for
3.3.1.
upland and mountain areas, primarily with a view to conserv-
ing their environment.

3.3.2.
The Alpine Convention was signed in Berchtesgaden
in 1989 and entered into force in 1998. Despite the interest
which the EU has shown in the convention, difficulties in the
negotiation and implementation of truly operational protocols
have highlighted the over-technocratic and insufficiently trans-
parent nature of this instrument.

3.3.3.
Chapter 13 of Agenda 21 adopted at the Rio Earth
Summit in 1992 commits signatory states to improve their
information and observation systems regarding mountain
areas and ensure appropriate management of watershed areas.
The conference held in Johannesburg in August 2002 took
stock of Agenda 21 and renewed the Rio international
commitments in this field. On this occasion, the EU delivered
for sustainable development. The
a message of support
application of this for upland communities could draw inter
alia on the final declaration of the first world forum of upland
communities held in Chambéry (France) in June 2000. The
forum is holding its second meeting in Quito (Ecuador) from
17 to 22 September 2002.

3.3.4.
the International Year of Mountains.

The UN General Assembly has designated 2002 as

( 1) EESC opinion on the Draft Communication from the Commission
to the Member States laying down guidelines for a Community
initiative concerning trans-European cooperation intended to
encourage harmonious and balanced development of the Euro-
pean territory (OJ C 51, 23.2.2000). EESC opinion on European
policy on crossfrontier cooperation and experience with the
Interreg programme (OJ C 155, 29.5.2001). EESC opinion on
SMEs in EU island regions (OJ C 149, 21.6.2002).

( 2) EESC opinion on the situation of nature and nature conservation

in Europe (OJ C 221, 7.8.2001).

3.3.5.
Other steps have been taken in international law to
address both the development and protection of upland
areas. The Council of Europe’s draft European convention on
mountain regions is one example. The EESC and the Com-
mittee of the Regions have both called on the EU to draw on
this draft convention and establish an EU policy for upland
areas.

C 61/118

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

3.4.

Enlargement

3.4.1.
uplands represent one of the key challenges in enlargement:

From a more Community-related standpoint,

— firstly, because a number of the candidate countries have
upland areas and communities, and in Bulgaria, Poland,
Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia these
are quite large;

— secondly, because the EU’s financial framework from
2007 could drastically reduce the amount of Community
funding for the upland areas of the current Member
States.

3.4.2. While aware of the overriding considerations in this
context, and in particular the massive needs of the future
Member States for local and regional economic development
aid, the Committee points out that:

— in 2006 the economic performance of many EU regions
currently in receipt of aid under Structural Fund Objec-
tives 1 and 2 will still not have reached the Community
average;

— Structural Funds policy will have to adopt a new approach
to the regions, on a necessarily selective basis, so that
certain regions beset by particularly chronic structural
difficulties that are incompatible with the basic principles
enshrined in the Treaties retain their eligibility.

4.

Inclusion of upland areas in future Structural Funds
policy

4.1. Controlled development of the Structural Funds to avoid

abrupt change

4.1.1.
Budgetary limits must not lead future Structural
Funds policy to focus on the new Member States simply
because they have a high concentration of areas with low per
capita GDP. The scale of the challenges posed by enlargement
must not lead the Union to sideline its chosen development
model because of emergency situations which call for excep-
tional measures relating to a very specific catching-up oper-
ation. It is thus vital that Member States make an additional
budgetary effort
in support of enlargement. This should
involve the Cohesion Fund first and foremost, which should
provide the main instrument for this problem (thereby necessi-
tating a shift in its intervention provisions), and thus relieve
the burden on Structural Fund resources.

4.1.2.
Although there is no suggestion of systematically
phasing out Structural Fund support, it is essential that the
GDP level used as a means of qualifying for this policy must
not artificially exclude regions in the current Member States

which have higher average GDP only because of the inclusion
of the new candidate countries. Otherwise a drastic downward
revision of the initial policy objectives would be necessary.

4.2. Developing a real Community spatial planning policy

Regional policy has hitherto had a socio-economic
4.2.1.
objective.
If, however, this policy is obliged to be more
selective in future, it could form part of a wider vision of
spatial planning designed to ensure the harmonious and
balanced spatial distribution of people and activities. Such an
in the objective of ‘harmonious
idea is already inherent
development’ enshrined in Article 158 of the Treaty, under
Title XVII Economic and Social Cohesion (1).

4.2.2.
The definition of spatial planning principles and
objectives at Community level is increasingly important if the
EU is to take on a locomotive role in this field, rather than just
a coordinating role. EU spatial planning principles in support
of harmonious development should include the following:

4.2.2.1.
and activities throughout the EU area. This means:

The principle of balanced distribution of people

— controlling overconcentrated urban development, as this
creates serious problems in terms of employment, secur-
ity, the environment and quality of life. Without calling
into question the leading role which urban areas play in
national economies, this means deploying appropriate
instruments to ensure that upland dwellers are not driven
to relocate to urban areas simply because of a lack of
local facilities and services for businesses and residents.
In other words, the aim is positive action for the uplands
rather than the penalisation of urban areas;

— not letting certain areas lie abandoned or become Amer-
ican-style natural sanctuaries, as this would be incompat-
ible with the history of the European continent, virtually
all of which has been shaped by man;

— positive interaction between human activities and the
land, insofar as such activities serve to ensure the upkeep,
accessibility and even biodiversity of that land.

(1) Article 158: In order to promote its overall harmonious develop-
ment, the Community shall develop and pursue its actions leading
to the strengthening of its economic and social cohesion. In
particular,
the Community shall aim at reducing disparities
between the levels of development of the various regions and the
backwardness of the least favoured regions or islands, including
rural areas.

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/119

4.2.3.
Retention of this link between people and land must
therefore be a prime objective of the new policy, with a view
to ensuring sound spatial management. This means that the
new policy must be active in areas where the balance is
particularly fragile or threatened.

4.3.2.
These considerations may apply to certain non-
upland areas too (e.g. the outermost regions, islands, coastal
regions, boreal regions or isolated rural areas, on which the
Committee has issued a number of opinions (1).

4.2.4.
Such areas generally face major spatial challenges
and/or objective disadvantages which this policy should
address.

4.3.3.
As some Member States already use this type of
approach (e.g. the public service schemes in France), it would
be helpful for the EU to harmonise and ensure consistency,
not least with the approach taken in the ESDP.

4.2.5.
These areas also have significant assets (which gener-
ally go hand in hand with the spatial challenges mentioned
above), such as the unique nature of the upland environment
and the quality of local products and expertise, which make
them regions of excellence. However, these assets can only be
fully exploited if proper account is taken of the concomitant
handicaps.

4.4. A different view of local prosperity

4.3. A policy targeted on areas facing serious handicaps

The criteria for identifying areas eligible for Structural
4.3.1.
Fund support (as a spatial development, and no longer solely
as a local development, tool) should be as follows:

4.3.1.1.
Public interest of the areas concerned: this would
be assessed not only in the light of the quality of the natural
heritage, and of the local population structure, but also in
terms of the amenities offered to the community at large
(ranging from the production of goods or infrastructure
facilities to the provision of recreational areas or presence of
natural resources). Under no circumstances must this approach
simply mean taking account of natural resources. It must also
reflect the value which the public attaches to the amenities
provided, and the views of the local communities concerned.

it

Current or potential threats:

is these threats
4.3.1.2.
which form part of the justification for public intervention.
The pressures suffered may vary but would include overfre-
quentation (by tourists or by freight traffic), desertification
caused by the rural exodus or by neglect and over-forestation
of the landscape, and the risks of uncontrolled economic
development.

4.4.1. While a region’s future eligibility for Structural Fund
support must be based first and foremost on a physical
appraisal of the disadvantages and problems it faces, the
appraisal must not overlook the question of local prosperity
as this is an important yardstick for gauging the results of
regional policy. The new approach to be espoused by the
Structural Funds should therefore combine spatial and socio-
economic criteria.

4.4.2.
The local prosperity criterion should not lead to a
region being denied any form of compensation for permanent
objective handicaps that generate permanent higher costs,
such as the compensatory allowance for upland areas.

However, in order to make assistance more effective
4.4.3.
by intervening where the need is greatest, the assessment of a
region’s level of prosperity should be conducted at the lowest
possible level, i.e. NUTS V (local authority level). All necessary
steps must be taken to ensure that Member States’ statistical
instruments are suitable for this. Nonetheless, bearing in mind
the difficulty and risks of imprecision inherent in such an
approach, it is important to safeguard upland areas’ eligibility
for specific aid on a non-discriminatory basis by setting a
ceiling to ensure that it does not provide support which is
disproportionate to the difficulties that it is designed to offset.

4.3.1.3.
Special nature of anticipated measures: a specific
strategy or policy is justified by the fact that the practical
measures to be funded or organised will be intimately bound
up with the identity of the particular regions concerned and
therefore cannot be replicated in other regions (e.g. measures
to counter the risk of natural disasters in upland or mountain
areas).

(1) EESC opinion on future strategy for the outermost regions of the
European Union (OJ C 221, 17.9.2002). EESC opinion on SMEs
in EU island regions (OJ C 149, 21.6.2002). EESC opinion on
extending the trans-European networks to the islands of Europe
(OJ C 149, 21.6.2002).

C 61/120

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

4.4.4.
The establishment of a European observatory for
upland areas could be helpful here, on the basis of the zoning
provisions which the Commission has for upland authorities.

4.5.2.3.
Also in the regulatory field, the adoption of specific
measures that are limited to the target areas provides a means
of positive discrimination that can help these areas to exploit
their identity through their own special products and expertise.

4.5.

Transcending compensation for disadvantages

4.5.1.
Permanence and limits of the right to compensation
for disadvantages. A system of direct income support to
offset the economic disadvantage directly linked to physical
disadvantage is justified in the case of physical disadvantages
that cannot be remedied (e.g. lower agricultural yields owing
to poor soil quality and shorter growing seasons). It can also
be justified as a transitional accompanying measure for
disadvantages which, although structural, can be remedied
(e.g.
isolation, which can be eased by installing efficient
transport and NICT networks).

4.5.3.
Providing a return for compensation for disadvan-
tages. Compensation for geophysical handicaps is justified not
so much by the need for fair treatment as by the public interest
and the practical return it provides for the community. This
return must be assessed from the overall standpoint of the
spatial development objectives being pursued.

4.5.3.1.
This principle forms an argument for fine-tuning
the cross-compliance provisions of the compensatory allow-
ance system for natural handicaps, as the good practices which
are currently required in order to qualify for the premium do
not necessarily take account of the upland situation and are an
agri-environmental, rather than a spatial planning, measure.

4.5.1.1.
All the particular handicaps facing these regions
must therefore be identified in order to decide which ones call
for permanent financial compensation and which ones merely
need temporary help to eradicate or at least reduce them.

4.5.3.2.
The return should therefore be assessed on the
basis of the practical functions which these regions perform,
so that compensation for disadvantages becomes a form of
remuneration for these services. The main services provided
by upland and mountain areas include:

4.5.2.
In other words, upland areas expect a policy that
seeks to physically reduce their disadvantages rather than just
offer them financial compensation. This means measures in
the following fields:

4.5.2.1.
As regards structural facilities, these areas have to
reconcile the free movement of goods with the fragility of
their natural and human environments. They must be equipped
with the tools for tackling the pressures they face (notably as
regards rural transport) but also for putting their residents on
an equal footing with those of other areas (local services that
link up with the main communication routes, or with high
speed networks, or providing mobile telephony coverage).

4.5.2.2.
In the regulatory field, recognition of the special
situation of upland areas should mean that certain rules (e.g.
technical standards) can be adapted so as not
to block
innovatory schemes and solutions which, although modest in
scale, are often crucially important in local terms. However,
under no circumstances should this mean granting exemptions
that weaken safety or quality standards. Such initiatives could
also make these regions into testbeds for schemes that could
provide useful lessons for other regions.

— agricultural and/or forestry production: these two essen-
tial activities require a lot of space, and must retain a
primarily economic purpose. However, direct income
support may be justified when they are no longer
financially viable, if this is necessary in order to safeguard
the role they play in the occupation and upkeep of the
land and in helping to prevent the risk of natural disasters;

— safety: an area which is carefully tended is protected from
the degradation that can trigger natural disasters, the
effects of which may be felt in neighbouring areas. This
role is particularly important in upland areas;

— shaping of the landscape: these landscapes have been
moulded over hundreds of years and form an important
part of our natural and cultural heritage. They are now
recognised as a service in themselves;

— provision of recreation areas: the attraction of upland
areas as a destination for tourists from other areas or
simply for recreation is to a large extent thanks to their
intrinsic qualities. Nonetheless, this role must be nurtured
and adjusted to changing demand;

14.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/121

— production and holding of natural resources: although all
natural resources are necessarily linked to the land, some
areas are more naturally suited to producing them and
storing them. Obvious examples are air in the case of the
forests, and water in the case of the mountains. These are
the two main natural resources in terms of immediate
consumption issues, without forgetting the question of
biodiversity.

5.3.1.1. Moreover, given that the constraints and additional
costs caused by altitude, slope and climate can hamper other
types of activity too, the case should be considered for
extending the compensatory allowance system to other activi-
ties which play an important role in keeping people on the
land and maintaining the upland landscape, or of setting up a
similar system for them.

5. Towards a model EU uplands policy

5.3.2. A c t i v e r e d u c t i o n o f h a n d i c a p f a c t o r s

5.1. Moving on from the above analysis, and from the
principles which have been drawn from it to set out the scope
for a specific EU uplands policy, the next step is to pinpoint
measures that can be taken on the basis of existing Community
legislation for furthering this goal.

An equally important step is to combat those disadvantages
which can be significantly allayed. For example, isolation can
be reduced by building appropriate infrastructure. Here the
Committee would stress the urgent need to connect these areas
to the new ICT networks, as these are already becoming the
key factor for a region’s future competitiveness.

5.2.

Instilling a common vision of upland areas

5.2.1.
The first step towards instilling a common vision of
upland areas is to enshrine their special position within the
Treaties, as has already been done for island and peripheral
regions in Article 158 of the EC Treaty (and in Declaration 30
of the Amsterdam Conference). Such recognition is justified
by the disadvantages and challenges facing these areas, which
could be given the right to solidarity, difference and experimen-
tation.

5.2.2.
As has also been suggested by the Committee of the
Regions, the EU should also adopt the spirit and content of the
Council of Europe’s draft Convention for Mountain Regions
and, mainly with an eye to enlargement, should encourage the
Member States and candidate countries to do likewise, so as to
ensure convergence of national policies for upland areas.

5.3.

Implementing a strategy based on three lines of action

5.3.1. C o m p e n s a t i o n
h a n d i c a p s

f o r

i r r e m e d i a b l e

In view of the fact that some of the geophysical disadvantages
faced by upland areas are permanent and insurmountable,
upland policy must compensate for these. The system of
compensatory allowances for hill farmers should therefore be
made permanent. In this context, and bearing in mind the
WTO international trade negotiations,
this aid should be
decoupled from production so that it does not fall victim to
the cuts which will be approved at the end of the WTO
negotiations.

National regional aid has a role to play here,
5.3.2.1.
notably for the many small businesses which are a mainstay
of the upland economy and whose physical and technical
environment puts them at a serious disadvantage vis-à-vis
businesses in other areas. EU recognition of the special position
of upland areas is vital if this form of public aid is to comply
with Community competition law.

5.3.2.2.
Another important objective which will help to
provide more secure conditions for the development of upland
economies is to make upland areas safer by adopting a proper
policy for identifying and preventing the risk of natural
disasters.

5.3.3.

E x p l o i t a t i o n
t h e
a s s e t s o f u p l a n d a r e a s

o f

i d e n t i t y

a n d

However, resolute and positive action to develop the many
assets of upland areas is just as important as measures to allay
and compensate for their handicaps. The positive image which
people have of upland and mountain areas, and the quality
and originality of their products and expertise, offer huge
potential, and merit a suitable development strategy. Immedi-
ate steps might include:

— EU recognition of the term ‘upland’ or ‘mountain’ when
used to describe products produced and processed in
such areas. Used alongside upland-related geographical
indications of PDO or PGI (referring to a particular
mountain or valley), these terms could help to boost the
positive image of these areas;

C 61/122

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.3.2003

— strengthening the cohesion of upland regions by encour-
aging cooperation between them and networking,
in
particular under strand C of the current Interreg pro-
grammes;

— adopting a specific approach towards upland areas in EU
policies, by providing derogations or specific pro-
grammes where necessary, especially under each objective
of the Structural Funds;

— making it easier to pursue activities in upland areas, by
taking account of the special features of the upland
economy, more especially by:

— harmonising and simplifying conditions for multi-

jobbing,

— promoting the development of local services for

businesses,

— encouraging the establishment and development of

SMEs and craft businesses.

5.4. Making upland policy a model of

fair and sustainable

development

5.4.1.
The EU’s upland areas have proven their ability to
make the most of their assets, on condition that other areas

Brussels, 18 September 2002.

show solidarity by helping them to allay the handicaps they
face. Today they demand recognition that will enable them to
build on the basic principles which will in turn allow them to
realise their full potential as regions of authenticity and
diversification.

5.4.2.
A full-scale Community regulatory and financial
strategy is thus needed for upland areas in order to guarantee
them conditions of relative economic autonomy, as this is the
only way to retain their dynamism — and thus ensure their
upkeep — in the long term.

5.4.3.
This strategy should be aimed primarily at upland
residents, because they are the vital link in the chain, whether
as workers or as members of particular social groups (women,
young people, older people), and because the actions to be put
in place must strive to involve them as closely as possible, first
and foremost by providing them with information that will
give them a clear picture of the objectives being pursued and
enable them to take the ensuing measures.

At a time when economic and environmental issues
5.4.4.
are becoming increasingly globalised, upland areas can offer a
model of fair and sustainable development (i.e. a form of
development that takes care to contribute to the economic
management of the local area and its resources and to respect
the interests of local residents). This model should not only be
preserved and safeguarded, but also promoted as a reference
point both for other areas and at international level.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS