Report of the Committee of the Regions on "Community action for mountain areas"
Date: 2003-02-12
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU action, EU environmental policy, environmental protection, mountain region

29.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/25

Reason

Given the importance of the regional and local levels for successful implementation, the CoR must be involved.

Brussels, 12 February 2003.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

Report of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Community action for mountain areas’

(2003/C 128/05)

CONTENTS

1.

1.1.

General context

Definition of mountain areas

1.1.1.

Objectives of Directive 75/268/EEC

1.1.2.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999

1.1.3.

Own-initiative opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (CES 461/88)

1.1.4.

United Nations Environment Programme

1.2.

1.3.

1.4.

2.

2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

2.4.

2.5.

2.6.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Importance of mountain areas in Europe

Economic aspects

Impact of Community and national policies

Institutional stances regarding mountain areas

Convention on the Protection of the Alps

European Charter of Mountain Regions

Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion

International Year of Mountains

Chapter 13 of Agenda 21 and the World Summit in Johannesburg

World Charter of Mountain Populations

Legal situation of the EU’s mountain areas

Mountain regions and the future of Europe

Mountains and cities

Concluding remarks and proposals

C 128/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.5.2003

1. General context

1.1. Definition of mountain areas

There are currently a number of different definitions of
mountain areas, but none of them is accepted universally
and none is applied systematically. Each definition accords
particular importance to one (or more) specific aspect(s). Some
of these definitions are set out below.

1.1.1. O b j e c t i v e s o f D i r e c t i v e 7 5 / 2 6 8 / E E C

Directive 75/268/EEC was designed to reduce the income
disparities suffered by farmers in upland and disadvantaged
areas. The broad aim of the directive was to compensate
farmers for the permanent natural handicaps they face in
regions which account for 25 % of the Community’s utilised
agricultural area (UAA), 15 % of registered farms and 12 % of
Community agricultural production. In this way, the directive
sought to guarantee the survival and, where possible, modern-
isation of agricultural activity in these regions.

Diversification of financial incentives under structural policy
was proposed as a way of ensuring that structural improve-
ments did not first and foremost benefit the richest and most
dynamic regions. In mountain areas, altitude brings difficult
climate conditions and a short growing season, while steep
slopes make mechanisation difficult. In disadvantaged areas,
the land is often poorer and the efforts needed to increase
yields can be disproportionate to the results actually achieved.

Hence the long-term survival of agriculture in these areas
depends in the final analysis on the perseverance of the farmer.
The aid he receives extends beyond the strict confines of
agriculture, as it also concerns conservation of the landscape,
protection against soil erosion, and the satisfaction of tourism-
related needs, as well as helping to keep a sufficient density of
population in regions threatened with depopulation.

1.1.2. C o u n c i l R e g u l a t i o n ( E C ) N o 1 2 5 7 /

1 9 9 9

Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on
support for rural development from the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) offers the following
definition of mountain areas:

— to the existence, because of altitude, of very difficult
climate conditions, the effect of which is substantially
to shorten the growing season,

— at a lower altitude, to the presence over the greater
part of the area in question of slopes too steep for the
use of machinery or requiring the use of very
expensive special equipment, or

— to a combination of these two factors, where the
handicap resulting from each taken separately is less
acute but the combination of the two gives rise to an
equivalent handicap.

Areas north of the 62nd Parallel and certain adjacent
2.
areas shall be treated in the same way as mountain areas.’

This regulation replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 950/97
of 20 May 1997 on improving the efficiency of agricultural
structures, which followed on from Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2328/91 of 15 July 1991 on improving the efficiency of
agricultural structures and Council Directive 75/268/EEC of
28 April 1975 on mountain and hill farming and farming in
certain less-favoured areas. The regulation also supplements
Declaration 37 annexed to the Acts of Accession of Finland
this declaration recognises the existence of
and Sweden;
permanent natural handicaps related to northern latitudes —
which, in agricultural terms, mean short growing seasons —
that are equivalent to those caused by high altitude.

The regulation lays down the general classification criteria
(altitude, steep slopes, combination of the two) but does not
specify a minimum threshold which Member States must
respect. The wider application of the subsidiarity principle
means that it is now up to national and/or regional authorities
to set their own thresholds and classify their areas themselves,
subject to respect for the basic Community criteria.

Most Member States and/or regions have interpreted the
criteria of altitude and slope as follows:

— altitudes that can give rise to very difficult climate
conditions: over 600-800 m (for each local authority or
parts of several local authorities);

— slopes that are too steep for the use of machinery or that
require the use of very expensive special equipment:
average per km2 of 20 % (11° 18').

‘1. Mountain areas shall be those characterised by a
considerable limitation of the possibilities for using the
land and an appreciable increase in the cost of working it
due:

The table below gives the 1996 figures for mountain and less-
favoured areas in terms of UAA, as classified under Directive
75/268/EEC. Hence in Finland and Sweden most of the areas
classified as ‘mountain areas’ are in fact cold Nordic areas, and
only some 150 000 ha are true mountain areas:

29.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/27

Country

-1-
Total UAA
(Mha)

-2-
Less-favoured
area UAA
(Mha)

-3-

-4-
Less-favoured Mountain UAA Mountain UAA
(Mha)
area UAA as
a % of 1)

as a % of 1)

-5-

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Greece

Spain

France

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Portugal

UK

Austria

Finland

Sweden

Total

1,357

2,770

17,015

6,408

0,3

—

8,5

5,3

26,330

19,5

30,011

13,9

4,892

16,496

0,127

2,011

3,998

18,658

3,524

2,549

3,634

3,5

8,8

0,1

0,1

3,4

8,3

2,4

2,2

1,9

22,1

—

50,0

82,7

74,1

46,3

71,6

53,4

78,7

5,0

85,0

44,5

68,1

86,3

52,3

—

—

0,34

3,91

7,50

5,30

—

—

—

1,8

60,9

28,5

17,7

—

5,22

31,5

—

—

—

—

1,23

30,0

—

2,0

1,41

0,53

—

56,8

54,9

13,8

19,5

139,780

78,2

56,0

27,44

1.1.3. O w n - i n i t i a t i v e o p i n i o n o f

t h e E c o n -
o m i c a n d S o c i a l C o m m i t t e e ( C E S 4 6 1 /
8 8 )

‘(An upland area is) a physical, environmental, socio-
economic and cultural region in which the disadvantages
deriving from altitude and other natural factors must be
considered in conjunction with socio-economic con-
straints, spatial imbalance and environmental decay.’

In the information report on a policy for upland areas drawn
up by its Section for Regional Development and Town and
Country Planning, the Economic and Social Committee (ESC)
offered a standard definition of the term ‘upland area’ which
accommodated the wide variety of physical, climatic, environ-
mental and socio-economic conditions found in Europe’s
upland and mountain regions. The following definition was
thus suggested in own-initiative opinion CES 461/88:

On this basis, the ESC assembled the criteria used by the
individual Member States to define mountain and hill areas
under Directive 75/268/EEC and attempted to refine them by
distinguishing, where possible, ‘predominantly’ upland areas
(regional or local authorities in which over 66 % of the total
area is upland) from ‘partially’ upland areas (in which between
33 % and 66 % of the total is upland).

C 128/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.5.2003

Criteria

Representativeness(***)

Altitude

Slope

Other criteria

Upland areas

Predominant-
ly upland
areas
(>66 %)

300 m

700 m

—

—

—

—

—

geoclimatic handicap

27,3 %

6,5 %

1 000 m

< 20 %

variation in altitude
> 400 m

26,0 %

21,0 %

—

—

—

—

49,4 %

28,2 %

23,3 %

—

—

—

—

—

B

D (*)

E

F

IRL

I

700 m
Vosges 600 m

< 20 %

200 m

—

600/700 m

steep slope

UK (**)

240 m

—

(*) Excludes former GDR
(**) Excludes Northern Ireland
(***) As a percentage of the total area of the country

On the basis of the abovementioned report, the ESC concluded
that:

b)

socio-economic disadvantages:

‘The legal classification criteria used by the Member States
and the Community to define upland areas need to
be standardised, partly to eliminate any distortions in
competition between the enterprises of different Member
States. This standardisation requires the establishment at
Community level of criteria covering various natural and
socio-economic handicaps as suggested in the definition
given in point 1.1.

The classification criteria should be:

a)

natural disadvantages. This should not be limited to
the factors used by Directive 75/268/EEC (altitude,
slope, combination of these two), but:

— with regard to climate, should consider not
only altitude but also latitude and geographical
situation;

— with regard to the physical aspects, should
consider not only slope but also relief, type of
soil, etc.

— low population density;

— isolation caused by remoteness from cities and

economic/political centres;

— population excessively dependent on agriculture;

— insufficient outlets downslope in areas bordering
with third countries with whom communi-
cations are difficult;

c)

degree of environmental decay

It is the combination of these factors which defines
an area as “upland”. The minimum altitude at which
an area qualifies as “upland” varies accordingly. Hence
the choice and combination of these factors, and their
use as yardsticks, cannot be uniform throughout the
Community, but must be adapted to the various
circumstances. (...)

29.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/29

Directive 75/268/EEC and most national laws use
local authority areas (or parts of them) as the basic
territorial unit for demarcating upland areas. In many
cases, this practice has made the official upland areas
rather irregular in size. Instead, measures should cover
compact “blocks” of territory, i.e. units comprising
uplands plus the immediately adjoining areas which
are linked to them geographically, economically and
socially. (...)’

The European soil charter recently drawn up by the European
Soil Bureau could be used for the establishment of further
criteria for defining mountain or upland areas.

1.1.4. T h e U N e n v i r o n m e n t p r o g r a m m e

In the run-up to the 2002 International Year of Mountains,
the UN environment programme undertook to define the
concept of mountain and mountain area as follows:

‘Altitude and slope and the environmental gradients they
generate are key components of such a definition, but their
combination is problematic. Simple altitude thresholds
both exclude older and lower mountain systems and
include areas of relatively high elevation that have little
topographic relief and few environmental gradients. Using
slope as a criterion on its own or in combination with
altitude can resolve the latter problem but not the former.’

— altitude between 2 500 and 3 500 metres;

— altitude between 3 500 and 4 500 metres;

— altitude above 4 500 metres.

1.2.

Importance of mountain areas in Europe

Compared with other continents, Europe has a large and very
diverse spread of mountain regions, stretching from the Arctic
to the Mediterranean via the Alps and other ranges in
temperate areas. Mountain and upland areas cover around
38,8 % of the total EU area. They provide a wealth of highly
specific and vital resources for the whole of Europe: water,
forests, rare habitats and species, unique cultural roots, a
storehouse of resources and areas for recreation.

Four main mountain areas may be distinguished within the
EU:

— mountain and similar areas (arctic areas) of northern

Europe (Finland, Sweden, Scotland);

— mountain areas in temperate regions: Cantabrian moun-
tains, Pyrenees, Massif Central, Jura, Vosges and Black
Forest, Alps, Ardennes, Welsh mountains, etc.;

— Mediterranean mountain areas: Iberian system, Appen-
nines, the mountains of mainland Greece and the Greek
islands, and those of the major Mediterranean islands
(Crete, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Majorca);

— outlying and outermost island regions, such as the
Atlantic archipelagos
the
Canaries, Azores and Madeira, and the French overseas
departments of Guadeloupe, Martinique, Reunion and
French Guiana.

(Macaronesian region) of

Importance of mountain areas

B

D

360 000 ha; i.e. around 4 % of disadvantaged areas

Using data available at world level, the following classes of
mountain were defined on an empirical basis:

— altitude between 200 and 1 000 metres, with more than

300 m variation in altitude;

GR

50 % of national territory

90,8 % of woodlands

79,5 % of pastureland

46 % of farmland

— altitude between 1 000 and 1 500 metres, with gradient
over 5° or more than 300 m variation in altitude;

— altitude between 1 500 and 2 500 metres and gradient

over 2°;

3 293 local and regional authorities (59,8 % of the national
total)

10,2 % of the national population

population density of mountain areas: 36 per km2 (national
average: 74 per km2)

C 128/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.5.2003

Importance of mountain areas

Importance of mountain areas

E

38 % of national territory

FIN

151 313 km2 (45 % of national territory)

88 % of woodlands

16 % of farmland

35,7 % of local authorities

around 6,3 million inhabitants (16 % of the national popu-
lation)

population density of mountain areas: 32,7 per km2

F

17,4 % of national territory

33,7 % of woodlands

31,4 % of farmland

6 128 of local authorities (17 % of the national total) and
92 towns

3,6 million inhabitants (7,7 % of the national population)

population density of mountain areas: 31 per km2 (< 2/3 of
the national average)

IRL

95 % of woodlands

85 % of farmland is in disadvantaged areas and 6 % is in
mountain areas

441 local authorities in disadvantaged and isolated areas,
94 towns in disadvantaged areas and 10 towns in isolated
areas

3,5 million inhabitants live in disadvantaged areas (68 % of
the national population, 9 % in mountain areas)

population density of mountain areas: 2,6 per km2 (national
average: 16 per km2)

S

5 % of the population

population density of mountain areas: 2 per km2

UK

Source: Information taken from a study drawn up for the European Parliament
entitled Towards a European policy for mountain regions — problems,
results obtained and adjustments needed.

I

106 107 km2 (35,2 % of national territory)

1.3.

Economic aspects

58,1 % of woodlands

24,4 % of farmland

2 605 local authorities (32,1 % of the national total)

7,5 million inhabitants (13,1 % of the national population)

population density of mountain areas: 70,7 per km2

A

70 % of national territory

57 % of farmland

around 3 million inhabitants in mountain areas (37,5 % of
the national population)

around 1 170 municipalities in mountain areas (almost 50 %)

P

40 % of national territory

50 % of woodlands and pastureland

50 % of agricultural crops

23 % of the national population

Economic activities in mountain areas are concentrated mainly
in the valleys which provide natural corridors. Today however,
many of these valleys have become transport bottlenecks, and
the growth in traffic — both goods and people — brings
increasing risks to safety and the environment, and to some
extent also to the living conditions of the local population. In
many of these areas, economic activity is based on agriculture
— on the land which is usable — and on tourism and other
services. In some mountain areas, however, economic activity
is often very weak. While some are economically viable and
are integrated into the rest of the EU economy, most of them
face a number of problems: some 61,5 % of mountain and
arctic areas are eligible for assistance under Objective 1 and
24,7 % under Objective 2 (see the second report on economic
and social cohesion (1).

A brief typology of mountain areas may be obtained by
combining natural factors with socio-economic indicators.
Such a typology, although imprecise, can provide a general
picture of the situation.

(1) COM(2001) 24 final.

29.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/31

Typology of mountain and arctic areas according to the EU definition of mountain areas and of areas
covered by the objectives of the Structural Funds

Objective 1

Objective 2

Not eligible

Areas where altitude creates High mountain areas
very difficult climatic con-
ditions (minimum altitude west Spain, Corsica, south-
between
800 metres)

the Massif Central,
Vosges,
and ern Italy (including Sicily) French Alps,

in Central part of the Pyre- Some north-western parts of
the French Alps (in Savoie-
southern Dauphinois),
central
northern Alps in Italy (in Piedmont
(including Appennines and western and Lombardy). Large part

southern, central and north nees,
Jura,

600

the

and Greece
Crete). The higher moun- and eastern Alps in Italy, of the German Alps
tains of Sweden and Fin-
land (Lapland)

large part of the Austrian
Alps

Areas at lower altitude and/ Other mountain areas of Peripheral parts of
or with significant variations Portugal, of southern, cen- Pyrenees, Massif Central,
in altitude (generally more tral
than 20 %)

the Some north-western parts of
the French Alps (in Savoie-
central
north-western Jura and Vosges. Northern Dauphinois),
Spain, of Corsica, of south- Appennines and western Alps in Italy (in Piedmont
and Lombardy). Large part
ern Italy (including Sardinia and eastern Alps in Italy
and Sicily) and of Greece
of the German Alps
(including Crete). Other
mountain areas of Sweden
and Finland (Lapland)

and

the

the Lowland areas of Sweden Other

Other areas north of
lowland areas of
62° parallel and some adjac- and Finland north of the Sweden and Finland north
62° Parallel (mainly some of the 62° Parallel (mainly
ent areas
coastal areas of Sweden and
inland areas)
inland areas of southern
Finland)

Sustainable development of mountain areas calls for economic
efficiency, social equity, territorial cohesion and ecological

integrity. The main challenges and potential of Europe’s
mountain areas are summarised in the following table:

Challenges and potential of mountain areas

Challenges

Potential

In social terms

—

Serious risk of gradual but irreversible depopu-
lation

—

— Longer distances and hence more uneven distri-
bution of basic infrastructure in comparison with
that found in lowlands

— Lack of personal, household and business services

— Lack of compensation for the services which
mountain communities provide for society as a
whole by managing and protecting resources,
landscapes and ecosystems

Provision of leisure and recreational activities for
city dwellers, responding to a growing wish to
explore alternative life styles in natural or cultural
surroundings that have been carefully conserved

C 128/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.5.2003

Challenges

Potential

In economic terms

—

Growing difficulty of traditional activities such as
agriculture, forestry and tourism

—

New income sources typical of mountain areas
and new sources of employment facilitated by the
development of new technologies, particularly in
the information and communication field

In ecological terms

—

Growing pressure on areas made vulnerable by
abandonment of the land, bad management of
water resources, seasonal influxes of visitors and
a congested road network

—

New prospects created by advanced technologies
(renewable energy sources, multimodal transport,
geographical information systems)

— General trend towards dynamic collaboration
between the environment and development

1.4.

Impact of Community and national policies

2.

Institutional stances regarding mountain areas

Some Community policies already have a significant impact
on mountain areas. They include:

— the Common Agricultural Policy: compensatory allow-
ance for less-favoured areas, agri-environment measures,
market regime for products from mountain areas (milk,
meat), etc.;

For some years now, Europe has seen a number of resolutions
and recommendations on mountain areas,
issued by the
relevant ministers, the former standing conference of local and
regional authorities of Europe (now the Congress of Local
and Regional Authorities of Europe), and the parliamentary
assembly and committee of ministers of the Council of Europe.

— structural policy — Objectives 1 and 2 — and cohesion

policy;

The following documents are of particular political and
technical significance:

— Community initiatives for rural development (Leader +)
and crossborder, transnational and interregional cooper-
ation (Interreg III A, B and C) — cf. the Interreg III B
‘Alpine Area’ cooperation programme between Germany,
Austria, France, Italy, Switzerland, Slovenia and Liechsten-
stein;

— forestry policies;

— the debate on spatial development centred on the Euro-
pean Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) and its
implementation;

— common environment policy: the main directives on

water, habitats, wild fauna and flora, soil, etc.;

— ESC opinion (1998) on ‘A policy for upland areas’;

— CoR opinion (1995) on ‘The European charter on moun-

tain areas’;

— ESC opinion (1996) on ‘The Alpine Arc: an opportunity

for development and integration’;

— CoR opinion (1997) on ‘A policy for upland agriculture

in Europe’;

— Report of

the European Parliament’s Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development (1998) on A new
strategy for mountain regions, which refers to an earlier
study by the EP’s Directorate-General for Research entitled
Towards a European policy for Mountain Regions;

— research and technological development policy and the
significant improvements this should bring to quality of
life.

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

29.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/33

The Economic and Social Committee has recently been
working on a lengthy opinion (rapporteur: Mr Bastian) on the
Future of upland areas in the EU.

the recommendations of the 1992 Rio de Janeiro conference
on Environment and Development.

2.1. Convention on the Protection of the Alps

The Convention on the Protection of the Alps was signed in
1991 by representatives of the governments of the Alpine
countries and of the European Union. Its aim is develop a
common policy for the whole Alpine region in accordance
with sustainable development principles. For the first time, it
views the Alpine Arc as an indivisible unit that is part of
Europe’s common heritage.

The convention’s broad objectives are to achieve a balance
between the socio-economic needs of Alpine communities and
the need to safeguard the Alpine environment.

The convention entered into force in March 1995, having
been ratified by Austria, Germany, Liechtenstein, Slovenia and
the European Union. It has since been ratified by the other
Alpine countries. The convention includes provision for a
research programme focusing on four topics (prevention of air
pollution, management of water resources, waste management,
and population and culture). Its implementing protocols are
to foster the adoption of policies on transport, tourism, soil
conservation, forests, energy, agriculture, etc.

The convention has set up bodies which hold regular meetings
and play an implementing role. However, the EU does not
appear to have taken any political action or introduced
any operational
instruments specifically as a result of the
convention or its implementing protocols, despite being a
signatory. The EU has also let slip the opportunity to take part
in the proceedings of the convention bodies. This is regrettable,
as the Alps form the largest mountain range in Europe in terms
of geographical area, population and countries concerned. The
European Commission could thus have taken some practical
steps to promote Community policies for mountain areas.

2.2.

European Charter of Mountain Regions

The need for a European Charter of Mountain Regions, as an
instrument defining the principles that should govern the
planning, development and protection of mountain regions,
was addressed by the second European conference of mountain
regions, held in Trento in 1988. However, the document
was not approved by participants (over 200 administrators
representing the member states of the Council of Europe) until
six years later, at the third conference, in Chamonix on 15 to
17 September 1994. Procedures for the definitive adoption of
the charter by the signatory states have not yet been completed.
The charter takes an integrated global approach aimed at
establishing a European policy for mountain areas, in line with

Importance is also attached to the principle of subsidiarity,
with the involvement of local and regional authorities in the
framing and management of European policy. The charter
thus enshrines the role of mountain communities, not least in
the pursuit of a fair balance between economic activities and
ecological requirements. It is worth citing the objectives of the
charter, Article 6 of which states that:

‘The Parties shall base their policies, legislation and action
regarding mountain areas on the following aims:

I.

II.

explicit recognition of mountain regions and their
specific nature;

due regard for and recognition of the geographical
entity constituted by each mountain area, so as to
prevent existing or future administrative divisions
from hindering the implementation of mountain
policies;

III. maintaining populations in situ and combating the

out-migration of young people;

IV.

establishment or modernisation of infrastructure and
amenities necessary to the quality of life in, and the
development of, mountain regions;

V. maintenance and improvement of local public ser-

vices;

VI. preservation of agricultural and pastural

land and
essential maintenance and modernisation of agricul-
tural activities through a specific approach to moun-
tain agriculture;

VII. development of endogenous energy resources;

VIII. conservation of long-standing industrial and craft
activities and establishment of industries based on
new technologies;

IX. development of the tertiary sector, particularly tour-
ism, as a supplement to traditional livelihoods;

X.

preservation of the identity and dissemination of the
cultural values specific to mountains and to each
homogeneous mountain area.

These aims shall be achieved while respecting and protect-
ing the environment as a result of an overall assessment of
human and natural resources, abandoning the traditional
choice between economic development and protection of
the natural environment and seeking to establish a balance
between human activities and ecological requirements.’

C 128/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.5.2003

As can be seen, the programme adopts an appropriate and
modern approach.

2.3.

The Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion

The Commission recently adopted its Second Report on
Economic and Social Cohesion.

One major innovation of the report is that in the summary of
Part I: Situation and Trends, it singles out specific areas and
states that:

‘Islands and archipelagos, mountain and peripheral areas
— including the “outermost” regions — are an important
part of the Union and share many common physical and
geo-morphological characteristics and economic disadvan-
tages. These regions generally suffer accessibility problems
which make their economic integration with the rest of
the Union more of a challenge. Accordingly, a large
number already receive EU regional aid — 95 % of both
mountain areas and islands are covered by Objective 1 or
2. At the same time, their social and economic conditions
vary widely...’

The report goes on to identify economic and social cohesion
priorities, and mentions ‘areas with severe geographical or
natural handicaps’ where efforts to achieve integration run
into difficulty. The report notes that:

‘These areas — outermost regions, islands, mountain areas,
peripheral areas, areas with very low population density
— are often a key component of the Union’s environmental
and cultural heritage. There are often acute difficulties in
maintaining population. Additional costs for basic services,
including transport, can impede economic development.’

It thus appears clear that the Commission puts mountain areas
on the same footing as the other areas already mentioned in
Article 158 of the Treaty.

Following the debates on the second report, the Commission
decided to undertake a series of studies on areas facing serious
geographical or natural handicaps. Two have been launched,
on island regions and mountain areas (including arctic areas).
The study is also to devise criteria for delimiting these areas.

The Commission has also assessed the debates held at the
second European cohesion forum in May 2001, and has
concluded (1) that the Union needs a cohesion policy targeted
at three categories of region:

— regions whose development is lagging very far behind,
most but not all of which are situated in the applicant
countries;

— regions of the EU-15 which have not completed the

convergence process;

— other regions which face serious structural problems,
particularly urban areas, rural areas, which are still highly
dependent on agriculture, mountain areas, islands and
other areas suffering from natural or demographic handi-
caps.

Hence,
if only at Commission level, the specific nature of
mountain areas appears to have been recognised and made the
subject of analyses.

Further evidence of the new interest with which the Com-
mission views the EU’s mountain areas is clear from the
conference which the regional policy and agriculture com-
missioners staged in Brussels on 17 and 18 October 2002.
Although this conference, which was also attended by Presi-
dent Prodi and other commissioners, did not issue a concluding
document, the high standard of the debates and topics covered
give grounds to hope that the new approach will yield some
definitive positive results.

A number of parties are echoing this call to devote greater
attention to mountain areas. The European Economic and
Social Committee has recently adopted a highly relevant
opinion on the subject, in which it calls for the adoption of a
common approach to mountain areas by enshrining their
special status in the Treaties.

The opinion also proposes a strategy based on compensation
for those handicaps which cannot be remedied, the active
reduction of handicap factors and promotion of the special
identity and resources of mountain areas. The opinion con-
cludes by calling for EU policy for mountain areas to be made
a model of fair, sustainable development for the people who
live there.

2.4.

International Year of Mountains

On 10 November 1998 the UN General Assembly unani-
mously proclaimed 2002 the International Year of Mountains,
with a view to:

I)

promoting the sustainable development of mountain
areas;

(1) COM(2002) 46 final.

29.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/35

II)

improving the quality of life for people living in mountain
areas;

Chapter 36: Education, public awareness and training

III) protecting the fragile upland ecosystem.

Chapter 37: Capacity-building for sustainable development

Preparations for the global conference which the UN will hold
in 2002 are under way in many European countries.

However, no official political action or legislative initiative has
yet been adopted at Community level to reflect the UN
objectives.

Chapter 39: International legal instruments

Chapter 40: Information for decision-making (etc.)

2.5. Chapter 13 of Agenda 21 and the World Summit in

Johannesburg

Agenda 21 was adopted at the UN conference on Environment
and Development in Rio de Janeiro on 14 June 1992. Many
chapters of the agenda refer explicitly to mountain areas,
namely:

Chapter 2: International cooperation

Chapter 3: Combating poverty

Chapter 6: Protecting and promoting human health

Chapter 7: Human settlements

Chapter 8:
decision making

Integrating environment and development in

Chapter 11: Combating deforestation

Chapter 12: Combating desertification

Chapter 14: Sustainable agriculture and rural development

Chapter 15: Conservation of biodiversity

Chapter 18: Protection and management of water resources

Chapter 24: Women and sustainable development

Chapter 26: Strengthening the role of indigenous people

Chapter 27: Strengthening the role of NGOs

Chapter 28: Local authorities’ initiatives in support of Agenda
21

Chapter 32: Strengthening the role of farmers

Chapter 33: Financing of sustainable development

Chapter 34: Transfer of environmentally sound technology

Chapter 35: Science for sustainable development

Chapter 13 considers mountain areas as a unitary system. The
definition was reached following close cooperation between
UN agencies, national governments,
international organis-
ations, NGOs and research institutes. It is worth quoting the
declaration which appears at the beginning of Chapter 13:

‘Mountains are an important source of water, energy and
biological diversity. Furthermore, they are a source of such
key resources as minerals, forest products and agricultural
products and of recreation. As a major ecosystem rep-
resenting the complex and interrelated ecology of our
planet, mountain environments are essential to the survival
of the global ecosystem. Mountain ecosystems are, how-
ever, rapidly changing. They are susceptible to accelerated
soil erosion, landslides and rapid loss of habitat and genetic
diversity. On the human side, there is widespread poverty
indigenous
among mountain inhabitants and loss of
knowledge. As a result, most global mountain areas
are experiencing environmental degradation. Hence, the
proper management of mountain resources and socio-
economic development of the people deserves immediate
action.’

The most recent follow-up to the Rio Conference came with
the holding of the World Summit on Sustainable Development
in Johannesburg in September 2002. Mountain areas are dealt
with in Paragraph 40 of the Summit’s plan of implementation:

‘40. Mountain ecosystems support particular livelihoods,
and include significant watershed resources, biological
diversity and unique flora and fauna. Many are particularly
fragile and vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate
change and need specific protection. Actions at all levels
are required to:

(a) Develop and promote programmes, policies and
approaches that integrate environmental, economic
and social components of sustainable mountain
development and strengthen international cooper-
ation for its positive impacts on poverty eradication
programmes, especially in developing countries;

C 128/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.5.2003

(b)

Implement programmes to address, where appropri-
ate, deforestation, erosion, land degradation, loss of
biodiversity, disruption of water flows and retreat of
glaciers;

Many of the documents issued on this subject have called for
the adoption of a Council or Commission regulation (or
directive) containing specific measures for mountain areas and
thereby instigating an integrated multisectoral policy.

(c) Develop and implement, where appropriate, gender-
sensitive policies and programmes, including public
and private investments that help eliminate inequities
facing mountain communities;

(d)

Implement programmes to promote diversification
and traditional mountain economies,
sustainable
livelihoods and small-scale production systems,
including specific training programmes and better
access to national and international markets, com-
taking into
munications and transport planning,
account the particular sensitivity of mountains;

(e)

Promote full participation and involvement of moun-
tain communities in decisions that affect them and
integrate indigenous knowledge, heritage and values
in all development initiatives;

(f) Mobilise national and international

for

support

and technical

for
applied research and capacity-building, provide finan-
cial
the effective
assistance
implementation of sustainable development of moun-
tain ecosystems in developing countries and countries
with economies in transition, and address the poverty
among people living in mountains through concrete
plans, projects and programmes, with sufficient sup-
port from all stakeholders, taking into account the
spirit of the International Year of Mountains, 2002.’

In more recent years, other parties have pressed for the
adoption of a specific Structural Fund ‘objective’ for mountain
areas, to be added to those used in cohesion policy until 2000.

However, it seems clear that the Community cannot adopt any
specific initiative (beyond the modest sectoral scheme already
in operation for hill farming) without the backing of a specific
Treaty provision enshrining Community competence in this
field.

The Union must thus recognise the special nature of mountain
areas and the ensuing need for a specific institutional policy
on the matter, with due respect for the subsidiarity principle.
Although the economic situation of mountain areas varies,
they all share certain features which affect the living conditions
of local residents, in terms of the organisation and running of
services, information, access and mobility. There is a particu-
larly pressing need for policies to safeguard and promote
the environment, landscape and biodiversity, the traditional
farming practices of the people who settled here from distant
lands centuries ago and who have tended the countryside ever
since, and the outstanding historical, cultural and artistic
treasures of each area.

2.6. World Charter of Mountain Populations

This charter was adopted by representatives of 70 countries
on 9 June 2000 in Chambery at the conclusion of the first
world forum of mountain populations.

Official recognition of the special features of mountain areas
is a vital precondition for all kinds of sectoral measures.

The draft needs to be discussed before it becomes the basic
guiding text of the International Organisation of Mountain
Populations, which is to be established for the implementation
of the charter. For the moment, the draft merely sets out
general principles. It will be fleshed out with other sectoral
recommendations and suggestions which emerged at the
forum and probably with further contributions made at the
next meeting in Quito (Ecuador) in September 2002.

Article 158 of Title XVII (Economic and Social Cohesion) of
the Treaty states that:

‘In order to promote its overall harmonious development,
the Community shall develop its actions leading to the
strengthening of its economic and social cohesion.

3.

Legal situation of the EU’s mountain areas

The European Union has repeatedly been called upon to give
attention to mountain areas.

In particular, the Community shall aim at reducing dispari-
ties between the levels of development of the various
regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions
or islands, including rural areas.’

29.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/37

If the aim is to create conditions in which the European
institutions can in future establish policies or specific measures
for mountain areas, these areas must be explicitly mentioned
alongside those already listed at the end of Article 158. The
phrase ‘rural areas’
in the current version does not cover
‘mountain areas’, and the specific nature of mountain areas
needs to be formally recognised.

To continue with Fortunato’s image, a Europe of ‘strong areas’
that are merely interconnected by these ‘bones’
is clearly
undesirable. A European policy for mountain areas is therefore
necessary, not in order to add the word ‘mountain’ to the list
of beneficiaries of EU assistance in one form or another, but
because mountains are a paradigm for European integration.
Europe’s mountain regions have long developed a pluralist
political view that is intrinsically tolerant and open to dis-
cussion and cooperative planning. To some extent, such an
approach is inherent in their very nature.

4. Mountain regions and the future of Europe

The future of Europe is now a key issue for the whole
continent, as its peoples consider the arrangements by which
it will be governed in the new millennium.

A simple truth is becoming increasingly clear: Europe cannot
be built according to simple mechanical designs, or by
planning everything rationally down to the last detail, or by
the mere conclusion of agreements between countries.

The new Europe will be the result of a complex procedure in
which the unification of civil society and the integration of
interests and roles, political leanings and external relations
must occur gradually, by means of an extensive top-level
mediation process that
in nature rather than
is political
technocratic.

For this to have any meaning, the new Europe must pay close
together
attention to the elements which have bound it
historically, anthropologically, culturally and physically. And
mountains are surely the epitome of these elements.

One or two people may have thought it possible to envisage a
Europe of the new millennium that has no policy for those
areas which physically bind together the more developed
regions of the continent. But it must be remembered that the
‘strong’ areas of the new European Union are linked precisely
by its uplands. This is true not only as regards transport, but
as regards links between economic areas in general. The Po
valley is linked to the Rhine valley by the Alps, while
economically vibrant Catalonia is linked to the south of France
by the Pyrenees. The Alpine-Appennine axis forms the skeleton
that supports Italy, to use the image of the Italian economist
Giustino Fortunato (the mountains forming the bones and the
lowlands the soft tissue). With a view to the EU’s eastward
enlargement, the Balkans form a bridge into the Slav countries
while the Tatra mountains link Poland and Hungary — new
regions of the EU from 2004. Mountain areas also contain
points of social and economic excellence; in the Alps alone,
the path from Grenoble to Bratislava goes through Voralberg,
Tyrol, Carinthia, Salzburgerland and some famous regions of
Italy.

if

identity which,

However, these areas are not immune from the challenges
posed by globalisation and its countercurrent: the growing
sense of local
leads to
blinkered and uncohesive views — in other words, the exact
opposite of integration — that fuel anti-European policies. It
is no coincidence that these views are also beginning to take
root in mountain areas, in the absence of a European policy
for them and given the frequent failure of individual EU
policies to cater for the distinctive features of mountain areas.

left unchecked,

The European Commission and the European Parliament
should give more careful consideration to the potential role of
mountain areas in the integration of the Union as a whole. A
small step would suffice: a guiding thought, a possibly
unconventional choice, a rejection of technocratic and bureau-
cratic procedures. In short, all that is needed is a policy
predicated on the idea that the new Union must be built on a
new form of governance that does not rest solely on the nation
state but draws strength from other key elements, including
Europe’s mountains.

A comprehensive model will not be possible, particularly in the
coming decades when civil society will be heavily influenced by
the interplay of interests and political and cultural schools of
thought. The need for a high-level policy that uses cohesive
elements to build a new model Union will then be all the
greater.

Mountain areas thus represent a key challenge for the Union.
And this is why a more sophisticated vision is needed — a
vision of a Union in which political debate does not focus
solely on the quality and quantity of its meat and milk, and in
which mountain areas have a positive contribution to make.
This means abandoning the stereotyped picture of Alpine
shepherds in their meadows and resisting the temptation
to view
(which some people in Europe still fall prey to)
mountain areas as solely an environmental or agricultural
issue.

C 128/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.5.2003

5. Mountains and cities

The present report and the ideas and recommendations it
contains have clearly been drawn up in the interests of the
people who continue to live and work, and to form civil and
political communities, in mountain areas.

However, it is now universally recognised that these communi-
ties play a valuable role not only for their own regions but also
— and to an increasingly significant degree — for lowland
dwellers in the main population and business centres. Moun-
tain dwellers are custodians of the land, the environment and
the landscape. They help to protect the soil and provide areas
and opportunities for recreational, cultural and sporting
activities. They also produce such strategic goods as timber,
water, energy and mineral resources. The goods which they
produce are particularly prized for their wholesomeness and
for the fact that they reflect a longstanding balance between
the natural world and the needs of man.

A European policy for mountain areas is thus not only
beneficial to mountain dwellers, but to everyone.

6. Concluding remarks and proposals

The Committee of the Regions

Points out that no part of Europe can be destined to

1.
remain a marginal area and suffer steady depopulation.

2.
Emphasises that for years now, but so far to no avail, the
EU decision-making bodies have received pressing calls to give
proper consideration to Europe’s mountain areas, bearing in
mind the special situation generated by ‘natural handicaps’ on
account of their high altitude and slope, tough climate and
distinctive geomorphology, remoteness and special difficulties,
including the cost of establishing and maintaining transport
infrastructure. These areas’ natural circumstances have created
flora and fauna which is unique both in its own right and in
its diversity. Their special living conditions also include their
particular plant and animal populations, and the particular
living conditions of their residents, not least in terms of the
supply and management of services, information, access and
mobility.

3.
Stresses that Europe’s mountain areas have been inhabit-
ed for thousands of years and must remain so. Their inhabitants
must not feel that they have been abandoned. They must be
guaranteed modern living conditions and amenities; they must
be given opportunities and support for wide-ranging and
sustainable economic development; and their
local and
regional cultures must be respected and safeguarded.

4.
Points out that much of Europe’s biodiversity is found in
its mountain areas, and that the presence of a sufficient active
population is necessary in order to protect the water, soil and
environment of these areas, look after their forests and specific
cultural assets, and provide goods and services that are of
incalculable value to the people of Europe as a whole.

5.
Notes that mountain areas have particular characteristics
and that although many of them are also ‘rural areas’, the two
concepts are not the same. By the same token, although some
mountain areas are also undoubtedly ‘disadvantaged’, it is not
acceptable that the EU’s concern for these areas should focus
solely on their economic difficulties.

Believes that the Treaty should take account of the
6.
concept of ‘territorial cohesion’ as a complementary element
of ‘economic and social cohesion’.

7.
Thinks that explicit mention of mountain areas in the
Treaty would provide a basis for Community competence in
this field. This would at last open the way to systematic
policies and evaluations for the various populations and areas,
with formal recognition of particular mountain circumstances,
thereby facilitating the coordination of individual Community
policies, with due respect for the subsidiarity principle.

Therefore calls for Treaty Article 158 and the corre-
8.
sponding Title to be amended to explicitly add ‘mountain
areas’ to the existing mention of ‘least favoured regions or
islands, including rural areas’; and for the term ‘territorial’ to
be added to the mention of ‘economic and social cohesion’.

9.
Considers that, alongside the legal enshrinement of the
special status of mountain areas, there is a need for EU
competition regulations that take account of this special status
and seek to reduce the economic and structural disadvantages
facing production and social structures in mountain areas by
setting up financial and economic support and long-term tax
incentives with a structural basis.

10.
Views mountain areas as custodians of features of our
cultural, social and political heritage that should be valued and
promoted. The special identity of their populations is an asset
which should be preserved as a distinct piece of the rich
mosaic that makes up each country and Europe as a whole.

29.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/39

11.
Strongly advocates sustainable rules regarding transport
policies that guarantee uniform basic conditions for the
management of road traffic and rail networks in mountain
areas. These areas cannot be treated simply as transit corridors.
Intelligent solutions must be devised that balance economic
growth requirements with the need to protect human health
and the environment. This also includes the extension of
infrastructure and the improvement of crossborder rail ser-
vices. For the funding of particularly costly infrastructure
schemes in ecologically sensitive areas, Community legislation
should allow cross-sectoral funding of rail infrastructure using
revenue from parallel road networks, to support the necessary
transfer of goods traffic from road to rail.

Suggests that when implementing the sixth R&D frame-
14.
work programme,
the European Commission takes due
account of the problems of mountain areas and promotes the
establishment of a European network linking all the research
bodies active in mountain areas.

15.
Stresses the need for a Community policy that helps
the populations of Europe’s various mountain areas to manage
coherent, coordinated, integrated actions within the frame-
work of broader, deeper self-government rooted in local
and regional democracy. That is also vital in allowing the
subsidiarity principle full play.

12.
Notes that the policies being pursued all over Europe
for rationalising public spending and privatising services
often cause irreversible damage to mountain communities.
Education, health, transport, postal and telecommunications
services are being scaled down almost everywhere. The pro-
vision of sufficiently extensive services of a high standard is
both a basic prerequisite for the survival of the local population
and a key factor for the development and growth of mountain
areas as a whole. Whenever such services are reorganised,
the public authorities must
therefore shoulder particular
responsibility and pay special attention to the situation in
these areas so that levels of service are not merely maintained,
but also improved. At all events the EU Treaty must clearly
guarantee that mountain areas have equal access to universal
services of general interest which serve the common good.
Privatisation schemes must therefore include safeguards and
guarantees to keep up the level of service provision in these
areas.

13.
Believes that the mountain economy must be given an
opportunity to flourish and that Community programmes
must therefore include provision for:

— the development of local service networks, especially IT
networks for businesses, households, schools and other
institutions and NGOs;

— policies that help young people to find employment in
businesses in a variety of sectors, with particular emphasis
on young entrepreneurs;

16.
Calls on the Commission, with a view to the EU’s
forthcoming enlargement, to formulate an overall Community
strategy for the sustainable development of the mountain areas
of the EU and the applicant states, including provisions for the
development of rural areas and the conservation of upland
agriculture. This strategy should encompass crossborder coop-
eration in mountain areas and set out specific measures under
the Interreg, Phare, Tacis and Sapard programmes, so as to
enable the applicant states and other regions adjoining the EU
to benefit from measures for mountain areas. That is particu-
larly important for the Sami, the indigenous people living in
northern and central Sweden, Finland, Norway and northern
Russia.

17.
Considers it vitally important that the Commission
promote research on a common classification system for
mountain areas and the impact of climate change on these
regions. Support for a common designation-of-origin mark for
products from Europe’s mountain areas,
in line with the
relevant EU rules, is also called for.

18.
Calls on the Commission to draw up a clear definition
of mountain areas based on criteria relating to natural
characteristics (e.g. altitude, slope, short growing season and
soil configuration) and to socio-economic criteria (e.g. popu-
lation density, demographic trends, age pyramid, scale of
economic activities and economic development potential), and
to combinations thereof, so as to clearly distinguish mountain
areas from other disadvantaged areas when preparing develop-
ment strategies and support mechanisms, given the different
problems facing these areas.

— promotion and simplification of multi-tasking;

— promotion of vocational qualifications that meet chang-

ing needs.

19.
Considers it absolutely vital to offset permanent natural
handicaps by providing allowances. Such allowances must be
retained as a key part of the policy for mountain areas, in
tandem with the diversification of economic activities through
the use of differentiated compensatory payments.

C 128/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.5.2003

20.
Stresses that alongside support under the second pillar
of the CAP, the economies of mountain areas must receive
additional support from the Structural Funds, with particular
attention for transport, telecommunications and support for
the development of businesses not directly involved in agri-
culture or tourism. The development priorities for these areas
must also include progressive provision of minimum essential
services and infrastructure, both in the fields of education,
health and transport and in new communication and infor-
mation sectors.

Stresses that it must be possible to combine support
21.
under the second pillar of the CAP with Structural Fund
measures. It therefore proposes that the second pillar of the
CAP (rural development) be structured as a set of options, with
areas of action that can be combined with measures from the
options discussed for the future Structural Funds. To ensure
maximum impact, extensive local and regional influence over
measures is a necessity.

22.
Asks the Commission to consider the case for allowing
premium products from duly delimited mountain areas to use
a mark indicating their mountain origin, alongside the PGI/
PDO mark.

Supports the conclusion of regional conventions mod-
23.
elled on the Convention on the Protection of
the Alps
and possibly in the context of crossborder cooperation, to
institutionalise and step up cooperation in addressing specific
regional and crossborder problems and thus providing a
practical demonstration of a Europe of the regions.

Efforts to promote equal opportunities for women and
24.
men must be stepped up. In particular the Committee of the
Regions observes that such action, according to the latest
research findings,
is a development factor per se. Where
depopulation is a problem, well-developed social support and
access to a broader range of cultural facilities are of major
importance in stemming the exodus of women and young
people from rural and mountain areas. Adequate educational

Brussels, 12 February 2003.

and advanced training programmes, particularly for young
people (including young farmers), play an important part in
enabling them to find employment.

25.
Considers that compensatory national and regional
measures must be adopted to help mountain areas, with
derogations to Community rules on state aid, in order to allow
the provision of public interest services throughout these areas
and to offset the reduction in structural support which they
will face as a result of the increasing call on structural aid after
EU enlargement.

26.
Stresses the need to provide mountain areas with
adequate structural policy instruments after 2006, and to
continue to provide these for as long as their special problems
persist.

27.
Calls on the Commission to include provision, within
its overall strategy for mountain areas, for specific support
mechanisms to encourage the use in these areas of renewable
energy sources,
in a manner that is compatible with the
environment and the landscape, particularly as regards the
use of water resources and the sustainable development of
mountain woodlands.

28.
Calls on the European Commission to participate
regularly in the proceedings of the bodies of the Convention
on the Protection of the Alps.

29.
Proposes that the EU institutions promote the identifi-
cation and dissemination of good practice for the management
of mountain areas, sustainable development activities, and
schemes for overcoming the difficulties inherent in the delivery
of services. Lastly, the Committee would stress the importance
of transnational exchanges of experience at local and regional
level.

Special account must be taken of the dairy sector in
30.
mountain areas, where instruments must be applied in an
attempt to maintain a widespread network of small farms.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE