Commissie presenteert studie over bergachtige regio's in Europa (en)

The European Commission presented the results of a study on European mountain areas. The study provides an in-depth analysis of the mountain areas of 29 countries in Europe: the 15 Member States of the European Union, the 10 new Member States, the two candidate countries, Bulgaria and Romania, as well as Norway and Switzerland. The study establishes an extensive database on the mountain areas in order to analyse their economic and social situation. This has revealed the widely differing circumstances applying in mountain areas, although they tend to experience many common challenges linked to low population density, inaccessibility and the relatively high cost of infrastructure provision. By addressing these challenges through well-targeted policies, the Union can contribute to greater territorial cohesion.

Presenting the study, Michel Barnier, Commissioner responsible for regional policy and institutional reform, said: "Any sound public policy must be based on detailed analysis of problems and opportunities. This study on mountainous areas is one of a series that I launched for the preparation of the next generation of European regional development programmes for the period after 2006. The main results can be found in the Third cohesion report⁽¹⁾ in which the Commission produces new proposals for the future of European regional development programmes. The Commission recognises for the first time the effect of geographical handicaps on development prospects and on the need for future regional programmes to take this into account ".

The main results of the study are as follows:

• Defining mountain areas and massifs. The study area covered 1,900 thousand km2 (40.6% of the total land area of the countries concerned) with 94.3 million people (19.1% of the total population). In the 15 Member States, mountain areas cover 39.9% of the area and have 17.8% of the population, for the 12 acceding and accession countries the figures are 22.4% and 17.6%, respectively, and for Norway and Switzerland 91.3% and 76.2%. The definition used means that the figures also cover the sparsely populated areas of the far north.

• Demographic trends. Comparing population change (1991-2001) and population density, the general trend is one of stability or growth in northern and central Europe. In eastern Europe, depopulation is the norm. The massifs with the lowest population densities (<25 inhabitants/km²) are found in the French Pyrenees, in Spain, in the Nordic countries, and in Scotland and Ireland. The highest densities (>125 inhabitants/km²) are found in most of the mountain areas in Germany, the Basque Country and Catalonia in Spain, Sicily, the Swiss Jura and Mittelland, the Sudetes, northern Slovakia, and northern Slovenia.

• Economic and social indicators. The economy of Europe's mountain areas is subject to considerable diversity. While agriculture and forestry are often perceived as vital in economic terms and for cultural identity, employment in other sectors is generally higher. High shares of service activity are found both in prosperous mountain areas (e.g., French Northern Alps, Swiss Mittelland) and in less prosperous areas, with public service provision as the main activity in the latter (e.g. northern Norway). A diverse group of mountain areas retain a relatively high share of secondary employment (Hardangervidda and the southern mountains of Norway, northern England, Wales, the Czech Sudetes, the Black Forest of Germany, Catalonia and the Basque Country in Spain). Mountain areas dependent on primary sector activities are concentrated in southern Europe (e.g., Bulgaria, Spain, French Pyrenees and Massif Central, Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily and southern Italy) and in Poland.

• Accessibility, infrastructure and services in mountains areas: There tends to be a clear divide in infrastructure service supply with better provision in northern and parts of central Europe, on the one hand, compared to southern Europe, on the other. There is also a divide between existing and future EU Member States with generally poorer provision in the latter.

The study outlines the many existing policy initiatives in this field. These include sectoral policies, integrated development policies and a variety of trans-national policies and instruments, involving both cross-border arrangements and institutions for regional or international co-operation, such as the Alpine and Carpathian Conventions. There are also many European actions that are relevant to mountain areas, principally those under regional policy, the Common Agricultural Policy, transport, the environment and the information society. Special programmes financed by the INTERREG Community initiative provide for cross-border areas, also allowing for co-operation beyond the present EU borders, involving, for example, Russia, Turkey, Switzerland, and the countries of the southern rim of the Mediterranean.

In terms of the national and European policy implications, the study suggests that many mountain areas have opportunities for development as a result of the new information and communications technologies. They also have possibilities to develop as centres for recreation for urban dwellers, although this must be managed in a sustainable way that ensures nature protection. Given the great variety in national approaches to mountain issues, there is much to gain from better coordination and dissemination of experiences between regions and countries. Networking between various players (institutions, communities, enterprises) is therefore important in cross-border co-operation at different levels, within as well as between countries. International cooperation is essential not only for the mountain areas themselves, but also for the lowland areas they separate.

The full text of the study can be found at this website:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/study_en.htm ;

^{(1) COM(2004) 107 final, A new partnership for cohesion : convergence, competitiveness and cooperation. The Commission proposes that in future the allocation of resources for regional and cohesion policy should make use of territorial criteria, ;thus reflecting the relative disadvantage of regions with geographical handicaps (page xxxii).}