INTERIM REPORT OF THE INQUIRY INTO THE FUTURE OF THE CPMR

Transcription

1 CRPMNTP A0 CONFÉRENCE DES RÉGIONS PÉRIPHÉRIQUES MARITIMES D EUROPE CONFERENCE OF PERIPHERAL MARITIME REGIONS OF EUROPE 6, rue Saint-Martin RENNES - F Tel. : + 33 (0) Fax : + 33 (0) e.mail : secretariat@crpm.org web : INTERIM REPORT OF THE INQUIRY INTO THE FUTURE OF THE CPMR CONTENTS - I - CHANGES IN THE CPMR S ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT SOME FORWARD THINKING ON HOW TO SHAPE THE FUTURE The new international context surrounding the regions European action The three drivers of a new type of governance The CPMR's identity, a changing world and look to the future II - SUMMARY OF THE ANALYTICAL STUDY ON CPMR MEMBERSHIP A growing number of members Different sized regions Maritime dimension: a dominant though not systematic characteristic Membership of the European Union: only a strong majority GDP/capita: CPMR regions are slightly poorer but are not among the EU s poorest Significant disparity in GDP/capita between Geographical Commissions In the future, fewer and fewer CPMR regions will be eligible under the Cohesion Objective Unemployment: on average, the CPMR regions fare better Accessibility: an issue that differentiates peripheral maritime regions No obvious correlation Geographic or demographic handicaps: many CPMR regions are concerned, though with varying degrees of intensity Governance: a wide range of situations Cooperation outside the EU: a strong involvement on the part of CPMR regions Conclusions III - SUMMARY OF MAIN IDEAS EXPRESSED DURING THE GEOGRAPHICAL COMMISSION S DEBATES AND INTERVIEWS Question 1: What do you consider to be the CPMR s biggest achievements during recent years? Question 2: On what occasions, or in what areas, do you consider that the CPMR has failed, or could have done more? Question 3: What do you consider as the most important issues which the CPMR should address in the foreseeable future? Question 4: How do you think that the CPMR could get more actively involved with other stakeholders on the European scene, and with which ones? Question 5: How do you think that the CPMR could play a greater role with the territories covered by the EU Neighbourhood Economic Policy? Question 6: How do you think that the CPMR could become increasingly involved with other structures or networks of regional organisations worldwide? Reference CRPMNTP A0 p. 1

2 - I - CHANGES IN THE CPMR S ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT - SOME FORWARD THINKING ON HOW TO SHAPE THE FUTURE - (TECHNICAL PAPER FROM THE CPMR GENERAL SECRETARIAT) (10 June 2008) 1. THE NEW INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT SURROUNDING THE REGIONS EUROPEAN ACTION The analytical part of the paper entitled The European Regions in the Single Global Market: the Challenges facing Regional Policy for the Period , which was presented by the CPMR General Secretariat on 22 January 2007 at the Florence Political Bureau meeting, identified the main changes in the European and international context over the last five to ten years: - A development gap between Europe and the rest of the world that is gradually narrowing, mainly because Asian countries are catching up; - A decrease in Europe's political influence in the world, despite the many successive enlargements, and a sharp decline in constant political and geographical terms; - Acceleration in the globalisation of trade that has relativised the positive effects of the single market during the 1990s; - Profound changes in the terms of trade that raise questions as to the future positioning of many European economic sectors; - An ageing European population that is restricting growth; - The key role of innovation in all human and economic activities, and not just technological ones; - The major importance of the energy/climate issue, which has become ever greater over the last 18 months, with the structural increase in energy prices (the price of a barrel of oil has gone up from $60 to $140 during this period) on the one hand, and the development of a pollution rights system which is becoming a major economic and strategic issue. The paper concluded by identifying three major challenges for Europe, which are still valid today: - The need to maintain a high level of economic activity and social protection by enhancing its competitiveness in high value-added sectors. For this priority, education and training policy, as well as the type of accompanying economic and social policy, will be the key issue; - Pursuit of a European policy aiming to achieve a better balance in development opportunities at global level (the debate on immigration issues will also be important here). As the largest donor of development aid, Europe will no doubt have to strengthen its external policies and specify in more detail what it expects in exchange; - The need to anticipate and respond to the uneven negative impact of globalisation, for both citizens and different territories. The present upheavals are still generating deep-seated changes which will have to be tackled boldly and intelligently. Not all European territories will be able to adapt to these changes at the same rate. The European debate has evolved little since early The constant developments in the international context and doubts about Europe's future political dimension have caused uncertainty among many political analysts and forecasters. However, it remains to be seen whether this situation is purely related to current circumstances the wait for ratification of the constitutional treaty, the European elections and the new European Commission in 2009 or whether the malaise goes deeper and raises questions about how much room for manoeuvre political authorities at European and global level really now have. This is the issue that must be addressed in order to better reflect about the current and future added value of an organisation of the regions such as the CPMR. Reference CRPMNTP A0 p. 2

3 2. THE THREE DRIVERS OF A NEW TYPE OF GOVERNANCE All political decisions on major issues must nowadays be examined closely with regard to three main drivers: 2.1. The cross-sectoral driver or the integrated policy approach In an increasingly complex world, in which it is becoming difficult to prescribe solutions, purely sectoral approaches have now had their day. Political solutions to society s problems must increasingly often be sought at the point where two, three or even more sectoral approaches meet. The overlap between the economic, environmental and social spheres has become a tangible reality for all citizens. However, dividing lines are always deeply entrenched, at national level of course, and at European level, which sadly just replicates and even accentuates them; this division between its DGs, and sometimes also at regional and local level, must also be acknowledged. At whichever level they work, politicians are thus confronted with genuine difficulties regarding the political and administrative implementation of solutions they would like to propose to their electorates and decide between the different possible repercussions of their action. At European level this too often leads to never-ending, fruitless and even futile efforts to coordinate activity The geographical driver Globalisation has considerably expanded the range of geographical levels at which some issues are played out. In 1973, the year the CPMR was created, the national level was by far the most important, and to a lesser extent the community level, in a Europe with six member states which was still just the beginnings of a continent. These geographical points of reference have since been completely shaken up at different levels: - The regional level has become very strong, as has the sub-regional level, which also responds to a specific need for closeness to citizens. The nation state which reassures citizens is a thing of the past; - The European level has significantly and regularly become larger and firmer: 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 25, 27 and soon no doubt 30 members. However, the matter of further enlargements has recently become a subject of concern and even conflict among member states; - Globalisation has imposed itself as one of the major levels at which a certain number of problems are now analysed (energy/climate, competitiveness, sustainable development, solidarity, etc.), although it also entails some identity-related needs such as the feeling of belonging to coherent geographical groupings, the notion of maritime identity, or common cultural points of reference. - All politicians are now obliged to pay respect to these different geographical levels if they are to develop credible solutions for their electorates. Every political issue corresponds to global, European, national, regional and local causes, and also solutions that must be completed at these different levels, though there are not enough instruments for organising them adequately The decision-making driver involving the institutional, economic and civic levels 1973 was still a time when the state was all-powerful and most problems could be tackled using a simple measure, decree or subsidy, and with a relatively simple system of governance levels. Nowadays, the decision-making driver has become extensively complex, due to three underlying trends: - The institutional consequences of the multiplication of relevant territorial levels (point II.2), which is frequently called multi-level governance of policies, as well as, in the European context, the wide range of responses developed in each country; - The advent of economic liberalism which, together with the end of communism, has given the private sector (in all its different forms) greater influence in decision-making and its consequences for citizens. The private sector has a dominant role with regard to certain policies, which the public sector just oversees at best (for example, the transport or research sectors); - The need for citizenship and for citizens to better appropriate the political dimension both upstream and downstream of decision-making processes. This calls for other methods and practices which have yet not really been stabilised. Reference CRPMNTP A0 p. 3

4 At the intersection between these three greatly changing worlds, there is now new type of actor, known as stakeholders, the only suitably succinct word to describe all the different players that can have a real impact on policy making. It is now impossible to make a political decision without consulting all stakeholders. However, the thing that currently has a great effect on political action is the void surrounding most actors when they seek to take the best decisions while being fully aware of the issues and organising this undefined partnership in the most effective manner possible. This is clearly a possible future area for debate. A fourth driver should of course be added to this list. Evident but immutable, this is the driver of time. We shall therefore give a brief overview of this in the following diagram. Sectoral integration CPMR? Geographical levels Decision-making system 3. THE CPMR'S IDENTITY, A CHANGING WORLD AND LOOK TO THE FUTURE The CPMR s action is currently right at the core of all these upheavals. Despite the wide diversity of its member regions (see statistical analysis), its culture and identity which have been forged down the years depend, among other things, on three of complementary aspects that offer useful foundations on which to build a debate for the future: - The territorial approach, which can serve as a synthesis of these three drivers, is one way to ensure the convergence of decision making on a tangible basis, making it possible to bring together all the actors and dimensions of political action. It is one approach that can, for certain policies, help seriously reform the three drivers in order to give a new boost and credibility to political action; - The maritime dimension, which is the counterpart to territory near and off the coast, where it is even more complicated to promote convergence between actors in the absence of maritime law as clear-cut as land law. - The solidarity approach, which is constantly being called into question with regard to its levels and areas of reference, but is nevertheless at the core of the organisation's culture. How can this fundamental value be pursued and given its full meaning in a world that is going through such major upheaval? These are undoubtedly the main questions the organisation will raise in order to reflect upon its added value in future years. Reference CRPMNTP A0 p. 4

5 - II - SUMMARY OF THE ANALYTICAL STUDY ON CPMR MEMBERSHIP REPORT TO THE POLITICAL BUREAU - RHODES, 27/6/08 (Summary based on the study conducted by Mr François Cadou, student at the University of Rennes 2) - June A GROWING NUMBER OF MEMBERS Between the time it was legally registered as an association (1975) and 2008, the number of CPMR members has risen from 16 to 156. There was a particularly strong increase from the 1990 s onwards, owing to both the successive enlargements and the action led by the General Secretariat. Note: In June 2008, the number of regions rose to DIFFERENT SIZED REGIONS Out of 156 member regions, 76 (i.e. 49%) have a population of below 500,000 while at the other extreme 5 regions have a population of over 5,000,000. The average population size of a CPMR member is 1,203,000. To give a rough idea, the average population of a NUTS II region in EU27 is 1,842,562. Similar disparities may be observed in terms of surface area (CPMR regions have an average surface area of 14,292 Km² compared to 16,890 Km² for the NUTS II average in EU27). Reference CRPMNTP A0 p. 5

6 CPMR Population (by size bracket) Number of Population size regions < [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ >= TOTAL There are significant differences in population size depending on the Geographical Commissions, where the size of an Inter-Mediterranean Commission region is three times the size of a Baltic Sea Commission region. 558,785 average population for the Baltic Sea Commission 594,169 average population for the Islands Commission 666,075 average population for the Balkan & Black Sea Commission 852,152 average population for the North Sea Commission 1,798,023 average population for the Atlantic Arc Commission 1,899,953 average population for the pour Inter-Mediterranean Commission Commissions with the smallest populations: Population (by size bracket) Islands Balkans / Black Sea North Sea Baltic Sea Number Number Number Number of Population of Population of Population of Population regions regions regions regions < [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ >= TOTAL Commissions with the largest populations: Inter-Mediterranean Atlantic Arc Population Number Number (by size bracket) of Population of Population regions regions < [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ >= TOTAL Geographical Commissions that have a large majority of small regions therefore carry considerable weight within the organisation. So while the populations of the Inter-Mediterranean and Atlantic Arc Commissions represent 75% of the population of CPMR member regions as a whole, the regional authorities belonging to these two Commissions only account for 48% of the CPMR s total membership. (N.B: Strict comparisons are not possible, since some regions belong to more than one Geographical Commission. Guyane and Border (Donegal) are not a members of any Commission.) Reference CRPMNTP A0 p. 6

7 60 60% % 40% % 30% 20% Nb of Regions Population % 15% 7% 8% 10% Islands Balkans / Black Sea North Sea Baltic Sea Atlantic Arc Inter-Mediterranean 10% 0% 3. MARITIME DIMENSION: A DOMINANT THOUGH NOT SYSTEMATIC CHARACTERISTIC Over 92% of CPMR s member regions have a coastline, but 12 regions are landlocked. Maritime Regions 144 Non-maritime Regions 12 Total MEMBERSHIP OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: ONLY A STRONG MAJORITY Although 81% of CPMR s member regions belong to the EU, some thirty members do not. The North Sea and Balkan and Black Sea Commissions have the highest percentage of non-eu regions, followed by the Inter-Mediterranean Commission. Number of EU Regions Number of non-eu Regions TOTAL Number % 81% 19% 100% 0 non-eu regions for the Atlantic Arc Commission 1 non-eu region (4%) for the Baltic Sea Commission 1 non-eu region (4%) for the Islands Commission 6 non-eu regions (13%) for the Inter-Mediterranean Commission 9 non-eu regions (31%) with an average population 666,075 for the Balkan & Black Sea Commission 14 non-eu regions (42%) for the North Sea Commission N.B: Strict comparisons are not possible, since some regions belong to more than one Geographical Commission.) 5. GDP/CAPITA: CPMR REGIONS ARE SLIGHTLY POORER BUT ARE NOT AMONG THE EU S POOREST The average GDP/capita of the CPMR is equal to 92% of the EU average. Its rate of dispersion is 34 compared to 37 for EU27. This indicates a tighter grouping of regions around the average and therefore greater uniformity. However, the proportion of population with a GDP/capita below 75% of the EU27 average is lower in the CPMR than in the EU as a whole (23% as opposed to 25%). Reference CRPMNTP A0 p. 7

8 CPMR and EU27: Breakdown of population according to GDP/capita. Source: EUROSTAT CPMR EU 27 19% 23% 26% 25% 27% 31% 27% 22% <75% 75%<GDP<100% 100%<GDP<120% 1GDP>=120% CPMR and EU27: Breakdown of regions according to GDP/capita (EU average = 100) Level of GDP CPMR EU27 No of Regions Population No of Regions Population GDP<75% 48 (31%) (25%) %<GDP<100% %<GDP<120% GDP>=120% Total *Source: EUROSTAT 6. SIGNIFICANT DISPARITY IN GDP/CAPITA BETWEEN GEOGRAPHICAL COMMISSIONS Although 70% and 81% of the population of the Baltic Sea and North Sea Commissions respectively have a GDP/capita higher than the EU average, in all other Geographical Commissions a large majority of the population still has a GDP/capita below this average. The Balkan and Black Sea Commission and the Islands Commission stand out in particular on account of their high level of population with a GDP <75%EU27 (51% and 57% respectively). CPMR and EU27: Breakdown of population according to GDP/capita. Source: EUROSTAT North Sea Baltic Sea Atlantic Arc 26% 20% 31% 11% 19% 8% 14% 22% 55% 39% Inter-Mediterranean Balkans/Black Sea Islands 22% 19% 27% 32% 41% 7% 51% 21% 3% 19% 56% 57% <75% 75%<GDP<100% 100%<GDP<120% 1GDP>=120% The proportion of the population of CPMR member regions currently eligible under the Cohesion Objective (GDP/capita <75% EU27) is situated largely in the Mezzogiorno and in the regions outside EU27. Reference CRPMNTP A0 p. 8

9 Breakdown of regions lagging behind in development (as a % of the population studied) - Source: Eurostat 7. IN THE FUTURE, FEWER AND FEWER CPMR REGIONS WILL BE ELIGIBLE UNDER THE COHESION OBJECTIVE Evolution of regions eligible under Objective 1 EU27-EU28: Map 1: EU 27: GDP/capita of NUTS regions Map 2: EU 28: future eligibility map in 2004 *Source: Eurostat, regional yearbook 2007 *Source: CPMR Technical Paper, January 2008 Notes: Les régions de Croatie ne sont pas représentées dans cette carte. Carte élaborée à partir des donnés du PIB 2003 (Eurostat). CPPM/CRPM 8. UNEMPLOYMENT: ON AVERAGE, THE CPMR REGIONS FARE BETTER With an average unemployment rate of 8.3% in EU27 as a whole, the CPMR regions have an average rate of 7.9%. However, unemployment remains high in the Mediterranean (9%), the Islands (9.5%) and the Balkans/Black Sea (10.1%). It should be noted that this indicator is set to become increasingly less significant owing to ageing populations and growing labour needs. CPMR 2% 17% 26% 55% EU27 27% 32% 19% 22% Unempl. rate<5% 5% <= unempl. >10% rate 10% <= unempl. rate >15% Unempl. rate>= 15% Reference CRPMNTP A0 p. 9

10 Average and dispersion index by Commission Balkans/Black Sea Islands Baltic Sea Average 10.1% 9.5% 7.0% Dispersion Atlantic Arc North Sea Inter-Mediterranean Average 6.7% 4.0% 9.0% Dispersion ACCESSIBILITY: AN ISSUE THAT DIFFERENTIATES PERIPHERAL MARITIME REGIONS Within EU27, 49% of the population benefits from a multimodal accessibility index equal to or more than 100 ( high level of accessibility ), whereas this percentage falls to just 20% of the population of CPMR regions covered by the ESPON index. On the other hand, 42% of the CPMR population scores a rate of less than 75, as opposed to 27% for EU27. The Atlantic Arc, and even more so the Balkans and Black Sea, and above all the islands are particularly affected. CPMR and EU 27: Breakdown of population according to accessibility **. Source: ESPON EU 27 8% 19% 49% 23% CPMR 9% 20% 33% 39% <50 >=50 & <75 >=75 & <100 >=100 *High level of accessibility: index > =100 **ESPON multimodal accessibility index Breakdown of population according to level of accessibility, by Geographical Commission Islands Balkans / Black Sea Atlantic Arc 11% 31% 28% 17% 3% 13% 39% 1% 58% 53% 45% Inter-Mediterranean North Sea Baltic Sea 3% 2% 3% 16% 23% 16% 21% 39% 49% 42% 21% 27% <50 >=50 & <75 >=75 & <100 >=100 *Source: ESPON Reference CRPMNTP A0 p. 10

11 Average and dispersion index by Commission Balkans/Black Sea Atlantic Arc Islands Average Dispersion Baltic Sea North Sea Inter-Mediterranean Average Dispersion *Source: ESPON 10. NO OBVIOUS CORRELATION However, there is no obvious correlation between multimodal accessibility indices and GDP/capita or unemployment. GDP/capita according to the accessibility of regions Unemployment rate of the regions according to accessibility Reference CRPMNTP A0 p. 11

12 11. GEOGRAPHIC OR DEMOGRAPHIC HANDICAPS: MANY CPMR REGIONS ARE CONCERNED, THOUGH WITH VARYING DEGREES OF INTENSITY Serious and permanent geographic or demographic handicaps are acknowledged in Article 158 of the Lisbon Treaty. This takes on board as a minimum the existence of mountainous areas within a region (where >40% of the territory is classed as mountain area ), low population density (pop. <60/Km²) and island status. On the basis of this definition, 106 out of 156 CPMR regions (i.e. 68% of the membership representing 60% of the population) are concerned. If we adopt more stringent criteria (>60% of the territory classed as mountain area; very low population density pop. <12.5/Km²), then 41% of CPMR s membership representing 25% of the population is concerned. At least one third of the member regions of the Balkan/Black Sea Commission and North Sea Commission have over 60% of their territory classed as mountain area, and at least one quarter of them for the Atlantic Arc and Inter-Mediterranean Commissions. Proportion of regions and population with over 60% mountain area 40% 35% 37% %Population %Regions % population / % regions 30% 25% 20% 15% 18% 33% 27% 30% 18% 27% 22% 10% 5% 0% Balkans/Black Sea 13% 10% 2% 4% North Sea Atlantic Arc Inter-Mediterranean Islands Baltic Sea In the North Sea and Baltic Sea Commissions respectively, 22% and 18% of their regions have very low population density. It should be noted that many regions suffer from a combination of different handicaps, e.g. archipelagos with their dual insular nature, mountainous island regions or sparsely populated mountain regions. Besides their specific constraints, the 7 outermost regions are also accordingly archipelagos, mountain areas or even a territory with very low population density (Guyane). 12. GOVERNANCE: A WIDE RANGE OF SITUATIONS CPMR s member regions show a wide diversity in political and administrative situations, ranging from the unitary system (regional executives are appointed by the central government) to the federal system. However, the large majority come under a decentralised unitary system or a regionalised system. Reference CRPMNTP A0 p. 12

13 State systems to which CPMR regions belong (including those with special status): State system Number of regions Degree of autonomy given to the Population concerned regions Unitary Low Decentralised unitary 95 (62%) Moderate Regionalised 30 (20%) High Federate High It should be noted that 16 CPMR member regions (situated in Finland, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the British Isles) enjoy special statuses and are granted an often high level of autonomy in relation to the State system in place, regardless of which kind of system this happens to be. 13. COOPERATION OUTSIDE THE EU: A STRONG INVOLVEMENT ON THE PART OF CPMR REGIONS 91 out of the CPMR s 156 regions are eligible for cross-border cooperation programmes outside the EU, i.e. approximately 58%. This represents a high potential that CPMR can draw on to develop its links outside the EU. Among these 91 regions, the 7 OMRs are concerned by a special programme related to their specific situation, the wider neighbourhood action plan. Regions eligible for external cross-border cooperation programmes Number of eligible regions Population CPMR 91 (58%) Baltic Sea Balkans/Black Sea Atlantic Arc Islands Inter-Mediterranean North Sea CONCLUSIONS What distinguishes the peripheral maritime regions and what unites them? Their maritime dimension (over 90%); Their lower multimodal accessibility index (80% of their population has an index of less than 100); The relatively high number of territories suffering from geographic or demographic handicaps, such as island status, mountains or low population density (41% to 68% of the membership depending on the criteria used); A high (58%) number of regions directly concerned in one way or another by neighbourhood policy with third countries: Note that 19% of CPMR s member regions do not belong to the EU. What does not really distinguish CPMR s member regions or what differentiates them from one another? Very diverse population sizes and surface areas; Extremely different levels of political and administrative responsibility; An average GDP/capita which, although it is lower, is not much different from that of EU27 and which is set to become even less so; Sometimes big differences in GDP/capita between themselves; Unemployment figures that are not particularly revealing; No obvious and systematic correlation between GDP/capita, unemployment and accessibility. We can deduct from these observations that CPMR membership is certainly not related to any strict economic or political criteria, and that there is even some flexibility as regards geographic criteria. Reference CRPMNTP A0 p. 13

14 CPMR membership seems to be more about the desire of its members to identify with one or more aspects of a set of characteristics (maritime dimension, lower level of accessibility, border region, specific handicaps, etc.) that form a whole not lacking in a certain coherence and which justify the name of the organisation. Speaking metaphorically, we might say that the CPMR offers its members an à la carte menu, which does cater for some occasionally quite varying tastes, but which nevertheless remains attractive enough for everyone to choose to go to the same restaurant. Reference CRPMNTP A0 p. 14

15 - III - SUMMARY OF MAIN IDEAS EXPRESSED DURING THE GEOGRAPHICAL COMMISSION S DEBATES AND INTERVIEWS In the framework of this inquiry, a number of people (internal and external to the CPMR) have been interviewed. Although it was not possible to meet every single person we had hoped to interview, the outcome of these discussions and the debates which took place within the Geographical Commissions provided a substantial amount of ideas. These ideas have been used to draw up the questionnaire which is being sent to each CPMR Member Region on an individual basis. People interviewed 1. Pdt Claudio Martini, Tuscany Region, CPMR 2. Pdt Michel Vauzelle, PACA Region, (Pdt IMC) 3. Pdt Gunn-Marit Helgesen, Telemark Fylkeskommune, (Pdt NSC) 4. Pdt Christel Liljeström, Itä Uusimaa Region, (Pdt BSC) 5. Pdt Serafeim Tsokas, Region of Crete (Pdt IC) 6. Mrs Audrey Finlay (ex-member of the NSC Steering Committee, Scotland) 7. Mr Luis Valente de Oliveira, Pdt Scientific Council, CPMR 8. Pdt Jean-Yves Le Drian, Brittany Region 9. Pdt Alberto Jardim, Madeira Region 10. Mr Yavuz Mildon, Pdt CLRAE, Council of Europe 11. Mr Pedro Cymbron, Member of the Cabinet of President José Manuel Barroso 12. Mr Jean-Charles Leygues, DG REGIO 13. Mr Slawomir Tokarski, Member of the Cabinet of Mrs Danuta Hübner 14. Mr Arve Skjerpen, Adviser, Mission of Norway to the EU 15. Mr Uno Aldergren, Region of Skåne, Council of Europe 16. M. Abdelhadi Benallal, Region of Tangiers-Tetouan 17. Excmo. Sr. D. Manuel Chavez Gonzalez, Region of Andalucía 18. Mr Arne Øren, Chair of BSSSC Meetings of Geographical Commissions and others 1. Atlantic Arc Commission 2. Islands Commission 3. Joint BSC/NSC Commissions 4. Conference 5. NSC Steering Committee 6. UK Regions 7. Inter-Mediterranean Commission 8. Balkan-Black Sea Commission 9. CPMR Administrative Council On the following pages, the sign >< signifies that opposing viewpoints are being expressed. Reference CRPMNTP A0 p. 15

16 QUESTION 1: WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE CPMR S BIGGEST ACHIEVEMENTS DURING RECENT YEARS? Well-known in Brussels; has good contacts and is well-informed; Good at lobbying. A Watchdog for Peripheral Maritime Regions; >< Peripheral Maritime Regions are not key to CPMR success (Leygues); Quality of technical papers; Ethical values; Conviviality; Successes: Territorial cohesion and regional policy; Europe of the Sea; creation of CoR; Active secretariat; Helps non-eu Regions to promote themselves nationally and internationally (Tangiers), or to be informed and discuss EU policies (Norway); General trend: Maritime dimension and peripherality remain a good prism to approach and understand EU affairs. QUESTION 2: ON WHAT OCCASIONS, OR IN WHAT AREAS, DO YOU CONSIDER THAT THE CPMR HAS FAILED, OR COULD HAVE DONE MORE? The CPMR has become somewhat too big : if membership is getting too broad, there is a subsequent risk of losing focus; decisions achieved too often through compromise; >< The CPMR should broaden and extend its membership in enlargement countries and also with neighbouring peripheries; The CPMR tends to deal with too many issues, and should focus on a limited number of core EU political issues associated with the maritime dimension and peripherality; >< The CPMR should extend the field & scope of its activities; Insufficient political representation at conferences (N.B: ><opposite view from Commission ); papers should be presented increasingly by politicians; More efforts to market the organisation and make its successes known, including within Regions. Be more pedagogic, and cater for different audiences; Not enough return on what the CPMR has done at local level; need a more bottom-up approach; More focus on real peripheries; Too much centring on the South (says the North); ><focusing too much on the North (says the South); Difficult to draft policies for Regions which have very different levels of responsibilities; Need to receive papers (position papers, financial documents) as early as possible before meetings; Need more transparent rules of working and designation to working groups, etc; Poor induction of new members; Future Secretary General should be partly based in Brussels and presence there strengthened; Decentralise work to Geographical Commissions; more coordination and exchanges needed between them; Organisation at times too closed, too French ; Not done enough to promote subsidiarity at regional level. Reference CRPMNTP A0 p. 16

17 QUESTION 3: WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER AS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES WHICH THE CPMR SHOULD ADDRESS IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE? Stick to its key mission (maritime dimension, peripherality) and to a small number of themes; >< Address a lot of themes: territorial cohesion; post-2013 regional policy; energy & climate; accessibility; change; handicaps; coastline; fishing also migratory flows; CAP; education; knowledge; communication, etc; The CPMR should export its ethical values and promote better governance, democracy and subsidiarity; Are not issues like innovation, poles of excellence, etc. less at the core of the CPMR s mission? (European Commission); We need to prioritize; Need to anticipate and initiate (e.g. Europe of the Sea); circumstances may make peripheries centres; Importance of high quality papers; Need for intelligent mix between What s on in Brussels and what Regions want ; More use of IT ( information accessible on the web to Members only via a password); The CPMR should pay more attention to INTERREG and assist Regions with calls for proposals; The CPMR should involve more non-eu Regions which are accession candidates. QUESTION 4: HOW DO YOU THINK THAT THE CPMR COULD GET MORE ACTIVELY INVOLVED WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS ON THE EUROPEAN SCENE, AND WITH WHICH ONES? The CPMR is a unique organisation and should stay totally separate; >< The CPMR should work with other EU organisations which share its values, but only on a pragmatic, case by case basis, in specific areas, and avoid duplication (majority view); >< If the CPMR keeps growing, it could just as well merge with the AER to avoid duplication and be stronger (Skåne); Cooperation with mountain Regions useful (EUROMONTANA); The CPMR is represented but not heard enough in the Committee of Regions >< the CPMR should consider itself as a real voice of regional interests; The CPMR should cooperate with National Authorities (Norway); idem with the Council of Europe; >< The CPMR should focus mostly on contacts with MEPs rather than with other organisations. QUESTION 5: HOW DO YOU THINK THAT THE CPMR COULD PLAY A GREATER ROLE WITH THE TERRITORIES COVERED BY THE EU NEIGHBOURHOOD ECONOMIC POLICY? Neighbourhood policy is essential >< the CPMR should focus upon its existing members and stick to an observatory role; Neighbourhood policy is much more accessible and understandable than FOGAR; Areas of interest: Russia, Barents Sea, southern and eastern part of the Mediterranean, Black Sea ; The CPMR should add content to Mediterranean and Eastern partnerships; Focus on practical issues of interest to citizens (water, energy, etc.); Cooperation with neighbouring countries should lie essentially with Geographical Commissions. Reference CRPMNTP A0 p. 17

18 QUESTION 6: HOW DO YOU THINK THAT THE CPMR COULD BECOME INCREASINGLY INVOLVED WITH OTHER STRUCTURES OR NETWORKS OF REGIONAL ORGANISATIONS WORLDWIDE? Conflicting views; however, some compromise possible; Regional authorities which are larger and located in areas with a strong tradition of worldwide trade & exchanges (Mediterranean, Atlantic) tend to be for ; Smaller Regions (especially in North) tend to be against. Regional answer to globalisation; adding the regional level to global perspective; Importance of exporting ethical values ; For Will contribute to good worldwide governance; Focus on Africa, Mercosur; Should this not be done within UCLG? (different views); The CPMR should work with the World Bank, OECD. Against The CPMR is, and should remain, a purely European organisation; The CPMR does not have to waste money, staff working-time, or efforts on such a far-fetched objective; Neighbourhood works enough in itself; Risk of dilution ; FOGAR should be a distinct, financially separate organisation; managing a worldwide organisation = risk of chaos. Compromise Perhaps with a different organisational model and a separate working structure; The CPMR should act globally only on specific issues which require this line of approach (e.g. climate change, maritime safety ); CPMR involvement should limit itself to contacts with similar organisations across the world. Reference CRPMNTP A0 p. 18