THE WIDER TERRITORIAL CONTEXT EUROPE IN THE WORLD …

download report

Transcript THE WIDER TERRITORIAL CONTEXT EUROPE IN THE WORLD …

CPMR IN THE WORLD :
From Periphery to Interface ?
Communication at CPMR conference
Bayonne, 3 Oct. 2008
Claude GRASLAND
&
the members of the project
ESPON 3.4.1” Europe in the World”
RIATE : B. Corminboeuf, C. Didelon, N. Lambert, I. Salmon, C.
Dupuy-Levy - IGEAT : L. Aujean, G. Van Hammes, P. Medina,
C. Vandermotten - ITPS: M. Johansson, D. Rauhut -LADYSS :
P. Beckouche, Y. Richard, G. Motte -UMR Géographie-cités :
N. Cattan, C. Grasland, C. Grataloup, G. Lesecq, C. Zanin CRS HAS: G. Barta - TIGRIS O. Groza, ETH Zurich : M.
Keiner -GRUPO SOGES : A. Vanolo – ORMES : M. Charef, A.
Whabi – NORDREGIO : C. Smith
INTRODUCTION
2 questions about
CPMR
Question 1 :
What is a “peripheral” region ?
So … a peripheral region is a
region of EU located out of the
« pentagon », but …
Question 1 :
What is a “peripheral” region ?
"We in Poland make a distinction between the
southern dimension and the eastern dimension
[of the ENP] and it consists in this -- to the south,
we have neighbors of Europe, to the east we have
European neighbors," Sikorski said.
Question 2 :
What is «territorial cohesion » ?
« Territorial cohesion is related to
mechanism of solidarity between
territories at different spatial
scales:
States belonging to the same political
entity
Regions belonging to the same political
entity
Regions of the same state
Territories of the same region
Places of the same urban territory »
Technical note of the general secretary of CPMR
about « Territorial cohesion », May 2008
Question 2 :
What is «territorial cohesion » ?
Question 2 :
What is «territorial cohesion » ?
Question 2 :
What is «territorial cohesion » ?
Question 2 :
What is «territorial cohesion » ?
Question 2 :
What is «territorial cohesion » ?
Question 2 :
What is «territorial cohesion » ?
PLAN
I. Mental maps & Political visions
II. European « Neighbourhood »
III. Proposals for EU & CPMR
Jan. 2008
Dec. 2008
PART I
MENTAL MAPS
AND POLITICAL VISIONS
Question 1 : Draw on the following map a line
defining YOUR delimitation of Europe ?
An example of (complicated) Answer
Result of the survey on ESPON members
Question 2 : Draw on the following map lines
defining YOUR division of the World in 2 to 15
regions
An example of (very) sophisticated answer …
Groënland
Russia
Turkey
Northern
Africa
Part II
DEFINITION OF
ESPON (EU27+2)
NEIGHBOURHOOD
A THEORETICAL APPROACH
AN EMPIRICAL APPROACH
Criteria 1 : ACCESSIBILITY
Criteria 2 : HISTORICAL LINKS
Criteria 3 : INTERACTIONS
Criteria 4 : COMPLEMENTARITIES
SYNTHETIC INDEX OF EU27+2
INFLUENCE
SYNTHETIC INDEX OF
INFLUENCE
SYNTHETIC INDEX OF
INFLUENCE
STRATEGIG TYPOLOGY
Type A : Integration
(Ukrainia, Tunisia, Russia, Turkey, …)
• States localised in the immediate
neighbourhood of EU+2 whose
trade and air relations are strongly
polarised by EU+2.
• They do not necessary share a
common language or religion but
they are fully integrated to EU+2
from functional point of view and
their delimitation fit to the area of
the neighbourhood policy
• What is at stake is not the
question of membership to EU or
belonging to “Europe” but the
existence of an area of cooperation
based
on
proximity
and
complementarities.
Type B : Responsability
(Cameroon, Nigeria, Senegal, Congo, …)
• States for which EU+2 has a great
responsibility
in
their
future
development.
• First
because
the
historical
responsibility of colonization and
exploitation of African countries.
• Second because Africa could be a
major
centre
of
the
World
production in the future and its
young population will be an
opportunity.
• Many other world powers are
actually investing in this area
(Japan, China, Brazil, USA, …) and
the historical influence of Europe is
decreasing very quickly.
Type C : Opportunity
(USA, Australia, Brazil, India, Israël, …)
• Countries located at relatively long distance
from EU+2 but sharing a common language
or a common history.
• They could be very precious allies for EU+2
in a global World were services represented
the major part of added value and where
scientific and cultural innovations are major
factors of long term development.
• Concern
English
speaking
developed
countries like USA, Canada, Australia or
New Zealand which has always been in
strong relation with European countries
(both politically and economically),
• But also emerging countries (India, Brazil,
Mexico) which are crucial strategic partners
for the future of Europe as they are actually
relatively independent from the influence of
other major competitors of European Union
(China, Japan, USA).
Type D : Challenge
(China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq…)
• Countries on which EU+2 is less able to have
an influence or to develop easily relations
because of
differences
of
languages,
geographical distance, weakness of historical
relations...
•
But those countries are located in a space
where energetic resources are great and the
economies are the most dynamic.
• EU+2 countries and firms are actually very
attracted and fascinated by this part of the
World where they try to invest and to gain
positions.
•
But we can really ask if it is a reasonable
strategy in long term. The geopolitical and
cultural influence of EU+2 countries is indeed
particularly week in this part of the world
and they have no controls on what could
happen in case of economic and political
crisis.
PART III
WHICH PROPOSALS
FOR EU (in general) AND
FOR PERIPHERAL
REGIONS
(in particular)?
PROPOSAL 1 : Link global and local
perspectives
PROPOSAL 1 : Link global and local
perspectives
PROPOSAL 2 : Explore both northern,
eastern and southern neighbourhoods
PROPOSAL 2 : Explore both northern,
eastern and southern neighbourhoods
PROPOSAL 2 : Explore both northern,
eastern and southern neighbourhoods
PROPOSAL 3 : Explore new type of flows
and networks linking EU and the World
PROPOSAL 3 : Explore new type of flows
and networks linking EU and the World
PROPOSAL 3 : Explore new type of flows
and networks linking EU and the World
PROPOSAL 3 : Explore new type of flows
and networks linking EU and the World
PROPOSAL 4 : Take into account space
time dynamics
PROPOSAL 4 : Take into account space time
dynamics
PROPOSAL 4 : Take into account space
time dynamics
PROPOSAL 5 : Build strategic visions of
Europe in the World
THE “CONTINENT” VISION: towards a
protected and closed European territory
Expected impact of the
“Continent vision”
• Territorial assets:
(i) Trans European Networks
implemented at a large
European scale
(ii) Central & Eastern European
benefit from Western subsidies
and FDI
(iii) The Regional Policy focuses
on CEEC’s less developed areas
• Shortcomings:
(i) negative impact on EU’s
peripheral territories (Eastward,
e.g. Baltic States are no more
the interface between Russia
and UE; and Southward)
(ii) Eastern markets are not
sufficien per se for Western
investors
(iii) Europe as a « great Swiss »
THE “CENTRE-PERIPHERY” VISION:
towards a dissymmetrical EU /
neighbourhood pattern
Expected impact of the
“Centre-Periphery” vision
• Assets:
(i) a greater euromediterranean
integration, despite dissymmetrical
(2010 FTZ)
(ii) Mediterranean European
territories are boosted
(iii) Europe catches up with Asian
and American counterparts
(although not on the high-tech base
of the Lisbon strategy)
• Shortcomings:
(i) the relocation of the
environmental burden on the
southern shore of the
Mediterranean is not sustainable
(iii) no de-pollution of the
Mediterranean
(iii) no change in the migration
mix: lowly educated migrants
toward mediterranean Europe
(iv) Southern brain drain is not
stopped
(v) North Africa as the Europe’s
gatekeeper against poor African
migrants
THE “ARCHIPELAGO” VISION: toward
rising territorial polarisation
Expected impact of the
“Archipelago” vision
• Assets:
(i) major European cities
become highly internationalized
metropolitan areas
(ii) Western countries benefit
much from such international
metropolis
(iii) these Wetern metropolis
are most integrated in a top
urban network
• Shortcomings:
(i) increase of territorial
disparities in Europe
(ii) Eastern member states
rapidly loose their competitive
advantage (rise of costs in their
capital cities)
(iii) dramatic destabilisation of
the Med neighbours (rough
2010 liberalisation)
(iv)Border: toward the
« continent » vision
THE “NORTH-SOUTH REGION ” VISION:
an attempt of pro-active scenario
Expected impact of the
“North-South Region” vision
• Assets:
(i) Complementarity
between Europe (capital,
know how) and its
neighbours (markets, labour
forces)
(ii) a regulated relationship
(trade agreements but also
environment, labour rights,
…)
(iii) Europe peripheral
territories are boosted
(iv) the European region
becomes the major one in
the World
• Shortcomings: 0
politics, stupid !)
(it’s
CONCLUSION
2 answers to CPMR
TERRITORIAL COHESION ?
Toward multiscalar governance
GLOBAL/ EUROPEAN
CONTEXT
+
EUROPEAN / NEIGHBOURHOOD
CONTEXT
+
EUROPEAN/ NATIONAL/REGIONAL
CONTEXT
+
NATIONAL/REGIONAL/ LOCAL
CONTEXT
RETHINKING CPMR ?
From peripheries to interface
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION !