THE PYRENEES: MISSING A CONVENTION? Agustín García Ureta Faculty of Law (Biscay), University of the Basque Country, Bilbao

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "THE PYRENEES: MISSING A CONVENTION? Agustín García Ureta Faculty of Law (Biscay), University of the Basque Country, Bilbao"

Osborn Webb
6 years ago
Views:

1 THE PYRENEES: MISSING A CONVENTION? Agustín García Ureta Faculty of Law (Biscay), University of the Basque Country, Bilbao

2 (1) BASIC DATA: GEOGRAPHY, SPECIES AND INFRASTRUCTURES

3 BASIC DATA (a) Mountain chain of approximately 55,000 km 2 between France, Spain and the Principality of Andorra. (b) The chain extends for 450 kms., from the Bay of Biscay to the Mediterranean Sea. (c) The central section of the chain is roughly 150 kms wide.

4 BASIC DATA Wide presence of species: About 64 species of mammals, including a limited number of bears. Approximately 3,000 species of plants found in the Pyrenees (200 are endemic). Few remaining (and thinning) glaciers (21) above 3,000 metres.

5 BASIC DATA: TRANSPORT Difficulties to overcome the chain: Main passes run basically in the valleys at the western and eastern ends of the Pyrenees, respectively, near sea level. Increasing road transport of goods. Future railway crossing through the central section of the belt. Lack of overall transport policy on both sides of the range.

6 (2) STATES INVOLVED AND CROSS-BORDER ORGANISATIONS HORROR MOVIE

7 SPAIN Decentralised structure: Different authorities adopting diverse policy decisions, e.g., town planning. There is no law specifically devoted to mountain ranges. Current nature protection Law neglects the position of mountains. Lack of common institutions embracing the regions affected by the Pyrenees, although this is not legally unfeasible.

8 FRANCE Centralised structure, despite transfer of powers to sub-state authorities in the last decades. Existence of Mountains law (1985, 2005) Mountains do have a distinctive position in the French legal order, e.g., Pyrenees. Specific institutions dealing with mountains needs. Disperse provisions in different Codes. Institutional deadlocks requiring review, as acknowledged by the French Government in 2009.

9 No member of EU. ANDORRA Very limited ratification of environmental conventions, e.g., CDB (1992); Berna (1979). Likely difficulties to adopt extensive and complex legal framework for a tiny country. A Convention-(subsequent) Protocol approach would allow for adaptation.

10 CROSS BORDER ORGANISATIONS Piecemeal approach. Lack of transparency Scant information regarding their activities. Need for much more concentrated institutions, e.g., Conference of the Parties to a future Convention.

11 (3) WHICH INSTRUMENT? YOU ARE HERE

12 WHICH INSTRUMENT? CHARTER (A) Agreement of understanding (Charter, soft law) between the three States and perhaps with the participation of the EU. First step leading to a convention? States may conceive it as a sufficient step. Adequate to avoid ratification difficulties. Difficulties to rely on the agreement for further actions due to the lack of teeth. Not adequate for existing needs/and problems of the mountain range.

13 WHICH INSTRUMENT? CONVENTION (B) International Convention with the participation of the EU. The Pyrenees as a chain deserving particular attention before the States and also at international level. Despite the lack of strictly binding rules, it could be regarded as the most appropriate/effective instrument in terms of format, reach and also from an institutional viewpoint.

14 WHICH INSTRUMENT? CONVENTION It may demand much more time for drafting but once adopted it would become the basic legal reference for the Pyrenees. Starting point for further protocols like the Alps Convention. Instrument including further and specific criteria for interpretation of internal rules, e.g., development consent, transport infrastructures.

15 WHICH INSTRUMENT? CONVENTION Common institutional framework COP as a forum for discussion concerning the whole range of themes. Availability of diverse committees focusing on specific matters/areas. Mechanism for monitoring real application of policies.

16 COMMON THEMES TO TACKLE IN A FUTURE CONVENTION NUDIST BEACH

17 COMMON THEMES DESERVING A CONVENTION AND PROTOCOLS (1) Spatial planning rules Need to harmonise policies not merely to encourage possible harmonisation. Common principles regarding overall territorial but also urban policies. Limitations on the use of fresh portions of the territory.

18 COMMON THEMES DESERVING A CONVENTION AND PROTOCOLS (2) Transport Lack of overall perspective. Nowadays, transport policy is mainly concerned with overcoming the mountain range. Need to apply similar principles as those enshrined in the Alps Convention, e.g., transfer of freight from road to railways.

19 COMMON THEMES DESERVING A CONVENTION AND PROTOCOLS (3) Cross-border network of protected areas Need for joint management structures for common nature protection areas (so far meetings twice a year) and common plans regarding management of species. Need for a specific category for the Pyrenees (mainly to highlight the range).

20 COMMON THEMES DESERVING A CONVENTION AND PROTOCOLS (4) Landscape planning (underdeveloped policy) Connectivity of areas. Priority of nature landscapes over artificial use of the territory. Creation of a specific category for the Pyrenees.

21 COMMON THEMES DESERVING A CONVENTION AND PROTOCOLS (5) Energy. Difficulties to adopt an instrument going beyond general principles on this matter: Saving of energy. Reliance on local sources whilst respecting the environment. Renewable sources not encroaching upon other interests, landscape, species. Test field for new approaches.

22 COMMON THEMES DESERVING A CONVENTION AND PROTOCOLS (6) Economic activities Local knowledge as an inspiring principle (CBD). Need to overcome the equation development= tourism. Imbalance between ski activities and other areas, e.g., agriculture/forestry. Support for mountain products relying on existing instruments, e.g., European Charter of Mountain Quality Food products (distinctive category with specific characteristics).

23 CONCLUDING REMARKS

24 CONCLUDING REMARKS (a) Mountain range subject to increasing pressure. (b) EU rules not sufficient to encourage common approaches, e.g., Town and Country Planning, transport or energy use. (c) Differences of approach on both sides of the range, prima facie more comprehensive in France than in Spain. Specific mountain ranges as objects of the Law.

25 CONCLUDING REMARKS (d) Need to adopt legal instrument encompassing all authorities/interests involved. (e) The number of Parties involved may facilitate the conclusion of that instrument.

L 337/36 Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/36 Official Journal of the European Union 22.12.2005 PROTOCOL on the implementation of the Alpine Convention of 1991 in the field of energy Energy Protocol Preamble THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY,