ÅðéóôñïöÞ óôçí áñ÷éêÞ óåëßäá
(ãéá ôï åëëçíéêü êåßìåíï ðéÝóôå åäþ)
DG XVI, TERRA Second Annual Meeting,
Pori, Finland, 27,28, 29/6/99
The lower edge of regions: Problems and Prospects.
Elias Gianniris, LORE Technical Manager
The deterioration of the social cohesion in the areas of Objective 1 means, to my view, deterioration of regional planning, increase of problems of ecological-environmental nature, developmental inequalities.
When LORE started, there had already been serious local procedures. In Ikaria there had been a development conference (1995, published 1997). The basic development issues have been monitored clearly. The LORE Project gives to the 5 Partner Regions the opportunity to meet, without dependencies, and autonomously, basic development needs; to observe and to set up a method for sustainable orientation. LORE also gave the opportunity for an extensive exchange of views with other areas and other TERRA projects.
As it concerns Planning, there is adequacy. With this note I will try to monitor the issues and the prospects for Development. I will present here, as a mid-term report, the case of Ikaria concerning Planning and Development.
Planning and the Results: Few examples from Ikaria
Irrationality in practice
There are several other examples which can bee brought to attention. The fast is that the local society is “listening” the rationality calls and readjusts accordingly. Why rationality is not dominant? Is this fact connected with the decline of social cohesion?
It would have been a mistake to draw the blame to the local society, although there is also a share there. There seem to be endogenous weaknesses in adjusting to contemporary reality, not only in Ikaria, but also to a group of areas which, to my opinion, are the “weak” part of Europe, the areas which are in the bottom of the regions of Objective 1. Ikaria is the poorest island of the second poorest region of Europe (N. Aegean). In the LORE European Seminar in E. Pelion (March 1999) I have presented some points, which were the following:
“The regional inequalities of Europe increase… The edge of Europe, the hinterland, the areas which are under a development shadow, the 4th world of the Big Cities, all these know well that their situation is related to the polarised development and the economic models of accumulation. All these have no political “weight”. As time goes by they lose in dignity, pride, and they feel as is defined by the official documents: Been “Territory”, “Isolated”, “remote”, “marginal”, and finally “inferior”.
In these regions (and in these social groups) we must identify the operation of a vicious cycle, that of “misery”. There is a deterioration of social values, an increase of localisms and territorial conflicts, a jeopardy of election criteria, a deterioration of representativity, an even greater production of misery. In other words, this “Misery Cycle” relates to the recess of social and political emancipation of the regions, the social groups, citizens. In the same mode, there is a deterioration of the relation between society and environment.
Such regions are the most needed of special policies and drastic measures, particularly the insular regions. They need exactly what they do not have:
Such measures and policies may go beyond the principal European Policies. Maybe, there are needed fundings of 100% for certain activities and investments. Maybe there must be public support, over the barrier of the free competition.
Who is to take care of these issues and of these regions? Will these regions be called to compete with unequal terms in the 3d Community Framework?
There must be a design of special policies for the regions of Objective 1 which are in the bottom.
LORE has two important components:
Is this enough?
To my opinion, no. Overgrazing, forest fires, erosion, destruction of cultural heritage will continue. They will also continue to be transformed to taboo issues for the local societies. Even if these “bottom” regions were given equal opportunities in applying for E.U. Projects, they couldn’t make it.
Drastic national and E.U. Policies are needed, as described above, which will in fact support the local societies of these areas. The goal of these policies must be that of strengthening social cohesion, of transforming to modern certain traditional professions which are related to the land, and of promoting holistic managerial and administrative rules for autonomous geographical systems, as is the case with an island.
The lost local dynamism of adaptation, must be restructured. A local dynamism which was lost because of a polarised model of development during the last 40-50 years.
Local Development and universalism
The systems of a polarised development become regional, international and global. These systems are of the present structures of hierarchy and power. In such a globalisation, the lower end of the regions will continue to see the inequality in opportunities to grow, to have adaptation difficulties. Certain positive policies are doomed to fail. Maybe we will reach at a point where the money given ineffectively to such regions (seminars, incentives, subsidies, unemployment programs, etc) with match the money needed for clever or direct politics, for clever direct techniques well adapted to local contexts and (why not?) direct and selective funding.
To avoid such an ineffectiveness, all parties (locals, Regions, National level, E.U.) must define a new “mode of living together”, a development moratorium concerning the edge of regional development.
With LORE we felt a dynamism, the increase of the political “weight” of our regions, the support of the objective and long term as opposed to the temporary and subjective. Policies are needed to continue along these lines without excluding the bottom group of the European Regions.