Through its Resolution nº2/2016, of 22 January, the Council of Ministers assumed “the valorization of the interior” as one of the central dimensions of its economic and social development policy.
The Mission Unit for the Enhancement of the Interior (UMVI) created by the same Resolution has the mission of launching, implementing and supervising a national program for territorial cohesion (PNCT), as well as promoting measures for the development of the interior of an inter-ministerial nature. The same RCM mentions as main objectives: the enhancement of local and regional production spaces, urban-rural partnerships, coalitions between medium-sized cities, the launch of research and development projects, the intensification of cross-border cooperation, among others. The ultimate goal is to increase the attractiveness and employability of low-density territories in the interior.
UMVI has already collected the proposals for measures from the ministries involved and in the communiqué of the Council of Ministers of 26 October 2016, which approves the National Cohesion Plan, it can be read: «The CM approved the National Plan for Territorial Cohesion (PNCT ) which identifies 164 measures in the various areas of governance and an agenda for the interior. From now on, UMVI's mission will be to monitor the 164 measures, develop a strategic dimension around its five axes and report every six months on the execution of the plan, develop new measures and improve those included in the initial program ».
Here are some general considerations, of a personal nature, regarding this plan, which has since been published:
1. In themselves, the measures are all, or almost all, very commendable and meritorious, although with very variable degrees of execution; each ministry, in its part, has its own rhythm and runs at its own speed;
2. There is a historical record on the “inland and low density agenda” that apparently presents us with a dilemma: the longstanding problems of low density territories (TBD) are not resolved, for a long time, with eligibility, candidacies and promoters places that emerge, recurrently, according to the flavor and rhythm of the casuistry of the openings of the competition notices; similarly, larger-scale intervention programs that bring together dispersed actors and measures are also not easy to achieve and generally imply a high transaction cost;
3. The essential issue is, in my opinion, the credibility of the whole exercise; after a laborious work of preparing and applying for the P2020, we now have regional action programs (PAR) of the CCDR, development and cohesion programs (PDC) of the Intermunicipal Communities (CIM), local development strategies (EDL) of the ADL/GAL, municipal master plans (PDM) and now another territorial cohesion program (PCT) from UMVI, all plans and programs that overlap and condition each other and in a general context in which the liquidity and capitalization of all agents involved are very low ; the risk of territorial cacophony is therefore very high, which is why the UMVI cohesion program is at high risk, which means that it is obliged to reveal “its distinction” from the programs and measures already in place;
4. Therefore, a clear sign of “attachment and achievement” is needed, that is, the signaling of irrefutable positive discrimination; I believe that “the UMVI Brand” in the form of “a territorial contract for the enhancement of the interior” could be that sign; without prejudice to an administrative regulation that defines more or less conventional eligibility and promoters, the priority for TBDs cannot but be for territorial groups that ensure more collective intelligence and collaborative economy to these territories; UMVI would have the mission of dialoguing with collective promoters and deliberating on their proposals for territorial intervention;
5. For this purpose, UMVI could send an invitation to a group of entities that would form a partnership/consortium (Intermunicipal Communities, Polytechnic Institutes and Universities, Local Development Associations, Business Associations) for an intervention program; this program would be certified by UMVI and duly contracted; in the context of the TBD and, in the context of the future "territorial cohesion contracts" (CCT), priority should therefore be given to collectives or groups that present programs for the recovery of burned areas, for the valorization of niche agricultures in landscape areas protected, improvement of forest intervention zones, community agriculture and wasteland management, land banks and producer cooperatives, rehabilitation and enhancement of landscape units and ecosystem services, promotion of nature tourism, etc., not to mention the large area of cross-border cooperation where there is a lot of work to be done;
6. Following the “territorial cohesion contract” a greenway would be opened by UMVI for a single approval; it is not possible or recommended that the consortium be subject to the various notices of competition, as it would be complete chaos.
I end with some final notes.
The political priority given by the current government to the Iberian centrality and the peninsular façade is not well reflected in the cohesion program: what to do with the European groupings of territorial cooperation (EGTC) approved under a European regulation, what to do with the Euroregions already established, what to do with the Eurocities already created? In my opinion, the invitation to contract with these entities is justified, even as an example and challenge for the cohesion program itself;
From an institutional point of view, I would prefer that the so-called Interior Agenda, without prejudice to the working groups referenced in the approved program, be placed and promoted within the Territorial Consultation Council (CCT) and this would be an excellent pretext to review missions and functions of this CCT, with a view to “imposing some order” in this matter of valuing the interior;
The measures already known have a very diversified nature, scope and budgetary impact and, above all, their effect on linking it remains completely unproven; linking horizontal, sectoral and specific measures affecting various ministries and choosing an eligible territory for this purpose is a long-term task whose success depends on the capacity of the “network actor”, the main agent of the network territory to be created, to lead to port the proposed intervention measures.
At this stage, I dare to say that it would be very pertinent to discuss half a dozen emblematic projects distributed throughout the territory, duly monitored and evaluated and which, later, could be properly replicated, rather than repeating recurring mistakes from the recent past regarding approved projects " without a net”, left to their own devices and suffering from a high mortality rate.
Author António Covas is a full professor at the University of Algarve and a PhD in European Affairs from the Free University of Brussels
Comments