Contenu du sommaire : Montagnes d'Europe. Acteurs, légitimation, délimitation

The debate over the possibility of implementing a European mountain policy has been ongoing since the mid 1980s. Numerous pressure groups have been working to turn this possibility into reality by lobbying the different authorities in Brussels. The purpose of this article is to identify these groups, certain of which have been active for some thirty years. In most cases, they are made up of groups from national organisations. The diversity of the representations of the place occupied by mountain areas within the different European countries has for a long time hindered the emergence of convergent approaches. Significant changes have taken place, however, since the beginning of the 1990s. The diffusion of ideas relating to sustainable development at the Rio Conference of 1992, underlining the specific situation of the mountain areas of the world, has played a most important role. Analysis shows that the defence of sectional interests has evolved towards a defence of the mountain areas of Europe. At the same time, a Europeanization movement is gaining ground within the international organisations for the protection of nature. Will the recent grouping together of certain pressure groups into networks move us further along the road to an overall policy for the defence of the mountain areas of Europe ?

Abstract Following a long history of existence in the political, social and economic peripheries oř Europe, alpine territories and societies are today assuming a more central position, very different from the role they have been attributed for so long. In the context of recent European reconstruction, the alpine arc area is being claimed as a model for régionalisation, an experimental laboratory for new territorial structures and new policies within Europe. 1 he Alps now have the opportunity of becoming reintegrated into the centre of Europe, and of swapping their peripheral status within their respective national territories for one that is more central. Such a « trans-national » location will provide the Alps with the opportunity to play a leading role in the general development of these territories, and to write their own history. For some twenty years, local political actors have been creating virtual territories based on cross-border contacts, using tradition and history to legitimize the structures created and to ensure their acceptance by local inhabitants. Examples are the Hscartons between the Briançonnais and Piedmont regions, and the Mont-Rlnnc area between Haute-Savoie, Valais and Val d'Aoste. Underpinning these projects is the question of how to define the bases for these new territorial configurations and the ways in which the local population can become integrated in them. 1 he answer lies in building a shared memory and identity, a memory that is a blend of memory and territory, a memory that can be presented as a federating tool by those who re-appropnate it. In short, it involves using a combination of conveyed memory and « desired » memory to affirm the existence of a territory.

Abstract With increasing recognition of the importance of the world's mountains, needs for consistent definitions of 'mountains' have grown. A major advance at the global scale was made in 2000 by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). However, certain European states had defined the « mountain » area of their countries since the 1950s. In the context of social and economic cohesion within the European Union, a common delineation of European mountains has been prepared, refining the UNEP-WCMC definition. This process is described, and the results presented for 29 European countries.

Abstract This paper explores some of the assumptions behind the purposefully-vague spatial definition of the area covered by the Carpathian Convention, pointing to the problematic aspects of defining such an entity. The intrinsically political nature of defining boundaries in space is stressed, including the difficulties of seeking a biophysical justification for a political project. The process leading to the birth of the Carpathian Convention is therefore analysed as it simultaneously constructs the idea of the Carpathians' as an entity in itself. This is linked to the potent and seductive metaphor of boundless nature severed by political boundaries, promoted in the case of the Carpathians by a conglomerate of natural scientists, international organisations, nongovernmental organisations and donor agencies. Rather than there being a split between « nature » on one hand and « politics » on the other, with negotiation between a biophysical ideal and a pragmatic political solution, it is argued that the very thing that is taken to be the object of environmental studies and politics - namely « nature » - is an effect of power. The discussion is illustrated by an analysis of three maps produced during the negotiation phase.

Since the ratification of the Alp Convention by 8 signatory countries and the EU in 1992 its implementation has been rather slow. Essentially, there are three reasons for this situation. Firstly, the Alp Convention continues to endure the stigma of one-sided Alpine protection. Secondly, the framework convention is so complex and in parts has become so inconsistent that it is difficult to convey its purpose effectively. Thirdly, the signatory countries have not managed to present a unified position while preserving the structural and cultural variety of the Alpine region. To overcome these obstacles the thrust of solutions will have go in two directions, i.e. inwardly, by producing guidelines that are of immediate concern and easy to communicate to the citizens of the signatory countries. Outwardly, a European policy for mountain areas, based on the principles of the framework convention, will have to be agreed upon in order to secure the EU's political and financial committment to the Alp Convention.