The Institutionalization of Mountain Regions in Europe

Abstract

Since the 1990s, many 'project regions' have emerged in Europe, a trend deriving from the tendency to adopt ad hoc institutions for specific spatial and environmental issues and the empowerment of diverse stakeholders who compete with the dominant role of States. This article addresses the building of institutionalized mountain regions in Europe, analysing how the specificity of mountain areas was considered in policies by States and the European Union, and later for transnational mountain ranges. Environmental and transboundary issues have been major driving forces for new institutional arrangements combining a territorial and environmental focus and complex networks of stakeholders.

Should mountains (really) matter in science and policy?

“…In other words, have we witnessed individual regions independently reacting to some common challenges, or has the idea of addressing such challenges with a territorial focus on mountains spread in some concerted way? Prior empirical work has shown countless instances of the flow and exchange of ideas and experiences between key actors linked to global and regional mountain agendas (e.g., Debarbieux et al, 2013). This special issue follows up on such evidence and mobilizes ideas of policy diffusion/ mobility (Bennett, 1991;Elkins and Simmons 2005;Cochrane and Ward, 2012) in order to generate new insights into the interplay of concerned actors, processes, contents, and outcomes.…”

Scientific collectives in region-building processes

“…For many scientists who analyze the distribution of bio-physical features and processes at the surface of the earth, a region is an area with common features or a specific spatial structure (such as the Mekong River basin, the rain forest of Central Africa or the Baltic sea basin) which scientific practices pretend to unveil or reveal; for policy-makers who advocate a regional frame for specific policies, a region, sometimes called 'project region' (such as the European Union or the Baltic macroregion, see Debarbieux et al, 2013) is an area that derives meaning from a common political institution. By analogy, subscribers to a realist-positivist vision of science and politics contend that scientists provide a factual understanding of the biological and physical region and thereby help policy-makers define the substance of a corresponding institutional region.…”

“…So-called "working communities" bringing together sub-national regions in the Alps, the Pyrenees, and the Jura were established in the 1970s and 1980s. Subsequently, the 1991 Alpine Convention (AC) became the main reference for later regional initiatives (Debarbieux et al, 2013).…”

“…Second, it offers insights for the specific case of mountain regions in Europe and Central Asia, a choice that can be explained as follows. Many regional institutions covering mountain ranges have been created in this part of the world since the late 1980s (Debarbieux et al, 2013) and therefore constitute a rich empirical domain. Since mountain regions typically do not typically follow jurisdictional borders, corresponding region-building processes characteristically involve scientific efforts to delineate the area of application of a given initiative; hence, mountain regions are representative of the larger trend of ecoregional institutionalization.…”

Mapping regions, framing projects

“…Recently, we proposed calling these project regions, in order to highlight the fact that, in these cases, the region--making process is driven by a very specific project, distinct from processes leading to constitutional regions (Debarbieux et al, 2013). In fact, the construction of project regions most commonly results from a convergence of heterogeneous networks of actors, based in different places, and acting according to their respective needs and means: some actors find a place in the organizational and hierarchical settings of states (central governments, sub--national and municipal levels, etc.…”