advertisement

PROMONTE Visoky Tatry Mougin Speech ADECOHD

50 %
50 %
advertisement
Information about PROMONTE Visoky Tatry Mougin Speech ADECOHD
Entertainment

Published on October 19, 2007

Author: Jolene

Source: authorstream.com

advertisement

INTERACT PRO MONTE Analysis of the INTERREG III CIP-s in mountain areas : contents and adaptability 27 X 2005 – Vysoke Tatry (Strbske Pleso):  INTERACT PRO MONTE Analysis of the INTERREG III CIP-s in mountain areas : contents and adaptability 27 X 2005 – Vysoke Tatry (Strbske Pleso) Analysis of the INTERREG III CIP-s in mountain areas :  Analysis of the INTERREG III CIP-s in mountain areas OBJECTIVES. Understanding the guidance developed for the INTERREG III CIP-s in mountain areas and benchmarking « best practise » procedures regarding co-operation in mountain development in order (1) to help mountain region find a model of sustainable development and (2) to strengthen co-operation on mountain issues between local authorities and private development players. METHODOLOGY. I. To obtain a typology of the INTERREG III CIP-s in relation to the potentiality of co-operation between mountain areas. II. To analyse the validity of the ex ante evaluation’s analysis of the strengths, weaknesses and potential of the mountain territories concerned. III. To assess the coherence of general objectives and strategic priorities of the CIP-s with the development issues in the mountain areas. Analysis of the INTERREG III CIP-s in mountain areas:  Analysis of the INTERREG III CIP-s in mountain areas List of the INTERREG III CIP-s analysed. STRAND A – 21 CIP-s analysed : 1. Western european massifs (Alpine range); 2. Carpathian and Bohemian moutains; 3. Iberian Peninsula mountains; 4. Balkans and Mediteranean islands ranges; 5. Fennoscandia, Bothnian and Scandinavian mountains. STRAND B – 9 CIP-s analysed : ALPINE SPACE, MEDOCC, SUDOE, NORTH WEST, NORTHERN PERIPHERY, BALTIC SEA REGION, NORTH SEA REGION, CADSES, ARCHIMED. STRAND B – 4 CIP-s analysed : North Zone, East Zone, West Zone, South Zone. Analysis of the INTERREG III CIP-s in mountain areas:  Analysis of the INTERREG III CIP-s in mountain areas STYLISED FACTS. STRAND A: importance of mountainous surface and population living in mountain areas when assessing a typology linked with the potentiality of co-operation between mountain development actors and the impacts of programmed projects. STRAND B: difficult to assess a typology; importance of general objectives and priorities of INTERREG III B CIP-s (i.e. INTERREG III B Alpine Space, Northern Periphery). STRAND C: different structure of the programs (4 topics of co-operation). Analysis of the INTERREG III CIP-s in mountain areas:  Analysis of the INTERREG III CIP-s in mountain areas Ex ante evaluation’s analysis. SWOT analysis emphasize differently the importance of the strengths, weaknesses and potential of the mountain territories: 1. Global approach of the co-operation areas concerned (i.e. INTERREG III A Italy/Slovenia, France/Switzerland, Switzerland/Deutschland/Austria). 2. Indirect references to mountain areas : same socio-economic characteristics (i.e. INTERREG III A Austria/Slovak Republic, Austria/Czech Republic, III B CADSES) or identical “mountain specificities” INTERREG III A Finland/Norway/Sweden/Russia, III B Northern Periphery). 3. Specific approach of mountain areas development (i.e. INTERREG III A Italy/Austria, Italy/Switzerland, France/Italy, France/Spain, III B Alpine Space). Analysis of the INTERREG III CIP-s in mountain areas:  Analysis of the INTERREG III CIP-s in mountain areas Priority topics/typology of eligible actions in INTERREG III CIP-s analysed (STRAND A). Most represented: (1) Environment / Protection, improvement and regeneration of the natural environment; (2) Cross-border transport / Development of transport infrastructure; (3) Tourism / Physical and non-physical investment, Shared services, Training; (4) Development of business and SMEs / Investment, Shared business services, Business advisory services, Financial engineering; (5) Co-operation on culture / Maintenance and restoration of the cultural heritage. Absent: (1) Agriculture / Investments, setting up of young farmers; (2) Forestry / Investments; (3) Promoting the adaptation and the development of rural areas / Conservation of rural heritage, Diversification of agricultural activities, Encouragement for tourist activities. Analysis of the INTERREG III CIP-s in mountain areas:  Analysis of the INTERREG III CIP-s in mountain areas Priority topics/typology of eligible actions in INTERREG III CIP-s analysed (STRAND B). Priorities : (1) Spatial development strategies; (2) Development of transport systems and access to information society; (3) Promotion of the environment and management of natural resources and cultural heritage. Most represented (eligible actions): (1) Support for SMEs / Investment, Shared business services, Business advisory services, Financial engineering, Training); (2) Development of transport infrastructure; (3) Telecommunication infrastructure and information society; (4) Research, technological development, innovation (RTDI); Absent: (1) Agriculture / Investments, setting up of young farmers; (2) Forestry / Investments; Analysis of the INTERREG III CIP-s in mountain areas:  Analysis of the INTERREG III CIP-s in mountain areas Coherence between the strategy of the INTERREG III CIP-s and the promotion and the development of mountain areas. - Mountain areas or their characteristics are considered as the basic element of the underlying strategy of INTERREG III CIP-s (i.e. INTERREG III A France/Italy, Italy/Austria, III B Northern Periphery), or target-specific approach (i.e. INTERREG III A Italy/Switzerland), or integrated approach (i.e. INTERREG III A France/Spain, Switzerland/Deutschland/Austria, III B Alpine Space). - Mountain areas are not considered as priorities but priority topics/eligible measures could be adapted to mountain development issues (i.e. INTERREG III A Austria/Slovak Republic, Austria/Czech Republic, France/Switzerland, III B CADSES, SUDOE). Analysis of the INTERREG III CIP-s in mountain areas:  Analysis of the INTERREG III CIP-s in mountain areas CONCLUSIONS. 1. SWOT analysis (global vs. specific approach, indirect references) : which place and/or socio-economic importance for mountain areas within co-operation areas ? 2. Impacts of programmed measures depend of typology of eligible actions and final beneficiaries.

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

Telenor: Privatni korisnici | Promonte.com | RankDirection.com

Is promonte.com a scam or a fraud ... montenegro mot· motes mougin network nortel ... sms2free solution speech still student substantial tatry telecom ...
Read more