Outermost Regions
Las Regiones Ultraperiféricas de la Unión Europea PDF Print

Mcrit, 2005

In the entire European area there are a total of seven ultraperipheral regions: the Canary Islands, the Azores and Madeira, in the Atlantic Ocean, and which, from the 16th century, ports of call for Spanish and Portuguese transoceanic maritime voyages; Martinique, Guadalupe and Guiana, in the Caribbean, which were later colonised by France as was Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean. The majority of these territories had a strategic localisation value for the European metropolis which lost territories in Africa and America in the 19th and 20th centuries. The Ultraperipheral European territories constitute a territorial singularity in themselves for evident geographical and historical reasons.

The territorial determining factors of the ultraperipheral European regions may be summed up as follows:

  • They are very distant from the European continent in geographical terms.
  • They are isolated, either because they are oceanic islands, or because they are bordered by poorly populated, basically forested areas with relatively low levels of development, in addition to the lack of direct communication with their geographical surroundings and the difficulty of trading relationships due to the fact that they belong to different economic areas.
  • They are areas with a small surface area, with scarce natural resources.
  • The archipelagos are highly fragmented, a factor which provokes a double insularity in the smaller islands.

 Go to webpage 

 
Occupation du sol sur le littoral des Dom PDF Print

Observatoire du Littoral 

Une pression humaine très forte dans les communes littorales

En 1999, la population des communes littorales des Dom approche 1,5 million d’habitants. La densité de population est forte sur le littoral de Martinique, de Guadeloupe et de l’île de la Réunion, soit environ 300 hab./km². Elle est le reflet d’une densité de population élevée sur l’ensemble du territoire de ces 3 îles, amplifiée en bord de mer. Elle est supérieure à la moyenne littorale métropolitaine estimée à 270 hab./km². À l’inverse, la densité est très faible sur le littoral de Guyane : 3,5 hab./km². 

L’essentiel de la population des Dom se concentre en bord de mer. Ceci s’explique par le relief accidenté à l’intérieur des terres sur l’île de la Réunion (piton des Neiges – 3 069 m et piton de la Fournaise – 2  631 m), sur Basse-Terre (massif de la Soufrière – 1 467 m), en Martinique (montagne Pelée – 1 397 m) ou par la forte densité de la forêt humide et l’absence d’axes de communication en Guyane.

Par ailleurs, la population des Dom a fortement augmenté durant la dernière période intercensitaire (1990 à 1999). Ceci est principalement dû aux soldes naturels très excédentaires dans ces territoires. La densité de population a augmenté de 21 hab./km² dans les communes littorales des Antilles et de 47 hab./km² à la Réunion. 

La pression humaine est donc très forte et s’accroît sur un territoire restreint, d’une haute valeur patrimoniale.

L’occupation du sol des départements d’outre-mer suivant la distance à la mer

L’occupation du sol en bord de mer est variable suivant les départements.

L’île de la Réunion. Le taux d’artificialisation du littoral réunionnais est le plus important des 4 Dom. Les territoires artificialisés couvrent 28,2 % des terres situées à moins de 500 m de la mer et encore plus de 10 % entre 2 000 et 5 000 m des rivages. En dehors des cultures entretenues - canne à sucre, arbres fruitiers, ou vanille -, les terres agricoles représentent de faibles surfaces. Les cultures entretenues sont importantes dans les plaines littorales, entre 500 et 5 000 m de la mer, puis elles régressent au profit de la forêt à mesure que le relief s’accentue. Les zones humides sont peu importantes au regard des autres Dom et ne représentent que de faibles surfaces. Enfin, on note une importante rupture de l’occupation du sol à partir de 5 000 m de la mer. À partir de cette distance, les territoires artificialisés et agricoles ne représentent plus que de faibles surfaces et les espaces naturels dominent en occupant plus de 80 % de l’espace.

La Martinique. Le taux d’artificialisation est assez important à moins de 500 m de la mer : 17,9 %. Il diminue ensuite sensiblement et est d’environ 8 % jusqu’à 5 000 m du rivage. La part de l’ensemble des espaces naturels (forêt, végétation basse, dunes, sable, rochers et éboulis) varie assez peu suivant la distance à la mer. Elle est d’environ 50 % jusqu’à 5 000 m de la mer. La végétation basse et les plages et dunes sont peu importantes alors que la forêt couvre 39,9 % du bord de mer et jusqu’à 53,4 % entre 5 000 et 10 000 m de la mer. Enfin, la mangrove couvre 10 % des territoires du bord de mer.

La Guadeloupe. Le taux d’artificialisation des rivages de Guadeloupe est sensiblement le même qu’en Martinique : 16,5 % à moins de 500 m de la mer. Il diminue progressivement en s’éloignant de la mer et n’est plus que de 2,6 % entre 5 000 et 10 000 m des côtes. On note une nette rupture de l’occupation du sol à partir de 5 000 m de la mer. De 0 à 5 000 m, la part des territoires agricoles augmente progressivement, les cultures entretenues dont la canne à sucre étant de plus en plus importantes, alors que les zones humides, les mangroves et la végétation basse régressent. De 5 000 à 10 000 m de la mer, la forêt couvre 67,6 % du territoire et l’agriculture ne représente plus que 24,9 % du territoire contre 55,8 % entre 2 000 et 5 000 m de la mer.

La Guyane. L’occupation du sol du littoral guyanais est différente des autres Dom. Les espaces naturels au sens large (forêts, zones humides, surfaces en eau, plages et végétation basse) couvrent plus de 95 % du territoire quelle que soit la distance à la mer prise en compte. A contrario, les terres agricoles et les espaces artificialisés couvrent des surfaces très faibles.En bord de mer, les zones humides, plages et dunes dominent. En s’éloignant des rivages, les marais et la forêt prennent une place de plus en plus importante alors que les espaces typiquement littoraux (mangroves et plages) régressent.

 Go to webpage

 
Tenerife Urban Plan PDF Print

Atlas Digital de Tenerife

El deterioro ambiental asociado al aumento de la presión ejercido por las actividades humanas sobre el medio natural, ha provocado que las sociedades actuales hayan tomado conciencia de que sólo a través de la compatibilización del desarrollo económico con el mantenimiento de los procesos ecológicos esenciales, se podrán satisfacer las necesidades de las generaciones presentes sin comprometer las posibilidades de las del futuro para atender sus propias necesidades (definición de desarrollo sostenible).
Para lograrlo se ha desarrollado un sistema de planeamiento (ordenación del territorio) estructurado jerárquicamente en el que se persigue formar una estructura que contemple integralmente los aspectos físicos, biológicos, sociales, culturales y económicos que confluyen en el territorio como única forma de optimizar la asignación de usos y compatibilizarlos con el mantenimiento de sus dinámicas naturales.

 Go to webpage

 
Directrices de Ordenación del Litoral de Canarias PDF Print

Objectivos de las DOLC

  1. Disminuir la presión urbana e infraestructural sobre el litoral y establecer el marco ordenador adecuado que permita su regeneración, recuperación y acondicionamiento para el uso y disfrute públicos como zona de valor natural y económico estratégico. 
  2. Articular las actuaciones tendentes a garantizar el desarrollo sostenible de Canarias, considerando el litoral, a estos efectos, como una de las partes más valiosas, sensibles y frágiles del territorio insular, sometida a una especial presión humana. 
  3. Coordinar las políticas y actuaciones públicas que tengan afección sobre el litoral. 
  4. Establecer las líneas de actuación que faciliten la reconversión de las actividades económicas que tengan incidencia negativa sobre el litoral. 
  5. Definir los criterios básicos de ordenación y gestión del litoral, propiciando la conservación de la biodiversidad y el uso racional de los recursos naturales relacionados con el mismo, comenzando por el propio suelo, en forma compatible con un equilibrado desarrollo económico y social y teniendo en cuenta la integridad de los ecosistemas y la capacidad de renovación o sustitución alternativa. 
  6. Fijar los objetivos y estándares generales de las actuaciones y actividades con efectos relevantes sobre el litoral, de acuerdo con la legislación sectorial correspondiente. 
  7. Establecer estrategias de acción territorial para la definición del modelo territorial básico de Canarias y, en particular, para definir el papel del litoral dentro de dicho modelo.

 Go to webpage

 
Centre européen de la biodiversité PDF Print

 

The project is still in a study phase and managed by Guiana Technopole. It includes three strands:

Research and economic valorisation of biodiversity: based on a partnershipbetween regional public research organizations and relevant mainland Poles of Competitiveness and enterprises, members of the poles (from pharmaceutics, cosmetology and agro-food sectors), the first strand includes:o inventory of bio-resources and their characteristics and properties (“herbier”) o botanic conservation (collection of plants) o a technology platform (plant analysis and extraction of the molecules for valorisation)o a pre-industrial platform to validate the technological processes that produce the relevant bio-resources.

Training and pedagogical dimension including training programmes at the University on plant biodiversity (partly existing – Master in Biology) and a specific building for training session

Tourism: marketing the Guyanese biodiversity as a tourism “product”, setting up of tourist infrastructures related to biodiversity, hotels and resorts (business convention centres) for hosting visiting researchers and tourists.

 
Innovative and sustainable mobility in Funchal PDF Print

CIVITAS, 2011

Funchal’s main road network consists of radial roads built along streams and transverse roads at altitudes between 0.4 and 200 metres. The network is complemented by very narrow and sinuous roads. Despite the challenges posed by nature, the public transport service offers a total of 66 routes and covers 180 km of road network. Overall, 144,000 trips are carried out daily within the city transporting a total of 30 million passengers a year.

Funchal progressively closed urban streets in the historic centre and constructed coastal promenades to promote pedestrian mobility and leisure activities. The city also restricted surface parking in the city centre and constructed street rings around the city, which helped to reduce the traffic flow in the centre significantly. The recently concluded Mobility Study of Funchal will be used as a framework to assess the local mobility situation and trends.

As part of CIVITAS MIMOSA, Funchal wants to demonstrate that improvements to the urban mobility system can be beneficial for tourism and overall quality of life. In Madeira, cycling is not common due to the hilly landscape. In the scope of MIMOSA, Funchal will provide an intermodal line between bus and bike that will allow people to combine healthy exercise and ecological transport modes. A large-scale eco-driving campaign and cycling promotion are projected to lead to considerable energy savings, and new green lanes are hoped to increase public transport user satisfaction by 30 percent. The city also aims to reduce CO2 emissions by 10 percent through the introduction of cleaner vehicles, mostly hybrid cars.

 Go to webpage

 
Wave Energy Pilot Plant on Pico Island, in Azores PDF Print

Pico OWC was built as the European Wave Energy Pilot Plant, co-funded by the EC, in order to demonstrate the technical viability of wave energy in a small Island grid.

The Project started in 1992 backed by the utilities EDP (mainland) and EDA (regional), and its construction was concluded in 1999 under coordination of IST (Instituto Superior Técnico). However, several technical problems and lack of funding to address them after construction caused interruption of the project during several years.

Shortly after its creation in 2003, the Wave Energy Centre (WavEC) took over responsibility of the plant recovering the original layout with financial support of national funding and of some of its associates.

The first test ran in 2005 and revealed the persistence of serious technical limitations of the original structure of the turbo-generation group, which were not possible to resolve entirely with the available funding. However the team involved in this project has insisted in the maintenance and continuous improvement of the plant, yielding increasing operation hours, availability and power production in the period 2006-2008. 

In 2008, efforts focused on exploring the possibility of the major overhaul financed primarily by EDP, however after the first phase of the project it was suspended due to doubts in the structural longevity of the concrete structure. Since 2006, WavEC has been maintaining the operation of the plant mostly with own means (very limited due to the technical challenge involved). Significant improvements have been achieved since 2009, especially significant improvements of the vibrations of the turbine-generator, a mechanical problem that had prevented better functioning of the plant.

During 2011 the priority of the project is the preparation of the plant’s structure to accommodate a second platform to conduct testing of turbines. The plant is ready to accommodate two turbine ducts of equal size (suitable for testing equipment between 100KW and 700kW), and in the past, only one of these ducts, equivalent of half of the available space in the plant, was used.

Within the European MaRINET project, the Pico Plant was included as one of the most relevant infrastructure of ocean energy for testing, increasing the effectiveness and visibility of the project internationally. However, this and other future activities will depend on the possibility to raise funds for the necessary repairs on the concrete structure. However, qualified estimations show that an investment of between € 1.5M and € 2M is necessary to turn the OWC Pico Plant into a testing and dissemination infrastructure of international interest.

 Download document

 Go to webpage

 
The Canary Islands Astronomical: Observatories PDF Print

Offering excellent visibility of celestial objects to astronomers, the Canary Islands Astrophysics Centre is a research infrastructure renowned at international level, housing the most advanced telescopes and astrophysical installations in the European Union. Once the Great Canary Telescope (GCT), the only one of its kind in the world, is put into service it will enable European astrophysics researchers toparticipate in projects of a highly technological nature.

The Canary Islands is the best place in Europe for the observation of the stars, as the position of the archipelago in the planet (28º in the northern latitude) means that all year round we can see all the constellations of the northern hemisphere as well as a large part of the southern hemisphere. Apart from this being an excellent situation, you can also celebrate and feel special because you are under a privileged sky. The clean skies of the Canaries are protected by the Government of the Islands in order to avoid light pollution by the large city centres which otherwise would affect the observation and study of the heavens.

 Go to webpage

 Download document

 
SINERGÎLE: Pôle de Compétitivité de la Guadeloupe PDF Print

Le pôle de compétitivité Synergîle a pour ambition de fédérer autour de ces thématiques, un maximum de partenaires du secteur privé et du monde de la recherche, en Guadeloupe et dans la Caraïbe. Les partenaires ayant d’ores et déjà rejoint le pôle sont répartis en plusieurs domaines :

  • Energies renouvelables (solaire, éolien, géothermie, hydraulique)
  • Matériaux
  • Centres de formations
  • Organismes et laboratoires de recherche
  • Consultant Ingénierie
  • Entreprises industrielles

Synergîle regroupe une soixantaine d’adhérents basés principalement en Guadeloupe. A l’initiative de la collectivité régionale, une démarche de création d’un pôle de compétitivité a été lancée dès 2005 et une déclaration d’intention signée avec les partenaires du projet (entreprises, organismes de recherche, centres de formation, institutionnels, syndicats professionnels) et le ministre d’Etat, ministre de l’intérieur en mars 2006. Par décision du 5 juillet 2007, le CIADT a reconnu Synergîle. Le pôle a été labellisé en octobre 2007 dans le cadre d’un partenariat avec le pôle de compétitivité Capenergies. Celui-ci, basé en région Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur, fédère également la Principauté de Monaco, la Corse et la Réunion.

 Go to webpage

 
Projet d'extension du Port de la Guadeloupe PDF Print
User Rating: / 2
PoorBest 

Port Autonome de la Guadeloupe, 2010

L’utilisation de navires porte-conteneurs constitue aujourd’hui le mode principal de transport maritime dans le monde. Il croit de 10% chaque année. Cette forte croissance du trafic maritime conteneurisé est à l’origine d’évolutions structurelles dans la stratégie de développement des grands armateurs les conduisant à s’investir dans la construction de navires porte conteneurs de plus en plus grands (jusqu’à 12 500 EVP – Equivalent Vingt Pieds – unité de mesure de la capacité des navires), en vue de réaliser des économies d’échelle.

Le Canal de Panama est le deuxième canal maritime en importance. Observant la taille croissante des navires, l’autorité du Canal a ainsi décidé d’ouvrir à l’horizon 2015 de nouvelles écluses. Les routes Asie/Europe ou Asie Amériques via Panama devraient ainsi voir leur fréquentation en hausse renforçant le caractère stratégique de cet axe incontournable et créant les conditions d’une nouvelle donne dans la zone Caraïbe avec une massification des flux dans la région.

Dans ce contexte, la stratégie de desserte des armateurs vise à développer le transbordement pour desservir de façon plus économique le bassin Caraïbe : choisir un ou plusieurs «hubs5» de transbordement pour y organiser la collecte-distribution régionale. De grands navires dits «navires mères» y feront escale pour décharger et recharger de grandes quantités de conteneurs. Ces conteneurs seront repris par des navires de taille plus modestes (les «feeders») qui desserviront diffé-rents ensembles de ports de la  région Caraïbe.  

  • Le Port de la Guadeloupe possède des atouts très importants pour le développement d’activités de transbordement de conteneurs:
  • Sa position géographique excellente
  • Le cadre institutionnel stable de la Guadeloupe et son appartenance à l’Union Européenne
  • Les finances saines de l’autorité portuaire de la Guadeloupe
  • La productivité opérationnelle satisfaisante du PAG.

 

Le projet d’extension du Port de la Guadeloupe vise à créer un nouvel aménagement capable d’accueillir des navires porteconteneurs de 300 m de longueur, 40 m de largeur et 14 m de tirant d’eau (soit des navires d’environ 6500 EVP). Le projet consiste dans l’aménagement d’une plateforme au sud de l’actuel terminal à conteneurs de Jarry, mettant à profit l’existence d’un haut-fond  et  permettant de limiter les remblais nécessaires à la construction des terre-pleins du terminal. Il comprendra un quai de 350 m de longueur dragué à 15 m de profondeur et la construction de 25 ha de terre-pleins. Le bassin d’évitage sera agrandi et le chenal dragué à une profondeur de 15,50 m.

Le coût du projet est évalué à 235 M€ (valeur 2009) dont 160 M€ pour les infrastructures à la charge du PAG et 75M€ supportés par l’opérateur pour les superstructures et les outillages. Le montage financier relatif aux investissements en infrastructures prévoit un autofinancement par le PAG (70%) et des subventions de l’Europe, l’Etat et à la Région (30%).Les études menées par Ernst & Young mettent en avant la rentabilité financière du projet avec un taux de rentabilité interne financier de 6.5%.

Le PAG, Etablissement Public de l’État, finance des projets rentables. Pour autant, il privilégie un impact socio-économique positif à une rentabilité financière élevée. Un niveau relativement modeste peut lui convenir si le projet contribue fortement au développement économique et social de l’île, ce qui est clairement le cas à travers les avantages suivants :

  • La performance logistique : le projet évitera de faire supporter aux consommateurs guadeloupéens le surcoût généré par une feederisation. 
  • La réduction des coûts de transport liée à la réalisation d’économies d’échelle
  • Une hausse de l’activité économique portuaire (500 emplois dont 200 directs) 
  • La création d’emplois liés à la construction du terminal (850 dont 350 directs)
  • L’exploitation d’une installation de stockage dédiée aux déchets inertes (isDi) : elle permet de répondre à la problématique du traitement des déchets inertes  de la Guadeloupe d’autant plus que les opérations liées à la rénovation urbaine de l’agglomération pointoise vont générer des volumes supplémentaires importants.

Au total, l’analyse socio-économique du projet indique une rentabilité socio-économique très forte évaluée à 23,4%

 

 Go to webpage

 Go to webpage

 Go to webpage

 
Baseline scenario by ESDP and EU Cohesion Policy PDF Print

ESPON, 2007

According to Spatial scenarios in relation to the ESDP and EU Cohesion Policy (ESPON; 2007), the integrated baseline scenario Outermost Regions by 2030: 

  • The territorial characteristics of the Ultra Peripheral regions (UPR) are extremely different from those of the regions of continental Europe. While continental Europe has been seriously affected by population ageing, most ultra-peripheral regions have been facing, by 2030, strong natural population increase, especially French Guyana, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Mayotte and La Reunion. The demographic evolution in the Portuguese and Spanish UPR has been less significant. In some remote islands of the archipelagos, population ageing and depopulation are even a problem. The pressure of external immigration has continued to be significant and has even been increasing. The volume of illegal immigration has been growing.
  • The economy of the UPR has remained excessively dependent upon mainland Europe. Because of higher labour costs than in the neighbouring countries on similar production (of bananas, sugar etc.), there are no markets for such products at proximity. Imports from extra-European origin are concentrated on oil products and main exports are oriented towards Europe. Transport costs are excessive compared with those of mainland Europe, with maritime transport taking care of the transport of goods and air the transport of people. Both transport modes are directly dependent upon the price level of crude oil. With increasing oil prices, the accessibility of the UPR has been decreasing, as no alternative transport modes exist between the UPR and mainland Europe or other countries. The development of low-cost airlines has however significantly alleviated the handicap of long distances, as long as fuel prices were not too high.
  • The labour market of most UPRs has remained weak and unbalanced with few qualified jobs and low availability of qualified manpower for existing jobs caused by the out-migration of qualified people. The economy of the UPR is more sensitive to various exogenous factors than that of continental regions, be it the impact of globalisation (trade liberalization of tropical products), of evolutions in neighbouring countries (economic evolution in the Indian Ocean region) or of public decisions (taxes on energy products, CAP evolution, structural policies). The UPR have therefore been more subject to asymmetric shocks than European mainland regions. In addition, the UPR play an important part in geo-strategic considerations of public or private stakeholders. Most of them are located on important maritime or air transport routes. They are also strongly related to the European policy of security and defence. These factors have contributed to maintaining a certain level of stability for specific functions (ports and airports and related services, control of immigrants etc.).
  • The UPR generally have a significant renewable energy (solar, wind) potential which has not been optimally exploited. They are also subject to significant natural hazards (hurricanes, typhoons, tornados, tsunamis), the impacts of which have not been sufficiently anticipated, with resultant damage. Some decisions in the field of environmental policies (for instance the disproportionably large share of areas designated under Natura 2000) are beneficial for the maintenance of biodiversity but detrimental for other land use types, including economic ones, because of the scarcity of available land on islands. Island regions are also more vulnerable to issues of maritime security and marine pollution. A number of UPRs have additional natural handicaps to those of insularity and remoteness: mountain areas, archipelagos with remote islands etc.
  • Under baseline assumptions, the UPR are more differentiated in 2030 than they were in the early 2000s because of differently changing contexts in the respective world regions where they are located. The islands of La Reunion and Mayotte have benefited from booming economic development in the Indian Ocean region, while the UPRs in the Atlantic, especially the Caribbean ones, have been more affected by the competition of neighbouring countries. While the out-migration of qualified people has continued, illegal immigration has intensified. The UPR have been increasingly used by illegal immigrants as a bridge towards mainland Europe, although controls and measures against illegal immigration have also intensified. The support of the Structural Funds has been maintained but progressing liberalization measures, especially of the CAP, have affected indigenous productions. The benefits of low-cost airlines have been partly jeopardized by steadily growing oil prices.

 Go to webpage

 
Cohesion scenario by ESDP and EU Cohesion Policy PDF Print

ESPON, 2007

In this scenario, the main priorities of public policies at EU level, in a context of growing globalisation, are focused on economic, social and territorial cohesion and not on global competitiveness. This does not mean that the improvement of competitiveness is excluded, but rather, that in case of incompatibility between cohesion and competitiveness priority will be given to cohesion

Considering the amount of support allocated by the Cohesion Policies to the UPR in the early 2000s, EU support in the context of the cohesive scenario has not been significantly higher than under the baseline one. Differences with the baseline scenario in terms of the territorial impacts of structural and cohesion policies are therefore not extensive, but a number of distinctive impacts have nevertheless appeared. Transport services with Competitiveness scenario mainland Europe and in rural and less developed parts of the UPR have been more supported. This policy has been of particular importance in the archipelagos. The shift from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 in CAP support has benefited areas with low productivity in agriculture, but has been of more modest significance, in terms of employment and yields, in fertile agricultural areas affected by increasing external competition and decreasing price support mechanisms.  The pro-active policies of economic and socio-cultural integration had beneficial impacts, both in terms of the integration of young people into labour markets and in the maintenance of a peaceful civil society. More emphasis than in the baseline scenario has been put on the development and promotion of indigenous productions and comparative advantages in terms of heritage, soft tourism, and handicraft products etc. Significant efforts have been made to develop the various renewable energy sources and to reduce the dependence on fossil energy. Substantial preventive measures against the impact of natural hazards have made it possible to limit physical and human damage and maintain a sufficient level of security in spite of a higher occurrence of hazards caused by climate change and sometimes seismic activity. The policy of strict immigration control has made an efficient and substantial coast guard necessary around most UPRs, while in French Guyana, land borne immigration has proved more difficult to contain, despite increased controls of main transport axes. By 2030, most UPRs are still extremely dependent upon mainland Europe, but some have been successful in promoting sufficiently indigenous resources to create dynamics and to counterbalance a number of their disadvantages.

 

 
Competitiveness scenario by ESDP and EU Cohesion Policy PDF Print

ESPON, 2007

It is based on the assumption of a significant reshaping of EU policies originating in the disappointing results of the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy during the period 2000-2005. The EU budget is being reduced and EU expenditures are being targeted towards R&D, education, ICT and strategic external accessibility, including in structural policies. The CAP is subject to rapid and radical liberalisation, with a significant reduction of support, of external tariffs and of export subsidies. The budget of structural policies is also being reduced, with a part of former EU interventions being re-nationalised and EU support being concentrated on the most competitive areas of less developed regions. As a counterpart, public services are further liberalised and privatised, labour markets are regulated in a more flexible way and the third pillar of EU policies (foreign policy, justice, security etc.) is being strengthened. Widening of the market through further EU enlargements is part of the strategy of increased competitiveness.

Under competitive assumptions, most UPRs are in 2030 in a much worse situation than they were in the early 2000s. The main factors of change have been the weakening of structural and CAP policies in a context of strengthened liberalization. Compared with the baseline scenario, the number of jobs in agriculture and other indigenous activities has strongly declined. Support for the maintenance and development of infrastructure and services of general interest has been progressively but substantially reduced, generating a trend towards obsolescence and insufficient supply.  Only where investments in world-oriented mass tourism were profitable, were jobs maintained or developed. It has not been just qualified people who have migrated towards mainland Europe, but also numerous other people in search of jobs. Due to sharply increasing unemployment rates, social unrest has become a basic problem and illegal and criminal activities (smuggling, trade with drugs and weapons etc.) have strongly developed in most UPRs. Insecurity has seriously increased, not only in cities. Through the liberalized immigration policy, a strong influx of immigrants has been using the UPR as a first step towards mainland Europe. It has been necessary to develop in these regions specific infrastructure and services for the transit of immigrants. Due to a lack of support from structural funds, the potential of these regions in the field of renewable energy sources has hardly been exploited. Dependence upon fossil energy sources has therefore increased, with a weakening impact on the economy. Preventative measures against the impact of natural hazards were hardly implemented, so that serious damage has frequently been caused.

 
The outermost regions: an asset for Europe PDF Print

Commission of the European Communities, 2008

In the age of globalisation and of research to improve European competitiveness, there is a need to support the development of growth sectors where the OR have the potential for specialisation and a strong comparative edge. These sectors also constitute fertile ground for the development of cutting-edge initiatives and pilot projects of significant interest for Europe. This new paradigm, centred on making the most of the assets of the OR as a springboard for economic development, must lead to a renewal of the strategy focussing, in particular, on sectors with high added value, such as agri-food, biodiversity, renewable energies, astrophysics, aerospace science, oceanography, vulcanology or seismology, and the important role of the OR as outposts of the European Union in the world.

 Go to webpage

 
Strategy for the Outermost Regions: Achievements and Future Prospects PDF Print

Commission of the European Communities 

Since 2004, the EU has had an integrated strategy, based on active partnership between the EU institutions, national governments and the Outermost Regions. The three priorities are to make the regions more accessible, more competitive and more integrated with the countries around them. These priorities – and other measures – are explained in the Strategy for the Outermost Regions (COM [2007] 507):

  • Promoting accessibility. The proposed measures are  part of the efforts to reduce the  difficulties engendered by the remoteness of those regions;
  • Improving competitiveness. The aim of that priority is to create an economic environment conducive to the establishment of undertakings. Otherwise undertakings continue to be part of a restricted, fragmented and remote local market;
  • The regional integration priority. The aim of integration is to develop trade in goods and services between those regions and neighbouring third States. The integration of the ORs into the immediate geographical environment needs to be encouraged

 Go to webpage

 
A stronger partnership for the outermost regions (COM [2004] 343) PDF Print

Commission of the European Communities, 2004

This communication sets out the operational recommendations in the Commission’s working paper A stronger partnership for the outermost regions: situation and prospects.

The Commission has accordingly selected three priorities for action which will guide the future development strategy for these regions: competitiveness, access and the offsetting of other constraints and integration into the regional area (including in particular justice and home affairs). These priorities run alongside the efforts being made by the Community under the Lisbon and Göteborg strategy for a competitive European Union capable of sustainable economic development. The priorities for the outermost regions will therefore be implemented through special instruments: the policy on economic and social cohesion through its financial instruments and the other Community policies.

 Go to webpage 

 
POSEI programme PDF Print

Agriculture and and Rural Development, European Commission, 2010

The EU´s outermost regions benefit from the POSEI arrangements (Programme d'Options Spécifiques à l'Éloignement et l'Insularité) in the agricultural sector. These programmes are designed to take account of their geographical and economic handicaps such as

  • Remoteness,
  • Insularity,
  • Small size,
  • Difficult topography and climate,
  • Economic dependence on a few products.

The outermost regions are an integral part of the Union and, under the TFEU, their specific characteristics are to give rise to differentiated and specific treatment in various sectors.

They give the Union both a very widely spread set of maritime territories, of biodiversity and an even more diversified economy, for example by supplying agricultural products such as bananas, rum, cane sugar, and other exotic fruits and vegetables in demand by European consumers.

The outermost regions present enormous opportunities and are a valuable asset in European relations with adjacent countries.

 Go to webpage

 
Operational Programme 'Indian Ocean' PDF Print

Regional Policy, European Commission

The transnational cooperation strategy in the Indian Ocean area for 2007-2013 constitutes the international strand of a wider development strategy, incorporating all European, national and regional public funding for the island of Réunion. It is particularly directed towards:

  • sustainable development;
  • enhancement of the environment;
  • regional economic integration;
  • human development and international solidarity in the Indian Ocean.

The operational programme is centred on three priorities:

  1. Sustainable development and the environment [about 43.5% of total investment]
  2. Regional economic integration [about 29% of total investment]
  3. Promote human development and international solidarity to ensure harmonious regional integration [about 27.5% of total investment]

 Go to webpage

 
Transnational Cooperation Programme Madeira-Açores-Canarias (MAC) 2007-2013 PDF Print

Regional Policy, European Commission

The long term objective of the programme is not only to increase the level of cooperation between Madeira, Açores and Canarias and their integrated development, but also to enlarge the natural area of socio-economic and cultural influence of the three archipelagos and to increase the possibilities for exchanges with their geographic entourage. This later activity will be carried out in a coordinated manner with other Community external cooperation instruments, namely the European Development Fund (EDF).

The specific objectives of the programme, to be developed to attain its final objective are:

  • the promotion of Research, Development and Innovation (R&D+I) in order to reduce the relative retard of the three regions in this aspect with relation with the continent;
  • to increase the level of protection and to improve the management of coastal areas and marine resources;
  • the sustainable management of hydraulic resources, energy (in particular renewable) and waste;
  • the prevention of risks and natural disasters (seismic, volcanoes, maritime, climatic, etc);
  • the promotion of the development of third countries in the geographic area; and
  • to strengthen the institutional cooperation capacity of the intervening agents (public and private) of the three regions and participating third countries.

 Go to webpage 

 
INTERREG IV Caribbean' programme 2007-2013 PDF Print

Regional Policy, European Commission

The objective of the cooperation strategy of the 'INTERREG IV Caribbean' programme 2007-2013 is to support the harmonious, concerted and sustained development of the Caribbean area, based on economic growth, job creation and respect for the environment. It aims to deepen regional cooperation and strengthen territorial cohesion based on competitiveness, attractiveness and integration of the area and exploitation of its assets and resources.

Priorities

  1. Innovation, knowledge-based economy, opening up and improving the connectivity of the territories
  2. Environment, sustainable management of resources (terrestrial, maritime) and risks
  3. Developing common services and synergies between the institutions and the territories in order to strengthen social cohesion and integration
  4. Technical assistance
 Go to webpage