THE PYRENEES: MISSING A CONVENTION?

Agustín García Ureta

Faculty of Law (Biscay), University of the Basque Country, Bilbao

(1) BASIC DATA: GEOGRAPHY, SPECIES AND

INFRASTRUCTURES

BASIC DATA

• (a) Mountain chain of approximately

55,000 km2 between France, Spain

and the Principality of Andorra.

• (b) The chain extends for 450 kms.,

from the Bay of Biscay to the

Mediterranean Sea.

• (c) The central section of the chain is roughly 150 kms wide.

BASIC DATA

• Wide presence of species:

– About 64 species of mammals, including a limited number of bears.

– Approximately 3,000 species of plants found in the Pyrenees (200 are endemic).

• Few remaining (and thinning) glaciers

(21) above 3,000 metres.

BASIC DATA: TRANSPORT

• Difficulties to overcome the chain:

– Main passes run basically in the valleys at the western and eastern ends of the Pyrenees, respectively, near sea level.

– Increasing road transport of goods.

– Future railway crossing through the central section of the belt.

– Lack of overall transport policy on both sides of the range.

HORRORHORROR

MOVIEMOVIE

(2) STATES INVOLVEDAND CROSS-BORDER ORGANISATIONS

SPAIN

Decentralised structure:

– Different authorities adopting diverse policy decisions, e.g., town planning.

– There is no law specifically devoted to mountain ranges.

– Current nature protection Law neglects the

position of mountains.

– Lack of common institutions embracing the

regions affected by the Pyrenees, although

this is not legally unfeasible.

FRANCE

• Centralised structure, despite transfer of powers to sub-State authorities in the last decades.

• Existence of Mountains law (1985, 2005)

– Mountains do have a distinctive position in the

French legal order, e.g., Pyrenees.

– Specific institutions dealing with mountains’

needs.

– Disperse provisions in different Codes.

– Institutional deadlocks requiring review, as

acknowledged by the French Government in

2009.

ANDORRA

• No member of EU.

• Very limited ratification of environmental conventions, e.g., CDB (1992); Berna (1979).

• Likely difficulties to adopt extensive and complex legal framework for a tiny country.

• A Convention-(subsequent) Protocol approach would allow for adaptation.

CROSS BORDER ORGANISATIONS

• Piecemeal approach.

• Lack of transparency

• Scant information regarding their activities.

• Need for much more concentrated institutions, e.g., Conference of the Parties to a future Convention.

YOU ARE HEREYOU ARE HERE

(3) WHICH INSTRUMENT?

WHICH INSTRUMENT? CHARTER

• (A) Agreement of understanding (Charter, soft law) between the three States and perhaps with the participation of the EU.– First step leading to a convention? States

may conceive it as a sufficient step.

– Adequate to avoid ratification difficulties.

– Difficulties to rely on the agreement for further actions due to the lack of teeth.

– Not adequate for existing needs/and problems of the mountain range.

WHICH INSTRUMENT? CONVENTION

• (B) International Convention with the

participation of the EU.

– The Pyrenees as a chain deserving

particular attention before the States and also at international level.

– Despite the lack of strictly binding rules, it could be regarded as the most

appropriate/effective instrument in terms of

format, reach and also from an institutional

viewpoint.

WHICH INSTRUMENT? CONVENTION

– It may demand much more time for drafting

but once adopted it would become the basic legal reference for the Pyrenees.

– Starting point for further protocols like the Alps Convention.

– Instrument including further and specific

criteria for interpretation of internal rules,

e.g., development consent, transport

infrastructures.

WHICH INSTRUMENT? CONVENTION

– Common institutional framework

– COP as a forum for discussion concerning

the whole range of themes.

• Availability of diverse committees

focusing on specific matters/areas.

– Mechanism for monitoring real application

of policies.

NUDIST BEACH

COMMON THEMES TO TACKLE IN A FUTURE CONVENTION

COMMON THEMES DESERVING A CONVENTION AND PROTOCOLS

• (1) Spatial planning rules

–Need to harmonise policies not merely to “encourage” possible harmonisation.

–Common principles regarding overall territorial but also urban policies.

–Limitations on the use of fresh portions of the territory.

COMMON THEMES DESERVING A CONVENTION AND PROTOCOLS

• (2) Transport

–Lack of overall perspective.

–Nowadays, transport policy is mainly

concerned with overcoming the

mountain range.

–Need to apply similar principles as

those enshrined in the Alps

Convention, e.g., transfer of freight

from road to railways.

COMMON THEMES DESERVING A CONVENTION AND PROTOCOLS

• (3) Cross-border network of protected

areas

– Need for joint management structures for

common nature protection areas (so far

meetings twice a year) and common plans regarding management of species.

– Need for a specific category for the Pyrenees (mainly to highlight the range).

COMMON THEMES DESERVING A CONVENTION AND PROTOCOLS

• (4) Landscape planning (underdeveloped policy)

– Connectivity of areas.

– Priority of nature landscapes over artificial

use of the territory.

– Creation of a specific category for the Pyrenees.

COMMON THEMES DESERVING A CONVENTION AND PROTOCOLS

• (5) Energy.

– Difficulties to adopt an instrument going

beyond general principles on this matter:

• Saving of energy.

• Reliance on local sources whilst respecting

the environment.

• Renewable sources not encroaching upon

other interests, landscape, species.

• Test field for new approaches.

COMMON THEMES DESERVING A CONVENTION AND PROTOCOLS

• (6) Economic activities

– Local knowledge as an inspiring principle (CBD).

– Need to overcome the equation development= tourism.

– Imbalance between ski activities and other areas, e.g., agriculture/forestry.

– Support for mountain products relying on existing instruments, e.g., European Charter of Mountain Quality Food products (distinctive category with specific characteristics).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

CONCLUDING REMARKS

• (a) Mountain range subject to increasing pressure.

• (b) EU rules not sufficient to encourage common approaches, e.g., Town and Country Planning, transport or energy use.

• (c) Differences of approach on both sides of the range, prima facie more comprehensive in France than in Spain.

– Specific mountain ranges as objects of the

Law.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

• (d) Need to adopt legal instrument encompassing all authorities/interests involved.

• (e) The number of Parties involved may facilitate the conclusion of that instrument.