CROSS BORDER COOPERATION IN MOUNTAIN AREAS

The importance of Integrated Territorial Plans through the analysis of POCTEFA and
ALCOTRA operational programmes, considering Tourism thematic Objective projects.

FINAL REPORT

Professor: Camilla LENZI

POLITECNICO DI MILANO Professor: Luisa PEDRAZZINI
M.Sc. Urban Planning and Policy Design
TEAM 5
ERASMUS+ JEAN MONNET COURSE
Antonela SBORLINI /// Matr. 871172
EU REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY Han ZEHUA /// Matr. 873398
MODULE 1 / A.Y. 2017-2018
EU REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY Final Report

LIST OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION Pg.02
2. GENERAL ASPECTS
2.1. ALPS VS PYRENEES
2.1.1. DEMOGRAPHY AND SERVICES Pg.04
2.1.2. PERIPHERALITY Pg.05
2.1.2. TOURISM Pg.05
2.2. THE OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES (INTERREG A VI 2007-2013)
2.2.1. ALCOTRA OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME (FR-IT) Pg.06
2.2.2. POCTEFA OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME (FR-ES-AD) Pg.07
2.3. THE PROJECTS “SUSTAINABLE TOURISM”
2.3.1. CYCLO MONVISO Pg.08
2.3.2. CIRCULDOUCE Pg.09
3. ANALYTICAL RESULTS
3.1. MAIN OUTCOMES
3.1.1. PREVIOUS CONSIDERATIONS Pg.10
3.1.2. ALCOTRA - CYCLOMONVISO Pg.11
3.1.3. POCTEFA - CIRCULDOUCE Pg.11
3.2. COMPARISON & IMPLICATIONS FOR EU COOPERATION Pg.12
4. CONCLUSION Pg.13
5. NOTES Pg.13
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY Pg.14

SBORLINI, A. – ZEHUA, H. 1
EU REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY Final Report

CROSS BORDER COOPERATION IN MOUNTAIN AREAS

The importance of Integrated Territorial Plans through the analysis of POCTEFA and ALCOTRA
operational programmes, considering Tourism thematic Objective projects.

ABSTRACT
European Cross-Border cooperation policies aims to tackle common challenges between border regions
and to exploit their growth potential, while enhancing the cooperation process for the purposes of the overall
harmonious development (EU Commission, 2018). They have an important role in Mountain regions and
that is why this research analyse and compare ALCOTRA and POCTEFA 2007-2013 cases in order to
understand European policies dynamics under SUSTAINABLE TOURISM thematic objective. How
political decisions, the determination of the main guidelines and the implementation of certain tools, such
as Plans Intégré Transfrontaliers (PIT) for ALCOTRA, influence the character and scope of developed
projects is going to be assessed through the presentation of two physically similar cases: CYCLO
MONVISO (inside ALCOTRA) and CIRCULDOUCE (inside POCTEFA).
KEYWORDS: Cross Border Cooperation – Interreg A 2007-2013 – Mountain areas – Operational
Programmes – POCTEFA – ALCOTRA - Sustainable Tourism – Integrated approach – PIT - Circuldouce
– Cyclo Monviso.

1. INTRODUCTION
Cross Border Cooperation (CBC) programmes have a clear and relevant territorial dimension and
have been since the implementation of the EU Cohesion Policy (1989) the most financed part of the
INTERREG Community Initiative 1. Besides this, CBC programmes have an important role in mountain
areas due to their particular conditions. Mountain borders are characterized by discontinuities that generate
challenges for spatial integration and that is why they have been given special recognition in the article 174
of the Lisbon Treaty (Medeiros, 2015).
Within this framework, two operational programmes developed during the programming period
2007-2013 (INTERREG A IV) localized in Mountain areas are described, analysed and compared (Fig.01
in page 3).
1. ALCOTRA OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME (Alpes Latines COopération TRAnsfrontalière)
based on the cross border cooperation between nine NUTs 3 located in the frontier between Italy
and France. Geographically placed in the western area of the Alps.
2. POCTEFA OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME (Programa Operativo de Cooperacion Territorial
España Francia Andorra) that aimed to promote and co-finance cooperation projects carried out
by French, Spanish and Andorran socio-economic agents located in the eligible ten NUTs 3 cross-
border area. Geographically placed in the Pyrenees.
The considered programming period was quite relevant for ALCOTRA since it introduced a novel
tool named Plans Intégré Transfrontaliers (PIT) which allowed the integration of different projects on
different topics in order to respond to a common strategy aimed at the economic development of the
territory, avoiding uncoordinated actions (DG Regio 2013). PIT were built around common territorial
issues, usually focusing in TOURISM and environment (highly suited to territorialisation) as main thematic
objectives for the projects involved, following the guidelines of the operational programmes.
TOURISTIC sector is a major component of the economy of mountain regions (Parrachini et. al.
2014). Despite the visibility of winter activities, it is recognized the need to enhance and focus on other
approaches, such as SUSTAINABLE TOURISM (Gløersen et. al., 2004. Federal Ministry of Economics

SBORLINI, A. – ZEHUA, H. 2
EU REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY Final Report

and Labour, 2002). According to UNESCO Sustainable tourism is defined as “tourism that respects both
local people and the traveller, cultural heritage and the environment” 2.
For understanding the relevance and implications of TOURISM as a thematic objective, through
the priorities of each operational programme and assessing the effects of the use of PIT, two similar
PROJECTS (regarding their physical outcome) are presented:
1. CYCLO MONVISO. Cross border thematic cyclo path developed according to the guidelines of
PIT Monviso, which responds to the aims of ALCOTRA 2007-2013.
2. CIRCULDOUCE. Cross border greenway which responds to the aims of POCTEFA 2007-2013,
and was designed to be part of EUROVELO 1 route.
Considering the case studies presented, the purpose of this report is to understand how political
decisions and the determination of the guidelines of an operational plan, in addition to the application of
certain tools (in this case PIT for ALCOTRA), influence the character and scope of the projects developed.
Beside this, to interpret the outcomes within the umbrella of the EU Cohesion Policy, for achieving
territorial cooperation and integration in Cross border areas.

The present report is organized in two main sections. The first section “GENERAL ASPECTS”,
mostly descriptive, is organized in three subsections in order to explain the main characteristics of the ALPS
and PYRENEES (regarding their geography, peripherality and touristic value), the operational programmes
(ALCOTRA and POCTEFA) and their correspondent projects (CYCLO MONVISO and
CIRCULDOUCE). The second one “RESULTS” comprises two subsections: the main outcomes of each
project corresponding to the operational programmes analyzed under SUSTAINABLE TOURISM as a
thematic objective and a comparison in order to understand the implications for the EU COHESION
POLICY. This second section is the prelude for the “CONCLUSIONS”, its aim is to express some final
comments about the importance of an integrated approach for designing policies, especially in cross border
areas.

SBORLINI, A. – ZEHUA, H. 3
EU REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY Final Report

2. GENERAL ASPECTS.
The aspects selected to be presented have a strict relationship with the aim of this report. The idea is to
understand the main issues characterizing the working area, that justified the development of the
operational programmes and the projects.

2.1.ALPS VS. PYRENEES

2.1.1. Demography and Services. In general terms ALPS and PYRENEES (the tallest massifs in the entire
European territory) have similar geographies, being WESTERN ALPS and FRENCH PYRENEES slightly
higher and colder, meanwhile in general PYRENEES are greener compared to ALPS. However their
conditions regarding population density and provision of services, or main economic activities, are not the
same.
PYRENEES have highly uneven density population with a weak relationships among rural and
urban areas; highly urbanized areas are located by the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts, in correspondence
with the connection points between France and Spain. The Urban structure is weaker in Spain due to the
presence of three polarizing big cities which are not located in border areas (the object of this report):
Bilbao, Barcelona and Zaragoza Meanwhile the French side is characterized by a polycentric network of
small cities located in the valleys (Harguindéguy, 2011).
In the case of ALPS there is a strong urban concentration in the high Piedmontese plains, along the
sea coast and in Annecy and Chambéry, that register demographic densities much greater than the rest of
the mountain territory. This border area is also characterized by territorial polarization due to the influence
of large conurbation (Turin, Lyon, Marseilles and Nice), generating isolation in more peripheral Alpine
areas.

Fig. 02 Left. Population density in mountain massifs 2004. Source: Gløersen et. al., “Mountain Areas in Europe: Analysis of
mountain areas in EU member states, acceding and other European countries”. Fig. 03 Right. Typology of mountain regions,
classified by NUTs3 2018 in EU. Source: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained.

The massifs with the lowest population densities (<25 inhabitants/km²) are the FRENCH
PYRENEES with a high proportion of employment (>10%) in the primary sector (agriculture), meanwhile
SPANISH PYRENEES are more industrialized (Fig.02 Above). ITALIAN ALPS have the highest
population density in mountain municipalities (76-100 inhabitants/km²) being their economic base
diversified but moving towards services and manufacturing (the same for the FRENCH part). However,
despite the fact that it is possible to identify economic profiles at massif levels, they are dependent on the
proximity of the urban network and the quality of services and connections available (Gløersen et. al.,
2004), once again the relevance of the surroundings is crucial for the performance of cross border areas.

SBORLINI, A. – ZEHUA, H. 4
EU REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY Final Report

2.1.2. Peripherality. The “attraction or attractiveness” of an area increases with its economic size (GDP)
and decreases with distance, travel time or cost; this is measured through the accessibility index, which is
the inverse of PERIPHERALITY (Hansen, 1959; Keeble et al., 1982; 1988; Schürmann et al., 1997;
Schürmann and Talaat, 2000; Wegener et al., 2000). Using this indicator it is possible to determine whether
mountain ranges are located remotely within a national context or an overall European context.
Within the European context (Fig.04 below) there is a clear differentiation between the two
analysed massifs: ALPS are less peripheral due to their international strategic location –the core or pentagon
of Europe- and in general terms are easily accessible through motorways / railways and airports -less than
60 min drive. PYRENEES suffer from a BORDER EFFECT for the integration in terms of economic, social
and territorial issues; there is an historical segmentation (legal and linguistic) reinforced by the lacking of
cross border passes. Transport networks are essential for decreasing the effects of peripherality and are also
vital for the development of tourism (Gløersen et. al., 2004).

Fig. 04 Left. Peripherality by car to population for mountain municipalities: European level 2004. Fig. 05 Right. Peripherality by
car to population for mountain municipalities: National level 2004. Source: Gløersen et. al., “Mountain Areas in Europe: Analysis
of mountain areas in EU member states, acceding and other European countries”.

National context (Fig. 05 above) showed a contrast between different sides of the ALPS and
PYRENEES. Peripherality is not only determined by the low provision of connections and facilities, it is
also related with closeness to centres of political power (big cities, mainly capital cities). Despite the fact
that both massifs are located far from capital cities, their performance at national level is different since the
strong regional government of northern Italy and Spain were able to counter balance the effects of
peripherality; not being in the same way for the case of France (Gløersen et. al. 2004, Harguindéguy, 2011).

2.1.3. Tourism. Touristic sector is an important engine for both areas, it is a major component of the
economy of mountain regions (Parrachini et. al., 2014), however few disaggregated and comparable
statistics in mountain areas are available (Gløersen et. al., 2004), mostly related with downhill skiing. Even
if this activity has economic relevance, there is a tendency to develop new attractions that could allow a
diversification of the offer and the lengthening of the tourist season, to the benefit of the cross-border tourist
system as a whole under the label of SUSTAINABLE TOURISM.
ALPS are high mountains and accessible to a large proportion of the European population, similar
statements can be made about PYRENEES, particularly on the FRENCH side. The interaction between the
scale of the topography and the accessibility to major centers of population are fundamental for tourism in
mountain areas, not only during winter (Gløersen et. al., 2004).

SBORLINI, A. – ZEHUA, H. 5
EU REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY Final Report

Tourism is determined by the policies implemented in the involved Member States (MS). In
SPAIN, policies are addressed to multi-sectorial development, mostly focused on tourism (encouraging
through the development of the area’s natural and historical heritage), infrastructure and environment. In
FRANCE and ITALY policies are addressed to overall development, through an integrated approach (Berzi
and Vicente, 2013), giving importance to tourism but considered as one theme inside an integrated plan.

2.2.THE OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES

Main characteristics of Cross Border Cooperation Programmes located in Mountain areas, in order to
understand their different approach to a same topic: SUSTAINABLE TOURISM.

2.2.1. ALCOTRA Operational Programme (OP). “Alpes Latines COoperation TRAnsfrontaliere”.

Interreg A IV (2007-2013) cross border cooperation programme developed in the frontier between
FRANCE (FR) and ITALY (IT) coincident with western ALPS. It involves 9 NUTs 3 areas: 5 from
FRANCE (Annecy, Chambery, Gap, Digne, Nice) and 4 from ITALY (Aosta, Torino, Cuneo, Imperia),
covering about 45 325 Km2; together with a contiguity or influence area and one non EU MS – Monaco-
(which did not directly receive EU funds, but being relevant in terms of dynamic interdependence)
extending the area to 84 125 Km2. The managing authority3 was Regione Piemonte (IT).
This programme was the continuation of a process of consolidation of the relations between the
two sides of the border (consider the establishment of the Italian-French Euroregion ALPMED signed in
2006 and a significant cooperation experience due to fifteen years of Interreg programmes I, II and III)
aiming to the harmonization of the land management policies and showing a strong transversality of
Tourism as a theme and measure. For the 2007-2013 programming period “improving the quality of life
and the sustainable development of cross border economic and territorial systems through cooperation in
the social, economic, environmental and cultural spheres” was the GLOBAL OBJECTIVE. Focusing on
the strategic role of TOURISM and following the general guidelines of each MS National Strategies, the
Lisbon Strategy 4 and ALPMED Euroregion.
Due to the results of the previous programming period (2000-2006) a new structure for ALCOTRA
was proposed, with the aim of increasing the level of cooperation. 2007-2013 programming period
introduced a novel tool relevant for our report: Piani Integrati Trasfrontalieri (PIT) 5 to allow the integration
of different actors/interventions limiting the proliferation of single, uncoordinated ones. Cross-border
integrated plans can support the creation of a network system between companies and administrations,
improving the characteristics of the designed projects and the synergy with local policies (DG Regio

SBORLINI, A. – ZEHUA, H. 6
EU REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY Final Report

CECICN, 2013). This is a crucial issue for tourism competitiveness, recognizing the usefulness of cross-
border cooperation at the level of Strategic Projects.

Fig. 07. NUTS 3 part of the CBC Operational Programme. Source: http://europe.regionpaca.fr. Organization of the Operational
programme. Source: Own based on EU Commission ALCOTRA. (There is a 4th priority axe: Technical Assistance which is not
described due to the fact it was not relevant for the analysis).

The general strategy is organized in four Priority axes, each one with a strategic objective, having
a total fund of €199 583 127, 75% provided by EU ERDF €149 687 345 distributed according to the
relevance of each axe for the development of the area and the characteristic of the projects. Each strategic
objective includes some thematic objectives, and it is here where it is possible to identify the role given to
TOURISM (particularly SUSTAINABLE TOURISM) as a topic.
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM (Fig.07 Above) was considered under the guidelines and objectives
of the Priority Axe 01: Sustainable Economic Development and innovation; which was not one of the main
funded for 2007-2013 programming period. It counted with about 31% ERDF funds together with the
Priority Axe 02: Environment and Risk Prevention, 3% below Priority Axe 03: Quality of Life which was
related to favoring the area attractiveness, improving the services (mainly infrastructure) and strengthening
the identity of the cross-border communities. Despite the fact that TOURISM as a real topic was located
under one axe, as a measure was present in different axes (managing natural resources, cultural heritage).

2.2.2. POCTEFA Operational Programme (OP). “Programa Operativo de Cooperacion Territorial

España Francia Andorra”. Interreg A IV (2007-2013) cross border cooperation programme developed in
the frontier between FRANCE (FR) and SPAIN (ES) coincident with PYRENEES. It involves 10 NUTs 3
areas: 5 from FRANCE (Pyrenees Atlantiques, Hautes Pyrenees, Haute Garonne, Ariege and Pyrenees
Orientales) and 5 from SPAIN (Gipuzkoa, Navarra, Huesca, Lleida and Girona), together with a non EU
MS Andorra, covering about 74 019 Km2. Considering the contiguity or influence area, which did not
directly receive EU funds, but had relevance in terms of dynamic interdependence, the area got extended
to a total of 146 833 Km2. The managing authority was the Consorcio de la Comunidad de Trabajo de los
Pirineos (Jaca, ES).
POCTEFA 2007-2013 was also the continuation of the three previous programming periods,
showing the last one (2000-2006) a strong orientation towards the enhancement of the touristic economy,

SBORLINI, A. – ZEHUA, H. 7
EU REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY Final Report

being the second measure with the highest amount of projects developed. Despite the advances in
cooperation and the increase of the involvement of actors, the participation of private agents was still very
weak and the lacking of a strategic view for programming of actions within the same thematic objective
was the biggest weakness (not being solved even in the analyzed period). In line with this consideration,
the GLOBAL OBJECTIVE was to “continue and strengthen the economic and social integration of the
cross-border area through cooperation; increasing complementarity –no competition- and achieving an
identity (main vector for tourism)”. Following, as the ALCOTRA case, the specificities and guidelines
provided by the regulations and plans of the involved MS and the generalities of the Cohesion Policy 6.

Fig. 08. NUTS 3 part of the CBC Operational Programme and organization of the Operational programme. Source: EU Commission
POCTEFA. (There is a 4th priority axe -Technical Assistance- which is not described due to the fact it was not relevant for the
analysis).

The logic of organization is the same for both operational programmes analyzed in this report. The
total fund of the programme was € 263 372 851, being 66% (€ 174 641 485) provided by EU ERDF.
In this case SUSTAINABLE TOURISM (Fig.08 Above) was considered under the guidelines and
objectives of the Priority Axe 02: Environment and Risk Prevention, which together with the Priority Axe
03: Quality of Life received the biggest amount of EU funds (about 32% each). This is highly interesting,
since it means that as well as in the case of ALCOTRA, the main focus was on the development of
infrastructural linkages between the two sides of the border and that TOURISM played a relevant role –
from other point of view- in the definition of the identity of the area; considered an autonomous objective,
not linked with other issues under a general strategy.

2.3.THE PROJECTS
Physical projects developed under the same thematic objective: SUSTAINABLE TOURISM. Examples of
territorial materialization of each Operational Programme, in order to understand the implications of the
differences in scopes and general aims.

2.3.1. CycloMonviso. One of the seven single projects inside PIT Monviso “Monviso L’Uomo e le
territoire”; which was in turn one of the seven PIT approved for the period 2007-2013. The main objective
of this PIT was the SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT of Monviso area through the promotion of the

SBORLINI, A. – ZEHUA, H. 8
EU REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY Final Report

protection of existent environmental resources, an integrated tourist offer and the enhancement of the local
production.
CycloMonviso envisaged the creation of a 145Km cross-border bicycle touring circuit (Fig.09
below), organized into four circuits, and the services related to it, together with training for
operators/managers and information/promotion for users. It also intended to involve the local cross-border
communities in order to enhance cooperation and to promote local land assets and resources; creating
economic opportunities for the local communities and turning Monviso into an international destination.
The proposed “micro-network” of local circuits intended to widen the tourist offer as well as encouraging
local people to use the bicycle instead of polluting means of transport 7. The scale of the intervention,
together with the existent synergies with the other projects (such as Slow Tourisme or Savoir Legno) are
crucial for understanding the results and implications for the cross border context.

Fig. 09. Localization and route of Cyclo Monviso Project. Source: Own elaboration based on http://www.vallidelmonviso.it.

The coordinator of the project was Comune di Racconigi (located in NUTs 3 Cuneo, Italy), which
was one of the three Italian municipalities through which the circuit was established together with
Savigliano and Saluzzo. The arriving point of the route was the Parc Naturel Régional du Queyras located
in the Municipality of Guillestre (Gap NUTs 3, France).
The project received € 835 431 ERDF fund, being the total budget for the entire PIT € 10 652 194.
An important characteristic related to the distribution of monetary resources is that PIT are mono-fund,
which means that the projects cannot receive any complementary fund from other instruments, for example
CF (DG Regio, 2013). ERDF is meant to fund initiatives for local development, development of tourism
and investment within the field of culture, protection of the environment, among other areas.

2.3.2. Circuldouce. One of the six projects developed during the programming period 2007-2013 part of
the topic SUSTAINABLE TOURISM for FRANCE-SPAIN Cross Border area.
78 Km greenway 8 that links the Municipality of Guetary in the Atlantic coast of France (NUTs 3
Pyrenees Atlantiques) and the Parque Natural del Señorio del Bertiz in Spain (Navarra NUTs 3), going
through the Municipality of Irun (Gipuzkoa NUTs3), also in the Spanish side of the border. Located in one
of the two highly congested crossing points of the PYRENEES (the other one is on the Mediterranean
coast), its main aim was to encourage the use of non-polluting means of transport while motivating tourists
to discover interior territories, developing a tourist economy in rural areas (decreasing seasonality) and
valuing local heritage.
The project limited motorized traffic access to the area; adapting roadside spaces to accommodate
cyclists, hikers, skaters and disabled people, especially in urban areas. The emphasis was on creating a
common visual identity for the route, with common signs, a tourist database, a website, and information

SBORLINI, A. – ZEHUA, H. 9
EU REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY Final Report

booklets. No new buildings or other types of constructions were proposed, instead many partially
abandoned places were rehabilitated for hosting touristic activities.
Circuldouce is part of EUROVELO 1 route proposed by the European Cyclist Federation, which
runs from Norway to Portugal, along the European Atlantic coast. The Conseil General des Pyrenees
Atlantiques managed the project together with seven partners (3 French and 4 Spanish), recognizing the
potentiality of the link with the EUROVELO circuit for touristic development in the area.

Fig. 10. Localization and route of Circuldouce Project. Source: Own elaboration based on data from POCTEFA Operational
Programme and Google Maps.

The total investment was € 8 049 000, of which EU CF contributed € 5 323 000 since this instrument
awards financing to projects within the field of environmental protection as well as infrastructure;
particularly ensuring cohesion of communication network within the country and between individual
regions with other European countries (EU Funds Portal). This last issue is extremely relevant for
understanding the scope and the differences with the previous projects.

3. ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Qualitative outcomes of the projects within the framework provided by each operational programme, in
order to understand through a comparison which were the implications for the process of Cross Border
Cooperation.

3.1.MAIN OUTCOMES
3.1.1. Previous Considerations. 2007-2013 was an important period for the recognition at European
institutional level of the role of TOURISM in the EU economy, being also created in 2007 a specific section
in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TEU) assessing the importance of encouraging the creation of
a favourable environment for the sector (EPRS, 2015). This favoured the development of indicators and
specific data, also increasing general access to information (mostly available at MS or NUTs 2 levels).
However when considering SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 9 the picture is not the same, there are not
specific indicators available (Gløersen et. al., 2004). To assess the impacts of tourism and the level of
sustainability achieved requires a multi-sectoral approach developing an in-depth research on
environmental, economic and social issues; which is more than just estimating the effects on the physical
and human environments (Butler, 1999). This situation generates a scarce and not fully targeted availability
of quantitative data 10.
Generally, operational programs are analyzed considering realization indicators (related to the
degree of progress of a project, in physical or monetary terms) or result indicators (related to the direct and
immediate effects on the direct beneficiaries carried out by a program, in physical or monetary terms). This

SBORLINI, A. – ZEHUA, H. 10
EU REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY Final Report

report is going to present few available results indicators 11 complemented with qualitative data provided by
ex-post evaluation informs and Web research; also considering the continuity of the programmes and the
projects in the following programming period as an indicator of success.

3.1.2. ALCOTRA – CycloMonviso. According to ALCOTRA´s official webpage, the general goal of
strengthening cross-border economic, social and environmental integration was achieved, so it could be
considered a successful experience. Despite SUSTAINABLE TOURISM was not one of the thematic
objectives with the biggest budget (the priority axe that received 33.4% of funding was Quality of Life:
projects related to health, social services, transport, culture and education), it had a relevant role during the
analyzed period. 44% of the movements through the border were performed because of Leisure and
Tourism; however in general terms the cross border mobility was below the EU average (53% EU, 48% the
area), being more frequent in the FR to IT direction (53%) than in the other way (44%) 12(EU Commission,
2015a).
Regarding realization indicators, all the projects developed under TOURISM label help to enhance
natural and historical-artistic assets. There was an increase in the expected realization of touristic routes (41
over 16 13) and interested municipalities (322 over 60) (EU Commission, 2013). CYCLO MONVISO
project enhanced a cycling tourism identification, developing it as a brand; however the strategy was not
strong enough for making this activity extremely relevant due to the weak coordination inside PIT
MONVISO compared to other PIT for the same period (DG Regio, 2013).
PIT MONVISO and CYCLOMONVISO had their continuity in the 2014-2020 programming
period with PIT TERRE MONVISO (PARCO DEL MONVISO) and VELOVISO, proving its importance
for the area. ALCOTRA 2007-2013´s highest concentration of projects was due to the scope regarding
“Sustainable Growth” which relates to 2014-2020 Priority axe 3: “Attrattività del territorio” counting with
the highest budget (around 84 million euro) and aiming to increase SUSTAINABLE TOURISM. The new
project VELOVISO makes a special emphasis in the joint management and promotion of tourist products
related to cycling, being a deficiency of CYCLOMONVISO.
The value of Integrated Approach was recognized by CECICN (Conference of European Cross-
Border and Interregional City Networks) to exploit the potential of cross-border territories; being the
ALCOTRA PIT experience the base for the development of new tools and their implementation for 2014-
2020: Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) and Community Led Local Development (CLLD) 14 aiming to
consolidate the territorial dimension of cohesion policy (DG Regio, 2013).

3.1.3. POCTEFA – Circuldouce. According to POCTEFA´s official webpage the main goals were
achieved, characterized by a preponderance of projects related to TOURISM, often tackles from the
perspective of environmental valorization. During 2007-2013 programming period SUSTAINABLE
TOURISM was labelled under Priority axe 2: Environment and Risk Prevention, receiving one of the
biggest funds (32% of total ERDF, the same as the axe focused on the development of infrastructures:
Quality of Life). Inside this axe, the mentioned thematic objective hoarded 47% of the investments, and its
importance can be assessed considering that 48% of cross-border movements where due to Leisure and
Tourism. Cross border mobility was 3% above EU average (53%), being more relevant in the FR-ES
direction (67% vs. 44%) (EU Commission, 2015b).
Regarding realization indicators, there was a valorization of the territory through improved and
new trans-border touristic routes: 125 over the 30 expected ones (EU Commission, 2016). These condition
boosted the labelling of the area as an Accessible Tourist Destination, becoming Navarra and Pyrenees
Atlantiques centers of cycloturism in a non-complementary way. The lack of integration and coordination
at cross-border level was reinforced by the partnership driven by the General Council of the Pyrenees-
Atlantiques aimed at promoting “Eurovelo 1, European tourist destination of excellence” as a follow-up
project.

SBORLINI, A. – ZEHUA, H. 11
EU REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY Final Report

CIRCULDOUCE was continued during 2014-2020 programming period in EDERBIDEA being

this a possible sign of its success; however its orientation was changed (no more related to SUSTAINABLE
TOURISM) being focused on the new Priority axe 4: enhancement of the mobility of people and goods;
promoting sustainable transport and eliminating obstacles –for example congestion- in critical network
infrastructures (EU Commission, 2015b). Surprisingly one of the axes with the lowest investment (24
million euro) considering PYRENEES´ barrier effect as one the biggest weaknesses of the area.

3.2.COMPARISON AND IMPLICATIONS FOR EU COOPERATION

In general terms both projects and experiences could seem quite similar, considering their physical
outcome (transborder cyclo paths), their localization (mountain areas with similar weaknesses and
strengths), their objectives related with the economic enhancement of both mountain areas in terms of
sustainable tourism development (also boosting the use of non-polluting means of transport and defining
particular identities), their success (both were continued during 2014-2020 programming period) but also
their difficulties in establishing a cross border coordinated work (i.e. difficulties in the interaction between
actors involved) and assessing the results.
However through their differences is that it is possible to identify their real scopes and implications
for EU territorial cooperation. When considering their localization it is crucial to understand the
relationship with the surrounding cities. SPANISH PYRENEES and ITALIAN ALPS have a weak
relationship between urban and rural environment due to the presence of polarizing big cities, but this was
counter balanced by their strong regional government. This condition combined with tourism related
policies in FRANCE and ITALY allowed the development of an integrated approach, focused on overall
development, thus being the cross border territory considered as a whole. In SPAIN tourism policies were
addressed to multi-sectoral separated issues hampering an integrating vision and the integrated functioning
of both sides of the frontier (Berzi and Vicente, 2013).
The way of designing tourism policies and the profile of each MS is of great value for understanding
the differences in terms of priority axes, due to diverse projects’ initial aims or orientation, and the
correlated disposition of EU funds which would lead to a differentiated scope of the resulting projects.
CYCLO MONVISO was a project located under the guidelines of the Economic Development and
Innovation priority axe, funded by ERDF since it was related to the economic and sustainable development
of Monviso area through investments in Tourism and Culture. It enhanced the value of small scale
interventions to generate synergies inside an integrated approach -made possible by the implementation of
PIT. This position was reinforced during 2014-2020, being awarded to all strategies related to Sustainable
Growth the highest budget (during 2007-2013 it was reserved for projects related to infrastructure
development). In this line, the actors involved decided to bet again and reinforce the initiatives developed
in terms of cooperation.
On the other hand, CIRCULDOUCE was a project located under the guidelines of the Environment
and Risk Prevention priority axe, funded by CF since it was related to the development of infrastructure
while reducing congestion and pollution levels in one of the crossing points; within POCTEFA framework
usually projects related to TOURISM are tackled from the perspective of environmental valorization and
infrastructure development. The differences in scope with the previous case are already evident and were
clarified in 2014-2020 programming period, when the continuation of this project was labelled under the
enhancement of mobility of people and goods priority axe, receiving one of the lowest budgets due to the
recognition of the importance of small-scale infrastructure (point in common with ALCOTRA 2007-2013
experience).
As a result, CYCLOMONVISO described a more localized scope (being focused on the
development and enhancement of the cross border area) meanwhile CIRCULDOUCE was characterized by
a wider one (transnational) since their effects were not thought to be manifested in the close surrounding
but in the whole European context (consider EUROVELO and the reinforcement with the changes in the

SBORLINI, A. – ZEHUA, H. 12
EU REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY Final Report

priorities for POCTEFA 2014-2020). Evidently the development and implementation of PIT had a crucial
role in these outcomes (DG Regio, 2013). The integrated approach and the collaboration/involvement of
actors in different fields of action was crucial for developing a comprehensive strategy of the entire territory,
locating the effects and improvements in the cross border area, instead of disseminating and diffusing them.

4. CONCLUSION
The general aim of this report is to understand how political decisions and the determination of
operational plan´s guidelines influence the character and scope of developed projects in Cross Border areas.
The cases of ALCOTRA and POCTEFA represent two physically separated but common realities in which
the effects of cross border cooperation policies lead to similar issues but different results. The projects
presented were chosen due to their evidence in this regard: similar outcomes but completely different
territorial impact given their particular identification of priority axes, their concept of SUSTAINABLE
TOURISM and their implementation.
Territorial integration process is highly dependent on the political focus of the countries involved
(Medeiros, 2015). The integrated approach of ALCOTRA given by Italian and French policies allowed the
development of PIT, making possible to put in practice an intra-regional territorial cohesion strategy with
CYCLO MONVISO project. It represents a clear example of physical, small scale, targeted territorial
implementation of the European Cross Border Cooperation policies.
On the other hand, POCTEFA programme allowed a stronger cooperation at a wider scale
(European - EuroVelo) but weaker at cross border level. The influence of Spanish regional governments
and the sectorial dimension of their policies avoid the territorial effectiveness of CIRCULDOUCE, blurring
its role for the cross border context. The orientation of this project was clarified in the 2014-2020
programming period, relating it with cross border mobility instead of sustainable and integrated growth.
Each operational programme changes its orientation according to the real need of the territories
where they are applied (always responding to the general guidelines of Cohesion Policy for the
programming period). As it was probed there is always the risk of treating territorial issues without having
concrete results or effect at the proper level, diluting the efforts of the actors involved and the resources
used. The role of PIT was to avoid these situations, and here lies its main importance.
In order to tackle specific territorial issues it is important to move from large physical interventions
to softer types. According to ERDF regulations for 2014-2020 programming period, physical investments
in tourism should be limited to small-scale infrastructures part of integrated territorial development
strategies (EU Commission, 2015c). This issues would certainly require further research, due to the
complexity of each case study and the specific implications on territorial, political, social and economic
features in cross border areas.

5. NOTES
1
The European Territorial Cooperation Program (INTERREG) aims to promote the creation of a single
market through cooperative actions aimed at reducing the development gap between different European
regions. Source: https://interreg.eu/programme/interreg-alcotra/.
2
Source: http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_c/mod16.html
3
Member States are responsible for managing programmes that are supported by Cohesion Policy (CP). A
designated Managing Authority provides information on the programmes, selects projects and monitors
implementation. Source: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/atlas/managing-authorities/
4
Action and development plan devised in 2000, for the economy of the EU 2000-2010. Its aim was to make
the EU "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable

SBORLINI, A. – ZEHUA, H. 13
EU REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY Final Report

economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion", by 2010. It has been succeeded
by the Europe 2020 strategy. Source: European Union Parliament Website.
5
2007-2013 programming period was characterized by the articulation of three different tools: Piani
Integrati Transfrontalieri (PIT), Progetti Strategici and Progetti Singoli. The last two are not the subject
of this report but in general terms influenced the results of the analyzed operational program.
6
Cohesion policy should promote a more balanced, sustainable “territorial development”, a broader concept
than regional policy, which is specifically linked to the ERDF and operates at regional level. Source:
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/faq/#1.
7
Electric bikes were also implemented on the French border.
8
Greenway is a long, narrow piece of land, used for recreation and pedestrian and bicycle traffic, sometimes
including multiple transportation (streetcar, light rail) or retail uses. Source: https://www.greenway.org.au
9
The European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) was launched by the European Commission in 2013, to
provide a measuring and monitoring tool for destinations wanting to adopt a sustainable management
approach and to enhance their sustainability performances. Source: http://www.accessibletourism.org.
10
Regarding the Operational Programmes, as well as the projects, most of the quantitative indicators
available are related to the numeral disposition of funds.
11
Some results indicators are a bit vague in order to understand which were the improvements of the
projects or programmes implemented.
12
This data was provided by the Eurobarometer report, focused on the results of ALCOTRA operational
Programme 2007-2013.
13
The last number is referred to the objective provided by the indicators, the first one is related to the
results. In both cases they are higher than expected as it is possible to appreciate.
14
“Integrated Territorial Investment” (ITI), a mini-programme for the implementation of a
multidimensional territorial development strategy over a particular area, which would be incorporated into
programmes and may benefit from delegation of management to intermediary bodies; “Community Led
Local Development” (CLLD), a bottom-up approach which funds integrated and multi-sectorial strategies
for local development, led by local action groups (LAG) across sub-regional areas (DG Regio, 2013).

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
ARTICLES
- Berzi M., Vicente J. (2013) “Analysis of Cross-Border projects between France and Spain 2007-
2013 - Stakeholders and territorial impact” European Journal of Geography Volume 4, Number 4,
pp. 33-46.
- Butler R. (1999) “Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review”. Tourism Geographies, 1:1, pp.
7-25.
- Gløersen E., Perlik M., Price M. (2004), “Mountain Areas in Europe: Analysis of mountain areas
in EU member states, acceding and other European countries”. NordRegio Nordic Centre for
Spatial Development.
- Harguindéguy J. (2007) “Cross-border Policy in Europe: Implementing INTERREG III-A, France–
Spain”, Regional and Federal Studies, 17:3, pp. 317-334.
- Medeiros E. (2015) “Territorial Impact Assessment and Cross-Border Cooperation”, Regional
Studies, Regional Science, 2:1, pp. 97-115.
- Paracchini L., et. al. (2014), “Mapping cultural ecosystem services: A framework to assess the
potential for outdoor recreation across the EU” Ecological Indicators 45, pp. 371–385.

SBORLINI, A. – ZEHUA, H. 14
EU REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY Final Report

OFFICIAL REPORTS
- Archidata S.r.l. and t33 S.r.l（2015）“The evaluation in itinere of the cross-border cooperation
programme 2007-2013 final report”, pp.54-58 (www.t33.it/en/projects/byserv/7/all; last accessed
April 5, 2018).
- EU Commission (2007). “Programma di Cooperazione Transfrontaliera IT FR 2007-2013”
(www.regione.piemonte.it; last accessed April 5, 2018).
- EU Commission (2008). “Programa Operativo Territorial ES FR AD 2007-2013”
(https://www.poctefa.eu/; last accessed April 5, 2018).
- EU Commission (2012). “Rapporto finale di Esecuzione G7 Cyclo Territorio”
(www.regione.piemonte.it; last accessed April 5, 2018).
- DG Regio (2013). “Position of CECICN to be addressed to the DG Regio. Integrated territorial
approaches and small project funds within the 2014-2020 programming period”. (www.espaces-
transfrontaliers.org/; last accessed April 20, 2018).
- EU Commission (2015a). “Eurobarometer Alcotra Programme” (ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/.../
cross...results/france-italy.pdf; last accessed April 10, 2018).
- EU Commission (2015b). “Eurobarometer Poctefa Programme”
(ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/.../ cross...results/spain-france.pdf; last accessed April 10, 2018).
- EU Commission (2015c). “Culture and Tourism Final Report (Work Package 9): Ex post
evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 2007-2013 focusing on the ERDF and the CF”.
(http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/expost2013/wp9_final_repo
rt.pdf; last accessed April 28, 2018)
- EU Commission (2016). “Programa Operativo Territorial ES FR AD 2007-2013. Informe Final”
(https://www.poctefa.eu/; last accessed April 5, 2018).
- EU Commission (2017). “Rapporto finale di Esecuzione ALCOTRA 2007-2013”
(www.regione.piemonte.it; last accessed April 5, 2018).

WEBPAGES
- http://www.visitterredeisavoia.it/it/cyclo-monviso/v; last accessed April 8, 2018, 7.35 pm.
- http://www.bidasoa-activa.com/es/proyectos/proyectos-realizados/314-circuldouce; last accessed
April 5, 2018, 2.30 am.
- http://mappe.cyclomonviso.eu/; last accessed April 9, 2018, 11.05 am.
- http://www.pirineosatlanticos.com/es-usted-mas-bien/deportes-de-naturaleza/ciclismo-deportivo/
cicloturismo/; last accessed April 10, 2018, 11.39am.
- http://www.navarrabicicleta.com/; last accessed April 10, 2018, 11.45 am.
- http://www.monviso.eu/ita/pit.aspx; last accessed April 10, 2018, 2.20 pm.
- https://www.keep.eu/keep/project-ext/43397/VELOVISO; last accessed April 27, 2018, 8.35 pm.
- http://www.gipuzkoabizikletaz.eus; las accessed April 27, 2018, 8.05 pm.
- http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/it/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/cross-border/; last
accessed April 29, 2018, 9.00 pm.

SBORLINI, A. – ZEHUA, H. 15