Input – Revision of the EU's Arctic Strategy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Revision of the EU's Arctic Strategy
Sent by e-mail Breivikbotn, November 9th 2020 Input – Revision of the EU’s Arctic strategy Additional input from a total of 40 municipalities in North Norway, to the public consultation regarding the revision of the EU’s Arctic strategy. The municipalities are represented by 5 inter- municipal counsils; Vest-Finnmark Rådet (7 municipalities in Troms and Finnmark County), Vesterålen regionråd (6 municipalities in Nordland County), Salten Regionråd (10 municipalities in Nordland County), Indre Helgeland Regionråd (5 municipalities in Nordland County) and Helgelandsrådet (12 municipalities in Nordland County); 1. In your view, what have been the EU’s main achievements and failures under each of the three priorities in the 2016 Joint Communication? Vest-Finnmark Rådet, Vesterålen regionråd, Salten Regionråd, Indre Helgeland Regionråd and Helgelandsrådet embraces the EU’s engagement in promoting sustainable development in the Arctic. This priority marks a positive shift in how the Arctic is perceived as a strategically important territory, with green growth potential for the region and Europe. The EU’s top priority should be to assist the region in overcoming the Arctic paradox. That is, changing a demographic trend that is inversely correlated with economic growth. A stable demographic development is a necessary precondition for development and security in the Arctic regions. The most important means of meeting regional challenges in the Nordic/European part of the Arctic is by making use of the large natural resources in the region to stimulate economic growth and create new attractive jobs including utilizing the research institutions in the Arctic. The EU’s Arctic engagement shows great achievement, as exemplified by the processes leading to the report on Arctic investment needs in 2017, and the EU Arctic Forum in 2019. -
Transport Infrastructure in Low-Density and Depopulating Areas
STUDY Requested by the TRAN committee Transport infrastructure in low-density and depopulating areas Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies Directorate-General for Internal Policies EN 3 PE 652.227 - February 2021 RESEARCH FOR TRAN COMMITTEE Transport infrastructure in low- density and depopulating areas Abstract This study investigates the key challenges and trends concerning the provision of transport policies and infrastructure in low- density and depopulating areas. It also provides a comprehensive assessment of relevant transport policies and projects implemented in these areas. Finally, it provides policymakers with an array of policy recommendations aimed at overcoming the identified challenges and gaps. This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Transport and Tourism. AUTHORS VVA: Luca BISASCHI, Francesco ROMANO, Malin CARLBERG, Jessica CARNEIRO, Davide CECCANTI, and Liviu CALOFIR TEPR: Ian SKINNER Research manager: Balazs MELLAR, Ariane DEBYSER, Davide PERNICE Project, publication and communication assistance: Mariana Václavová, Kinga OSTAŃSKA Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, European Parliament LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE PUBLISHER To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to updates on our work for the Transport and Tourism Committee please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in February 2021 © European Union, 2021 This document is available on the internet in summary with option to download the full text at: https://bit.ly/39AIpJV -
The Institutionalisation of Sami Interest in Municipal Comprehensive Planning: a Comparison Between Norway and Sweden
The International Indigenous Policy Journal Volume 11|Issue2 April 2020 The Institutionalisation of Sami Interest in Municipal Comprehensive Planning: A Comparison Between Norway and Sweden Therese Bjärstig Department of Political Science, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden, [email protected] Vigdis Nygaard Norwegian Research Center (NORCE), Angi Alta, Norway, [email protected] Jan Åge Riseth Norwegian Research Center (NORCE), Tromsø, Norway, [email protected] Camilla Sandström Department of Political Science, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden, [email protected] Recommended Citation Bjärstig, T., Nygaard, V., Riseth, J. A., & Sandström, C.(2020). The Institutionalisation of Sami Interest in Municipal Comprehensive Planning: A Comparison Between Norway and Sweden. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 11 (2). https://www.doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2020.11.2.10574 The Institutionalisation of Sami Interest in Municipal Comprehensive Planning: A Comparison Between Norway and Sweden Abstract The Sami are recognized as an Indigenous people and a national minority in both Norway and Sweden, and their involvement in any planning concerning their traditional territories is required. The aim of this article is to examine how Sami interests are secured and institutionalized in municipal comprehensive planning (MCP). We use two case study areas: Sortland municipality in Norway and Vilhelmina municipality in Sweden. Analysis of various qualitative materials indicates that, despite contextual and institutional differences, the planning processes in the case study areas have similar outcomes. We conclude that formal rights of the Sami are not always acknowledged by the politicians who make the final decision. Rather, the Sami depend on the politicians’ willingness to consider their needs. Keywords Indigenous people, Sami, reindeer herding, land use, sustainability, Sami Parliament, Sametinget, Norway, Sweden Acknowledgments This research was funded by the Norwegian Research Council as part of their research project EVAPLAN (Grant no. -
Sustainable Society Development in Arctic Cities Report
Date December, 2013 SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY DEVELOPMENT IN ARCTIC CITIES REPORT 2 3 CONTENT 1. Why this study? - Scope and objective 4 2. Summary and conclusions 5 3. A case study to gain perspective on the Arctic region 8 4. Driving forces in sustainable society development 10 5. Opportunities and challenges of six cities 13 5.1 Context of Arctic cities: challenges and opportunities 13 5.2 An introduction to case cities 14 5.3 Conclusions: City performance 18 5.4 Economy 21 5.5 Society 23 5.6 Climate and environment 28 5.7 Urban planning 29 5.8 Governance 30 6. Strategy and policy choices of focus cities 33 6.1 Conclusions: Focus on long-term sustainable development 34 6.2 Visions, potentials and challenges of focus cities 38 6.3 Economy 41 6.4 Society 42 6.5 Climate and environment 46 6.6 Urban planning 47 6.7 Governance 49 7. Case city reports 52 7.1 Tromsø 52 7.2 Narvik 58 7.3 Luleå 64 7.4 Gällivare 69 7.5 Oulu 75 7.6 Nuuk 81 SUPPLEMENTS APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 4 Method and study design Rating of the cities APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 5 Survey questions Key hypotheses APPENDIX 3 APPENDIX 6 Focus group Bibliography 4 1. WHY THIS STUDY? - SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE Modern society development is shaped by the global mega trends: Demographic changes, urbanization, climate change and environmental hazards, natural resource shortages, increasing globalization and more multipolar and diverse power configurations of key global actors. The ageing of populations, increased migration, the demand for cohesive and sustainable models for urbanization, global warming, heightened pressure for natural resource extraction and intensified global competition, bring forward new challenges and opportunities for societies – at global and local level.