From European Spatial Development to Territorial Cohesion Policy
Andreas FaludiFALUDI
Professor of Spatial Policy Systems in Europe, OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, Delft University of Technology, Delft, at Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Correspondence address:
Postbus 5030Oostplantsoen 114
260011GAWL Delft
The Netherlands
Paper submitted for the Policy Debates section of Regional Studies
From European Spatial Development to Territorial Cohesion Policy
Abstract
The European Constitution defines territorial cohesion as a competence shared between the Union and the Member States. What does this stand for, and how is territorial cohesion policy going to take shape? Answering these questions, the paper deals with the European Spatial Development Perspective’s advocacy of polycentrism and how territorial cohesion has given new impetus to pursuing this agenda. It also deals with French roots of territorial cohesion thinking and French endorsement of the Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC). Based on recent Communications, the paper it shows also that the European Commission intends territorial cohesion policy to take shape following not OMC but the ‘Community Method’. However, it is argued that Member State involvement in its formulation following OMCthe Open Method of Co-ordination is essential.
If the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (CONFERENCE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATESonference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, 2004) ever indeed came omes into force – according to the Treaty on 1 November 2006 the earliest – territorial cohesion would will be a competence shared between the Union and the Member States. This paper is about this concept and how territorial cohesion policy might will be formulated, be it under the Constitution or, as seems more likely now, under other arrangements.
Cohesion policy as such is not new. It is concerned largely, but not exclusively with rectifying imbalances. The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) (CEC 1, 1999) proposes polycentric development to counteract spatial imbalances, and this is part also of the European Commission’s new thinking. (CEC 2, 2003a; 2004a,b) Part One of the paper is thus about the ESDP. Part Two discusses the concept of territorial cohesion apparently giving new impetus to pursuing an, albeit modified ESDP agenda. (FaludiFALUDI 2, 2004a, 2005ab) Part Three discusses French roots of territorial cohesion thinking and the French endorsement of the Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC). Part Four is about the making of future EU territorial cohesion policy, more in particular about whether OMC or rather the standard ‘Community Mmethod’ should and could be invoked during the process.
Part One: The ESDP foreshadowing territorial cohesion policy
On 10/11 May 1999 at Potsdam, ministers of EU Member States responsible for spatial planning and the European Commissioner for Regional Policy assented to the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). This was the crowning event of six years of work. The process was marked by the appearance of the so-called Leipzig Principles laying the foundations of the ESDP in 1994, of a ‘First Official Draft’ at a meeting at Noordwijk, The Netherlands, in 1997 and of a ‘First Complete Draft’ at Glasgow in 1998. The Conclusions of the German Presidency at Potsdam were modest:.
“The Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning in the Member States of the European Union and the member of the European Commission responsible for Regional Policy emphasized in Potsdam that the conclusion of the political debate on the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) was an important step in the progress towards European integration.” (CEC 1999)
The reason for ending in what appears a low-key was that ministers met, not as one of the incarnations of the Council of Ministers, but rather informally. (FaludiFALUDI and,WaterhoutWATERHOUT, 2002) There was said to be no Community competence, a situation that, as indicated, the Constitution would have rectified. Rather than focussing on the –now largely academic – issue of a competence for making the ESDP, However, it is worth stressing that, its informal status notwithstanding, its makers wished it the ESDP to be followed through, devoting a chapter specifically to this, but . However, they wisely ceased to refer to the follow-up as the ‘implementation’ of the ESDP, preferring to talk about its ‘application’ instead.
The, up to a point reasonably successful application of the ESDP has been explored elsewhere. (FaludiFALUDI, 2003; 2004b; DÜHR andühr, NADINadin, 2005; Janin-RivolinJANIN RIVOLIN and, FaludiFALUDI, 2005) This is not in the least the result of the ESDP putting forward a conceptualisation that appeals to many stakeholders. Balanced and sustainable development, invoked in the subtitle of the ESDP, translates effortlessly into polycentric development, a ‘bridging concept’ (WaterhoutWATERHOUT 2, 2002) in which there is something for everybody. Several of the sixty policy options in the ESDP invoke polycentrism, in particular option 1 where it recommends strengthening “…several larger zones of global economic integration in the EU, equipped with high-quality, global functions and services, including the peripheral areas, through transnational spatial development strategies." (CEC 1999, 21)
In addition, tThe ESDP addresses also the competitiveness of Europe – a concern thatwhich recent Commission publications articulate with even more vigour. Thus the ESDP points out that the EU territory. "…differs from that of the USA with its several outstanding economic integration zones on a global scale: West Coast (California), East Coast, Southwest (Texas), Mid West". (CEC 1999, 21) In these terms the US territory is more balanced, giving, or so it is suggested, the US a competitive advantage. This, then, is why polycentrism, meaning more global economic integration zones outside the one and only such zone marked by its corners London-Paris-Milan-Munich-Hamburg and hence dubbed the pentagon, is the overall goal. The formation of more global economic integration zones
“…has to be pursued, to ensure regionally balanced development, because the EU is becoming fully integrated in the global economy. Pursuit of this concept will help to avoid further excessive economic and demographic concentration in the core area of the EU. The economic potential of all regions of the EU can only be utilised through the further development of a more polycentric European settlement structure. The greater competitiveness of the EU on a global scale demands a stronger integration of the European regions into the global economy.” (Op cit.)
Polycentrism as a concept is being developed in ESDP follow-ups, starting with a document produced by the French in 2000. (FRENCHrench PRESIDENCYresidency 2, 2000) There is a parallel prospective programme ‘Territiroires 2020’ commissioned by the French planning agency Datar (Délegation à l’aménagement du territoire et à l’action régionale) and summarised in study (BAUDELLEaudelle, GUYuy and, OLLIVROllivero(2002; see also BAUDELLEaudelle and, GUYuy 2, 2004) commissioned by the French planning agency Datar (Délegation à l’aménagement du territoire et à l’action régionale). On the basis of this and other works, Datar has formulated four scenario’s for France, one of which – the preferred one – it identifies as ‘networked polycentrism’ (polycentrism maillée). (GuigouGUIGOU 2, 2002) One of the scenariosThe study positions the French territory in a polycentric configuration of ‘petites europe’, or little Europes, but note that another one highlights the dangers to French unity as a result of territorial fragmentation in peripheral areas.
Another follow-up by the Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions (CRPM 2, 2002) shows what a determined policy might achieve between now and 2020 in terms of a polycentric Europe. It points out opportunities for stimulating new growth areas.
So the strategy in the ESDP and its follow-ups is to have global economic integration zones develop outside the pentagon. However, not purporting to be a ‘masterplan’ (FaludiFALUDI and,WaterhoutWATERHOUT, 2002) the ESDP leaves the issue of where such zones should be created left hanging in the air. Rather, co-operation and initiatives from below are the key to forming the requisite transnational development strategies for such zones. This shows the ESDP reflecting the shift to what has been dubbed as the contemporary paradigm of regional development. (BACHTLERachtler, and YUILLuill, 2001; BACHTLERachtler, 2003) Thus,
“…ways and procedures must be found to enable cities and regions to complement each other and co-operate. (…) As well as city networks at regional level, the need for complementing co-operation also applies to city networks at interregional, transnational or even European level. (…) Promoting complementarity (…) means simultaneously building on the advantages and overcoming of disadvantages of economic competition (…) However, complementarity should not be focused solely on economic competition but be expanded to all urban functions, such as culture, education and knowledge, and social infrastructure.” (CEC 1999, 21)
The policy envisaged is also therefore not European funding for would-be global economic integration zones. Rather, endogenous forces need to be mobilised or, as the literature has it, social capital needs to be generated through co-operation. There is clearly more to polycentrism than the morphology of urban systems.
“Rather, an active building of regional organising capacity is needed – that is, the ability to regionally co-ordinate developments through a more or less institutionalised framework of co-operation, debate, negotiation and decision-making in pursuit of interests at the regional scale – to shape a polycentric urban region’s competitive advantages.” (MEIJERSeijers, and ROMEINomein, 2003, 173)
In this and other respects, the ESDP foreshadows territorial cohesion thinking, to be discussed next.
Part Two: Territorial Cohesion Thinking
The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe says in Art. I-3 that the Union “…shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion and solidarity among Member States” and Art. III-1413 (The policies and functioning of the Union) lists territorial cohesion as a shared competence of the Union and the Member States. Art. 16 of the current Treaty establishing the European Community already refers to this concept, but merely as a rationale for maintaining ‘services of general economic interest’. Territorial cohesion can also be found in Art. 36 on services of general economic interest of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, adopted at the Nice European Council in 2000. E and now part of the Constitution for Europe, to be ratified between now and 2006ven if the Constitution were to disappear without trace, there would therefore be an, albeit weak basis for territorial cohesion policy.
During Michel Barnier’s term as European Commissioner for regional policy the Commission invoked territorial cohesion as if it wereere already an area of EU policy. The second Cohesion Report (CEC 2, 2001a) devoted a whole chapter to it. Conceivably for tactical reasons, the third Cohesion Report (CEC 2, 2004a), coming out at a time when the Constitution was still under consideration and the present conflict over the Community budget about to break out, soft-pedalled on territorial cohesion. However, no sooner had the Constitution been agreed by the European Council of Heads of State and Government, and the Commission published the ‘Interim Territorial Cohesion Report’, based on the work of the European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON). (CEC 2, 2004b) This which once again madkes it seem as if EU concern with territorial cohesion was a foregone conclusion. So does a recent brochure coming out of the Directorate-General Regio. (CEC 2004b)
TAt the time of writing, there is as yet no official definition of what territorial cohesion means. The message repeated over and over again is that it complements the economic and social cohesion goal and harmonious and balanced development of the Union as stated in the Treaty. Thus, an information leaflet of DG Regio specifically on territorial cohesion points to ‘geographic discontinuities’ in the Union’s territory, certain aspects of which cohesion policy already confronts, “…including the priority given to support for regions whose development is lagging behind”. (CEC 2003ba, 40) Clearly, DG Regio wants to dispel the idea as if invoking territorial cohesion would mean a radical departure from existing policies. Rather, it is said to focus on development opportunities to encourage co-operation and networking and to pay attention also to strengths of areas and to the more effective targeting of policy instruments. This relates to the Lisbon Strategy of turning Europe into the most competitive area of sustainable growth in the world to which territorial cohesion policy should contribute.
Featuring a full chapter on territorial cohesion, another Commission document (CEC 2003b) confirms the dual focus on competitiveness and sustainability. The Lisbon Strategy comes through loud and clear in the third Cohesion Report, too. (CEC 2004a) However, In addition to competitiveness, tterritorial cohesion relates also to sustainability (including the prevention of natural risks) as well. Lastly, it is about promoting greater coherence and co-ordination between regional policy and sectoral policies with a substantial territorial impact. In other words, principles of good governance as proposed in the Commission’s White Paper on this topic (CEC, 2001b) form part of the agenda, this being another theme consistently found in the Commission’s territorial cohesion thinking.
For a statement on territorial cohesion coming straight from the horse’s mouth the reader can turn to a paper by Commissioner Michel Barnier (BARNIER, 2004) published shortly before his unexpected departure to become French foreign minister. This paper, too, emphasises that EU policy already embraces aspects of territorial cohesion. It then outlines the new directions to this policy:
- exploiting opportunities, and not just addressing problems;
- encouraging co-operation and networking;
- building on existing strengths so as to improve the targeting of cohesion policy;
- ensuring the incorporation of the sustainability agenda, including addressing the issue of natural risks;
- more coherence and co-ordination between regional and sectoral policies.
Barnier amplifies the last point by saying that every sectoral policy must be concerned with the future of the territories to which it applies. This would mean territorial cohesion, like sustainability, being invoked as a criterion for evaluating Community policies, using something like Territorial Impact Assessment, an idea already present in the ESDP and promoted by a Commission-sponsored study on the ‘costs of non-coordination’. (ROBERTobert, STUMMtumm,, VETet et al., 2001)
TNaturally, the third Cohesion Report plugs the same line. It starts by referring to the promotion of economic and social cohesion as a central aim of the EU. The idea of creating an area without internal frontiers and the establishment of economic and monetary union implies “…that people should not be disadvantaged by where they happen to live or work in the Union.” (CEC 2, 2004a, 27) This is why territorial cohesion is said to have been included in the Constitution. The third Cohesion Report adds though that the
“…concept of territorial cohesion extends beyond the notion of economic and social cohesion by both adding to this and reinforcing it. In policy terms, the objective is to help achieve a more balanced development by reducing existing disparities, preventing territorial imbalances and by making both sectoral policies which have a spatial impact and regional policy more coherent. The concern is also to improve territorial integration and encourage cooperation between regions.” (Op cit.)
Indeed, dDrawing on the ESDP, the third Cohesion Report indeed re-iterates that “[t]o combat territorial disparities and achieve a spatially balanced pattern of economic development requires some coordination of development policies if they are to be coherent and consistent with each other.” (Op cit, 28) It goes on to discuss territorial imbalances in the EU threatening the harmonious development of the Union economy. The message is the same as before: rather than a departure from existing policies, territorial cohesion merely puts some aspects of cohesion policy into focus. Perhaps inevitably, what precisely this implies is left somewhat vague. PAfter all, political agreement on cohesion policy still has some way to go. Note, however, that the Dutch Presidency is aiming for a meeting of ministers on 29-30 November 2004 to come up with a definition. (Redactie 2004)
To foster such an agreement, the Dutch organised an Informal Ministerial Meeting on Territorial Cohesion during their Presidency in late-2004. (FaludiFALUDI and, WaterhoutWATERHOUT, 2005). This was a signal to the Commission that the Member States – at least the ‘usual suspects’ coming out of the ESDP-process involved also in drawing up the Rotterdam agenda – are willing to, indeed insist on, being part of territorial cohesion policy. It was the start of a political process that is still ongoing.
Thus, on 20/21 May 2005, another EU Informal Ministerial Meeting on Regional Policy and Territorial Cohesion took place in Luxembourg. (LUXEMBOURG PRESIDENCYuxembourg Presidency, 2005a) It endorsed a scoping document on the 'Territorial State and Perspectives of the European Union - Ttowards a Sstronger European Tterritorial Ccohesion in the Llight of the Lisbon and Gothenburg Aambitions'. (LuUXEMBOURG PRESIDENCY, xembourg Presidency 2005b) The document is based on the outcomes of the previous ministerial meeting in Rotterdam and on analyses of the territorial development of the EU and the spatial impact of Community policies. As has been its mission, the European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) has provided a solid analytical base for this document regarding Europe’s geography and territorial development. The document approved by the ministers argues for territorial development policies to help areas to develop their territorial capital, as part of the reader knows forming part of the overall effort to increase Europe's competitiveness. The substantive priorities as laid down in the document are to strengthen polycentrism and urban-rural partnership, promote clusters of competitive and innovative activities, strengthen the trans-European networks, promote trans-European risk management and strengthen trans-European ecological structures and cultural resources. These priorities will be worked out in an 'Agenda 2007' process between now and the German Presidency during that year. Intervening Presidencies have agreed to support this agenda. With the ratification of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in the balance, the political agreement masterminded at Rotterdam and reaffirmed at Luxembourg may be the only way forward for territorial cohesion policy. In fact, although they confirmed that it would create a stronger mandate and responsibility for both the Union and member states, ministers did not seem to think that their Agenda 2007 hinged upon the Constitution being adopted. So the governance philosophy of the Member States based on mutual co-operation and learning about territorial cohesion and territorial development policy may be robust enough to withstand the winter storms ahead.