ESPON Scientific Conference on European Territorial Research Territorial Cohesion and new Cohesion...

ESPON Scientific Conference on European Territorial Research

Territorial Cohesion and new Cohesion Policy: Challenges for old and new Member States

Laura Polverari & Irene McMaster

Luxembourg, 13-14 October 2005

Laura Polverari & Irene McMaster2

Presentation Outline

New context for European Cohesion policy 2007-13– New programming framework– New resources– A new European Union

all imply new challenges for territorial cohesion Analysis of past experience with two key areas of

Structural Funds programming– Urban development– Territorial cooperation

Perspectives on urban development and territorial cooperation in 2007-13 Cohesion policy

Conclusions/Issues for discussion


Territorial Cohesion: an emerging goal in a fluid policy environment

Past Structural Funds programmes have been conducive to territorial cohesion

New ECP framework presents unprecedented opportunities for the integration of TC

TC is a new policy goal:– Constitutional Treaty– ESPON– COM proposals for 2007-13 Cohesion policyAll support territorial cohesion

But there are also new challenges


2007-13 Programming framework

Community Strategic Guidelines (Council)

National Strategic Reference Frameworks

Operational Programmes

“Taking account of the territorial dimension of Cohesion policy”

1. Making Europe and its regions more attractive places

2. Knowledge and innovation for growth

3. More and better jobs

Plus emphasis on:urban development, i.e. competitiveness of neighbouring cities

territorial cooperation


New resources

Uncertain financial framework:– overall financial allocation to ECP to be decided

(e.g. initial COM proposal of 1.24% of GNI vs. “group of six” 1%)

– % allocation to the 3 Objectives tbc (e.g. Objective 3 from 4% to 2.42%)

2 considerations for territorial cohesion– significant reduction for non convergence: risk of

lack of spatial focus (e.g. thematic concentration)– territorial cooperation supported in principle, but

little financial resources


A new European Union

EU Enlargement practical implications for TC Increased territorial disparities, e.g. Latvia 37.3% of EU

average GDP New MS internal disparities significant or on the rise:

city/hinterland divide, declining rural areas, East-West divide

New MS will receive substantial ECP resources but will they use them in line with TC? – Development path chosen for economic catching-up: with

other EU countries or internal to each country? Support to lagging regions or growth poles?

– Potential for coherence with CSG (e.g. innovation)– Strategic and implementation capacity lacking where it is

more needed


Urban development and territorial cooperation in current programmes

Additionally to the new context for Cohesion policy, past experience and policy practice is also going to have an impact on how territorial cohesion will be reflected in future ECP

Two key themes for TC:– urban development– territorial cooperation


Urban development in EU15

High degree of variation territorial characteristics Often alignment with domestic policies

Approach Rationale Programmes

Reactive Problems and weaknesses of urban

areas

País Vasco o2N.E. England O2

Western Scotland O2Nordrhein-Westfalen O2

Sachsen Anhalt O1

Pro-active Urban areas as areas of potential

Western Finland O2

Urban-Rural Partnership

More balanced urban-rural

interrelations

Toscana O2Niederösterreich O2

Norra O2

No Urban related measures

No direct or indirect measures for towns

and cities

Norra Norrland O1Lombardia O2Nordjylland O2Steiermark O2

Urban development is not polycentric development


Reactive Approaches

Bilbao

Glasgow

Gateshead (NEE)


Proactive Approaches and Urban-Rural Partnership

Oulu (West of Finland) Toscana


Urban development in the EU10

Different strategies than in the EU15 Urban advantage rather than disadvantage, e.g.

Latvia 1996-2002 real pp income +32.4% in urban areas, only +7.5% in rest of the country

Urban advantage does not translate to balanced development

Both reactive and proactive approaches, but more emphasis on urban centres as engines for economic growth (proactive)


Territorial Cooperation in EU25

EU15: INTERREG CI (since the early nineties) EU10: INTERREG CI and Phare programme

Several acknowledged benefits but also constraints

• Establishment of long-lasting networks• Overcoming of borders and more visible European integration• Additional EU Funding• Exchange of experience and information• Increased regional role in management and implementation

• Absorption difficulties (esp. in EU10)• Diverging social, economic and administrative traditions• in new MS lack of competences and of financial strengths at regional and sub-regional levels• difficulties to cooperate in external borders


Urban development and Territorial Cooperation in 2007-13

Difficult to predict future weight of urban/polycentric development and territorial cooperation and, more generally, the impact of future programmes on territorial cohesion

MS and regional authorities are only starting their strategic reflections

Some early indications however emerge


Urban development in 2007-13 Structural Funds programmes

Unclear views over future strategies EU15 - Shift towards innovation, proactive EU10 – continued emphasis on areas of

growth and potential (e.g. Poland, Slovak and Czech republics)

≠ opinions on support to urban areas in future programmes but common themes:– Urban support should not = urban

regeneration– Support not just for urban location, but

strategic quality of projects– Definition of urban area should be flexible


Territorial Cooperation in 2007-13 Structural Funds programmes

General acknowledgement of value added but limits (not solved by proposed 2007-13 framework)– Outcomes hardly visible– Complexity, vagueness and lack of proportionality

(especially for smaller organisations)– Lack of transparency– Communication– Physical limitations and costs– Domestic allocation of competences

Complex, multi-purpose, low budget: doubts over real impact on territorial cohesion


Conclusions/Issues for discussion

The reshaping of the EU, its goals and its Cohesion policy present an unprecedented opportunity for the pursuit of territorial cohesion

BUT there are challenges and practical constraints:– Leaving aside the policy rhetoric, are the necessary

conditions in place to ensure the integration of TC in future national and regional strategies? Are the conditions in place to ensure that strategic statements will be followed-up?

– Both old and new MS will face trade-offs in the allocation of resources: does the objective of TC risk being sidelined? At what levels will TC be pursued?

– What weight will actually be attributed to urban/polycentric development and territorial cooperation in practice? How will the shortcomings of current policy practice be solved?

ESPON Scientific Conference on European Territorial Research Territorial Cohesion and new Cohesion...

Documents

Transcript of ESPON Scientific Conference on European Territorial Research Territorial Cohesion and new Cohesion...