European Union

EUROPEAN SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE

A strategy for balanced and sustainable development in Europe

EUROPEAN ISSUES IN THE DEBATE

^ * * * * +

/
/

n ν ν ·*
VY

and the Commission Forum on the ESDP

European Commission
 European Union

E U R O P E A N SPATIAL D E V E L O P M E N T PERSPECTIVE

A strategy for balanced and sustainable development in Europe

EUROPEAN ISSUES IN THE DEBATE

A synthesis of the transnational seminars

and the Commission Forum on the ESDP

European Commission
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1999

ISBN 92-828-6551-7

© European Communities, 1999

Reproduction is authorised'provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium
 European Issues in the Debate

CONTENTS

1. EVOLUTION OF THE ESDP 7

1.1. The Process: Building a consensus 7
1.2. Practical Experiences: INTERREG I I C; Art. 10 Pilot Actions and TERRA 8
1.3. The transnational seminars and the Forum: Towards a refinement of the ESDP 9

2. THE VISION: A POLYCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE FOR EUROPE IN THE 21ST CENTURY 11
2.1. An outward looking, long-term territorial perspective consistent with globalisation 12
2.2. A territorial perspective which takes account of Union enlargement 13
2.3. A polycentric territorial development path based on diversity and decentralisation 14
2.4. Balanced territorial development which is sustainable . . .16

3. FROM VISION TO PRACTICE: APPLYING THE ESDP 19

3.1. Learning from experience: Lessons from INTERREG I I C, Pilot Actions and TERRA 19
3.2. The lessons from the transnational·seminars: Strengthening and refining the ESDP guidelines . . .21
3.3. Polycentric spatial development and a new urban-rural relationship 21
3.4. Equivalent access to infrastructure and knowledge ' .25
3.5. Wise management of natural and cultural heritage 28

4. THE MAIN CHALLENGES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE ESDP IN THE FUTURE 33
4.1. Reinforcing co-operation and coordination at all levels 33
4.2. The means of co-operation and co-ordination 34
4.3. Co-ordination of spatial and sectoral policies 36

5. CONCLUSIONS: FUTURE STEPS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ESDP 39

5.1. Conclusions from the perspective of the German Council Presidency by
Ulrich Schüller, Director General, Ministry of Transport, Construction and Housing 39
5.2. Conclusions from the perspective of the European Commission
by Jeart-Charles Leygues, Director, Regional and Cohesion Policy 40

6. ILLUSTRATIONS 45
6.1. The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) 46
6.2. Distribution of the population on the EU Territory 47
6.3. Improving parity of access to infrastructure and knowledge 48
6.4. Integrating strategies for the management of Europe's cultural and natural landscapes 49
6.5. INTERREG I I C co-operation areas 50
6.6. Interreg I I C programmes for flood mitigation and drought prevention 51
6.7. Areas for transnational co-operation on pilot actions under Article 10 of the ERDF 52
6.8. A European Union of 26 countries, 15 Member States and 11 accession countries 53

7. ENCLOSURES 55
7.1. Report of the European Parliament 57
7.2. Opinion of the Committee of the Regions 69
7.3. Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 94
7.4. Co-operation on spatial planning in the context of the enlargement of the European Union . . .106
7.5. Community policies and spatial planning (Part I of the Working Document
of the Commission Services) 113
 European Issues in the Debate

PREFACE

The Maastricht Treaty made economic and social

cohesion one of the major objectives of the Union,
along with the completion of the Single Market and
Economic and Monetary Union. It affirmed the basic
aim of protecting the environment and proposed the
development of trans-European networks for
transport, tele-communications and energy, with a
view to strengthening the competitiveness of the
European economy by ensuring harmonious territorial
development across the Union as a whole.

The First Report on Economic and Social Cohesion,

published in 1996, concluded that despite lowering
income differences between Member States, income
disparities at regional level are persistent and further
efforts are necessary to enhance the catching-up
process of areas lagging behind. Furthermore, it
underlined the need to develop a differentiated
approach to development to take into account
specificities of regions and to ensure sustainability.
The challenge of enabling regions to cope with global
competition, while preserving the diversity of
Europe's cultural and natural heritage, requires a
strategic outlook and efforts from all government
levels: European, national, regional and local, as well
as from actors in the private sector.
A forthcoming first official ESDP will offer a global
strategy for the development of the European
territory prepared jointly by Member States and the
European Commission.
The ESDP seeks to achieve three fundamental goals of
European policy:
• economic and social cohesion
• conservation and management of natural
resources
• more balanced competitiveness of the European
territory.
The European Commission has supported co-
operation between Member States on spatial
planning. Studies such as Europe 2000 and Europe
2000+, respectively conducted in 1991 and 1994,
paved the way for the most ambitious project so far,
the ESDP.
Eneko Landaburu, Director General DG'XVI
The idea of working out a joint European strategy for
spatial development was launched at the informal
meeting of Ministers for spatial planning in Liège in
1993. The first draft of the European Spatial
Development Perspective was presented in 1997 in
Noordwij k.
Since then, a European wide debate has taken place
on this document resulting in official opinions from
all Member States, the European Parliament, the
Committee of the Regions and the Economic and
Social Committee. Non-governmental organisations
and social partners, as well as the research
community also gave their views.
The European Commission supported the debate by
organising jointly with Member States a series of
eight transnational seminars on themes of European
importance on spatial development.
The results of the debate across Europe were
assembled and evaluated at a high-level Forum in
Brussels on 2 and 3 February 1999.
This report presents the main conclusions to be
drawn from a European perspective.
The Forum and the transnational seminars confirmed
the urgent need for policy orientations for spatial
development at the European level, especially in the
light of the forthcoming enlargement, the closer
economie integration following the EMU and the need
for balanced and sustainable development.
In its strategic European aspects, there was a call to
put special emphasis on
• spatial development, which is outward-looking
and consistent with globalisation;
• a polycentric and decentralised development
model;
• integration of economic and spatial development
in a sustainable way.
The integrated spatial approach proposed by the
ESDP was considered to come at the right time. Its-
main policy orientations are already included in the
guidance for the interventions of the Structural Funds
for the Programming Period 2000 - 2006.
The ESDP can serve as a guiding instrument to assist
co-operation between Member States and facilitate
co-operation between regions and local authorities
providing a reference framework on territorial issues,
such as urban and rural development, the
management of environmentally sensitive areas and
for sectoral policies with a territorial impact such as
transport policy.
The ESDP is of particular interest for transnational co-
operation between Member States. But it can assist
also in the Union's cooperation with accession
countries and other neighbouring non-member states
on territorial policy and planning issues.
Within current Community Policies, the ESDP can
contribute to better coherence improving their
effectiveness and ensuring their contribution to a
balanced and sustainable development of the
European territory.
The main recommendations at the Forum and the
transnational seminars are summarised in this
publication. They have been incorporated into the
forthcoming ESDP and will provide orientations for
future co-operation on spatial development at the
European level.
Furthermore, a large number of suggestions have
been collected as a result of the debates that help
enrich the content of the ESDP. To complete the
picture,, the opinions of the European Institutions as
well as reflections on territorial aspects on
enlargement and Community Policies are presented in
the attached enclosure.
Eneko LANDABURU
Director General DG XVI

1. EVOLUTION OF THE ESDP
1.1. The Process: Building a consensus
This report is a summary of the main points which
have emerged from the consultation process on the
European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP),
organised as a joint initiative with Member States by
the European Commission over the past year with
national, regional and local authorities across the
Union and advisers and experts on territorial
planning. This consultation process took the form
especially of a series of transnational seminars and
workshops held in different parts of the Union during
1998 and culminated in a high-level Forum on the
ESDP which took place in Brussels at the beginning
of February 1999.
The aim of this Report is not to present an exhaustive
list of the various points made during the seminars
and the Forum but to organise these in a coherent
way around the main themes which were widely
considered to merit particular attention in an
improved and strengthened ESDP, which seeks to
ensure balanced and sustainable development across
the Union.
The Report and the transnational consultation
process on which it is based comes at the end of a
great many studies of spatial development in Europe
over a lengthy period of time and a long series of
inter-government meetings which have selected the
key elements of co-operation over territorial
development across the continent. The first
important event in the evolution of the ESDP in its
present form was the first meeting of the EU
Ministers responsible for spatial planning in Nantes
in 1989, which affirmed the need for a forward-
looking reflection on territorial developments in the
Union. This prompted the Commission to embark on
a wide-ranging programme of studies on key aspects
of land use and spatial policies across Europe, which
led to the production of Europe 2000, published in
1991, and three years later to Europe 2000+,
published in 1994, which summarised the main
findings and reviewed the key issues to be addressed
in the coming years. The principal conclusion reached
European Issues in the Debate
by the two reports, and emphasised in their
recommendations for future policy, was that there
was a need for closer and more systematic co-
operation over territorial planning and the
implementation of measures in order to ensure
coherent action over spatial development.
At the same time as these studies were being
undertaken, the general political process in the
Union was moving in a complementary direction.
Under the Maastricht Treaty, economic and social
cohesion - and therefore territorial balance - became
one of the major objectives of the EU along with the
single market and economic and monetary union. The
Treaty also proposed the construction of trans-
European networks both to strengthen the
competitiveness of the European economy and to
assist cohesion by encouraging more balanced
regional development and emphasised, in addition,
the need to pursue a growth path which respects the
environment.
In parallel, at a meeting in The Hague in 1991, the
national Ministers responsible for spatial planning
set up the Committee on Spatial Development (CSD),
an informal inter-government group, with the
Commission providing the secretariat. Following this,
in November 1993, the Ministers meeting in Liege
agreed to develop a common strategic approach to
territorial development in the Union, which they
named the European Spatial Development Perspective
- the ESDP - and gave the CSD the task of
preparation. The structure of the ESDP was approved
by the Ministers in Corfu in June 1994 and the
political principles and main objectives of the
exercise in Leipzig in September of the same year.
Over the next two years, the second phase of
preparation of the ESDP deepened the analysis of
spatial development and identified prospective
trends, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of
different broad regions in Europe, the opportunities
open to them and the threats they face (i.e. a SWOT
analysis). At the informal meeting in Madrid in
December 1995, four main criteria were put forward
to define key spatial features of different regions:
• the degree of isolation or peripherally
• the degree of integration into the European
economy in terms of competitiveness
• the degree of interconnection with adjoining
regions
• the scale of pressure on the environment and the
importance of environmental constraints.
In Venice, in May 1996, the main policy options to be
included in the ESDP document were defined. These
preparations culminated in the production of the first
official draft of the ESDP, endorsed by Ministers in
Noordwijk in June 1997.
This was followed by the proposed establishment of a
European Spatial Planning Observatory Network
(ESPON) at the Luxembourg meeting in December,
1997 and by the launch of a public European-wide
debate on the Noordwijk document, as noted above.
In parallel with the series of seminars which formed
a central medium for this debate, the Commission
also prepared during 1998 a report on 'Spatial
planning and Community policies' which addressed
the need to take account of territorial effects when
formulating sectoral policies at the Union level. The
report was approved at the beginning of 1999 as a
working document of the Commission and the first
part is reprinted as an annex to the present report.
1.2. Practical Experiences: INTERREG II C,
Art. 10 Pilot Actions and TERRA
The INTERREG IIC, Article 10 pilot action and TERRA
programmes are the practical manifestations of the
ESDP, of the studies and deliberations on territorial
development and recommendations for closer co-
operation over policy made over the years. The former
two programmes are based on grouping together a
number of regions into broad areas, which transcend
national boundaries and which can be distinguished
according to geographical features, common
problems, existing interregional and transnational
relationships and possibilities for co-operation. The
TERRA programme is concerned to establish co-
8
operation between regions and local authorities in
different parts of the Union.
All three sets of programmes are part of Community
structural policy and are financed from the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Their aim is to
encourage innovative approaches to transnational
co-operation over spatial development and to involve
both public authorities and the private sector in the
identification of common problems and the
implementation of joint courses of action to alleviate
them. The INTERREG IIC Initiative was launched in
1996 and consists of 7 broad programmes for
addressing spatial development issues in specially
defined transnational regions, two programmes for
flood prevention in different areas and four on
combating draught. To complement these, four
Article 10 pilot action programmes were implemented
at the same time in other transnational regions with
similar objectives.
The TERRA programme was introduced more recently
in 1998 on an experimental basis, with much the
same aim, of fostering co-operation between regions
and local authorities with similar features and
problems of common concern, specifically those
vulnerable to environmental damage, such as coastal
areas or river basins. It differs from the other two
programmes by being smaller in terms of both the
funding involved and the areas covered. Whereas the
INTERREG IIC and Article 10 pilot action programmes
span large geographical areas and between them
cover the whole of the Union as well as some
neighbouring countries, the TERRA programmes are
focussed on much smaller local areas which, though
they have common spatial features, do not
necessarily adjoin one another. Indeed, one of
the main objectives of the programme is to
encourage an exchange of experience and views
between authorities in different parts of the Union
on action to tackle common problems, as well as
joint consideration of the form which this action
should take.

The common themes addressed by the INTERREG IIC
programmes and Article 10 pilot actions, their link to
the ESDP and the practical issues of implementation
were included as subjects for discussion in the series
of· transnational seminars organised by the
Commission during 1998 to consider the Noordwijk
document. Indeed, the second day of the seminars
was devoted to workshops on the various
programmes, all of the regions involved as well as the
drought and flood programmes being covered during
the series.
1.3. The transnational seminars and the
Forum: Towards a refinement of the ESDP
The series of 8 transnational seminars, held in
different parts of the Union during 1998 with the
specific purpose of opening the ESDP to public
debate, gave an opportunity for those directly
involved in spatial planning at national and regional
level in Member States, whether as politicians,
practitioners or advisers, to give their views on the
Noordwijk document. At the same time, the
workshops on the transnational programmes, which
were an integral part of the seminars, enabled those
concerned with the practical implementation of the
ESDP to describe their experience in co-operating
with regional authorities in different countries and in
formulating joint plans of action. In both cases, the
main focus was on how the ESDP might be refined
and improved in the light of both general
considerations and the experience of putting the
principles contained in the document into practice.
Apart from the initial conference held in Berlin in
April 1998 to launch the venture, each of the
seminars focused on a major policy theme of key
importance for spatial development:
• transport and telecommunications (in Naples in
May)
• the European urban system (in Lille in June)
• water management to combat floods and
drought (in Thessaloniki in July)
European Issues in the Debate
• knowledge and innovative capacity (in
Manchester in September)
• partnership between urban and rural areas (in
Salamanca in October)
• the conservation and use of the natural heritage
(in Göteborg also in October)
• co-operation over regional development in the
context of European Union enlargement (in
Vienna in November).
The seminars and workshops culminated in the ESDP
Forum held in Brussels in February 1999, at which the
main ideas and recommendations to emerge were
presented and discussed. These are synthesised in
the present report, together with the conclusions of
the Forum itself.
The major conclusion to result from both the
seminars and Forum, however, can be simply stated
at the outset. There is overwhelming support for both
the concept of the ESDP and its practical
implementation in the form of transnational co-
operation across Europe in pursuit of balanced and
sustainable spatial development. The need to
establish a common framework to shape and guide
the formulation of policy with a territorial impact and
the execution of joint programmes of action is given
added urgency by economic and monetary union and
prospective enlargement, in the context of the
ongoing process of globalisation and the increasing
importance of environmental constraints.
Following the Forum, the next step is to approve, at
the meeting of Ministers in Potsdam, in Germany, in
May 1999, the first official version of the ESDP which
will take account of the conclusions to result from
the public debate which has taken place since the
Noordwijk document was produced. Thereafter, a
series of steps is envisaged over the coming years to
strengthen the commitment of Member States to the
ESDP and to the principle and practice of
transnational' co-operation, to provide guidance for
structural interventions under the ERDF and to
increase the coherence of other Community policies
with spatial development objectives. The steps
include the establishment of the European Spatial
Planning Observatory Network, a review of the formal
and Legal status of the ESDP at Union level and a
periodic revision of the ESDP every 5 or 6 years.

10

2. THE VISION: A POIYCENTMC DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE FOR
EUROPE IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Achieving and maintaining balanced economic
development across the Union, which is compatible
with the preservation of the environment, is not only
of key importance for social cohesion but is also a
vital means of strengthening the competitiveness of
the European economy, on which the continued
improvement of living standards and the attainment
of high levels of employment ultimately depend. This
task is made all the more difficult, but at the same
time all the more essential, by the accelerating
process of globalisation and the increased pace of
technological advance, which intensify the
competitive pressure on different parts of the Union
and the importance of their capacity to adapt to
changing market circumstances.
These trends, moreover, are being accompanied by
growing economic integration, not only within the
Union as economic and monetary unification takes
place, but also with neighbouring regions to the East
and South, with which there are close historical and
cultural ties and which form a natural part of a wider
European economic entity. The fortunes of the Union
economy are, accordingly, Likely to be progressively
bound up with developments in these neighbouring
regions, quite apart from the enlargement process,
though this will inevitably increase the pace and
extent of integration. Equally, however, the economic
development of the countries in these regions is just
as much dependent on the growth of the Union
economy and the strength of the relations which are
established with Member States and regions within
the Union.
Against this background, the ESDP has a critical role
to play in helping to bring about balanced and
sustainable development across Europe. By
encouraging the adoption of a long-term, outward-
looking perspective, it can provide a vision of a
development path which takes account of both the
economic and political processes which are underway
and the environmental constraints, which together
serve to shape the future structure of the economy
and the configuration of trade and commercial
relations. It can, therefore, help identify not only the
European Issues in the Debate
problems posed by globalisation and technological
advances but also the opportunities which they open
up at the same time. It can, moreover, help to define
the overall strategy to be followed at Union,
national, regional and local level.
In addition, by providing a framework of this kind,
within which strategic decisions on territorial
development policy across the Union can be taken, it
can encourage regions to make the most of their
natural advantages as well as overcoming their
weaknesses, identify potential areas for co-operation
and help to reconcile possible conflicts in the
development paths pursued. By so doing, it focuses
attention on the development potential of individual
regions and on the importance both for them and for
the overall competitiveness of the Union of this
being realised. ■
Accordingly, the ESDP can serve to shift the emphasis
of thinking and policy away from the traditional
centre-periphery model of development, in which
growth of the economy as a whole depends on the
core regions, to a polycentric model, in which
development is decentralised and peripheral regions
play their full role in generating growth. As such, it
encourages these regions to look both inwards at
their potential strengths and outwards to prospective
trading partners and new markets in countries
neighbouring the Union, instead of concentrating
their attention on the help and support which central
areas of the Union might provide.
At the same time, the role of the ESDP is to help
regions to identify a development path which is
compatible not only with economic and employment
objectives but also with spatial aims, in particular,
with the preservation and improvement of their
natural and cultural heritage. This, it can best do,
however, only in broad terms rather than in any
detailed or prescriptive way. Although it can offer
guidance as to the strategy to be pursued and can
help draw attention to the various features of the
region, natural, physical and functional, which
condition the development path to be followed, it
11
cannot specify the vision of development to be
adopted or dictate the action to be taken. Both of
these, in the spirit of subsidiarity, must ultimately be
defined and agreed by those on the ground who will
be involved in implementing the strategy chosen and
who will be most affected by its consequences.
Moreover, the ESDP provides a framework within
which the spatial dimension of European issues and
Community policies, as well as sectoral policies at the
national and regional level, can be considered within
a suitably long-term perspective which takes proper
account of globalisation trends and the lengthy
processes involved in the economic development of
lagging regions. Such policies include those on
competition, agriculture, transport, telecommuni-
cations, energy, RTD and the environment, as well as
those financed by the Structural Funds, all of which
have implications for both spatial balance and the
development of particular regions and for all of which
there is, accordingly, a need to integrate these
considerations into the design and implementation of
policy.
2.1. An outward looking, long-term territorial
perspective consistent with globalisation
Spatial development across the Union is increasingly
affected by the globalisation of the economy and by
the growing importance of international trade and
direct investment flows which is associated with this.
This is being accompanied, and indeed underpinned,
by an acceleration of technological advance which
has opened up new production possibilities, reduced
the cost of distance and increased the pace of
structural change. Both tendencies have led to an
intensification of competitive pressure and ever
greater difficulty of protecting inefficient producers
from lower cost sources of supply in other parts of
the world, as trade barriers have been lowered,
countries elsewhere have begun to industrialise and
transport and communication costs have fallen. This
is particularly so in respect of more basic, labour-
intensive goods, including agricultural and primary
12
products as well as manufactures. The regions in
which such production is concentrated, which include
many peripheral areas, have, therefore, been
especially affected.
As a consequence of globalisation and technological
advance, it has become increasingly important for
both businesses and workers alike to be able to adapt
to new methods of production and new product
possibilities. It has also become more important for
regional conditions, in terms of infrastructure,
services, local amenities and the general
environment, to support rather than impede business
expansion. Indeed, such facilities have come to play
a significant role in the competitive process and,
therefore, in determining the location of business
investment.
At the same time, the globalisation and technological
advances, especially in the processing ofinformation
and in communications, have created new market
opportunities and new possibilities for development.
These are particularly important for peripheral
regions which are, in many cases, remote from the
Central and North-Western areas where the economic
and competitive strength of the Union has
traditionally been concentrated. Up to now, the latter
regions have tended to gain disproportionately from
the process of globalisation and the advent of new
technology, despite the possibilities which the latter
has created for smaller-scale production and the
decentralisation of activities. The new services to
which new technology gives rise and the
improvements in the production process which it
makes possible have invariably been introduced in
the central regions first, adding to the competitive
disadvantages of peripheral areas. Equally, the
development of high-level of services up to now has
tended to be concentrated in the core areas of the
Union or in a few large metropolitan areas elsewhere.
Nevertheless, in a longer-term perspective, both
globalisation and technological trends have the
potential to benefit the regions which at present are
on the periphery of the Union but which, over time,

are prospectively favourably placed both geo-
graphically and environmentally to gain as the trends
continue. In particular, looking into the future, the
development of countries both to the East of the
Union and to the South around the Mediterranean,
with which peripheral regions have close historical
links, as noted below, is likely to give added impetus
to their own development. It is also likely greatly to
reduce the significance of their peripheral position in
relation to areas in the Centre and North-West of the
Union as currently constituted.
In addition, as trends in globalisation and
technology change the nature of the production
process and free businesses from having to locate
close to sources of supply or major markets, the
natural features of peripheral regions and their
environmental advantages are likely to come more
into play. Equally, environmental constraints on the
continued expansion of many core parts of the Union,
which are already over-congested, will also tend to
become more important determinants of both
business and residential Location over the long-term.
These prospective tendencies, which will take
decades rather than years to unwind, mean that it is
vital for a development strategy, which is aimed at
guiding long-term investment decisions, to adopt a
time horizon which stretches sufficiently far into the
future to enable their implications for the pattern of
spatial development across Europe to be taken
properly into account. Given the increasingly closer
ties with neighbouring regions, moreover, as well as
the prevalence of environmental issues which
transcend national borders, Europe in this context
needs to be defined to encompass a more extensive
area than simply the Union itself.
2.2. A territorial perspective which takes
account of Union enlargement
The prospective enlargement of the Union to
encompass countries in Central and Eastern Europe,
as well as Cyprus, presents significant challenges but
European Issues in the Debate
equally important opportunities. Since the collapse
of the former trading system and opening of these
economies to the outside world, trade with the Union
has risen substantially, until it now represents much
the same proportion of their total trade as internal
trade for Member States. Direct investment flows and
commercial links have also expanded rapidly. The
prospects are that this process of economic
integration will continue irrespective of when the
applicant countries become members of the Union.
As relations with these countries intensify and
expand, it is essential that the ESDP encompasses the
spatial development issues involved and adopts a
wider European perspective which extends to
countries to the South of the Union bordering the
Mediterranean as well as the East, with which
historical and cultural links in addition to commercial
ties are also strong. These issues include, in
particular, transport and communication networks
and environmental problems, policy areas in which
there are serious deficiencies in Central and Eastern
Europe, in particular, as a legacy of the previous
regime. They are areas in which there is a need for
both large-scale investment and co-ordinated
planning, if the process of integration, and,
therefore, the development of the economies
concerned along a sustainable growth path, is not to
be impeded. They are also areas where difficult
choices need to be made about short-term and
longer-run priorities (between, for example, cleaning
up the environment and stimulating faster economic
growth) given the limited resources available in the
countries concerned.
This process of closer integration is in essence a form
of régionalisation which is a distinct aspect of the
globalisation process in different parts of the world,
in East Asia and North America as well as in Europe;
It is particularly important, as emphasised above, for
the peripheral regions, especially those in the East
and South of the Union which have the closest
historical and cultural links with the neighbouring
countries in question and which stand to gain a more
central position in a wider European economic space.
13
The opportunities which this opens up, however,
have tended to be neglected as attention has focused
on their vulnerability to competition from low-cost
producers in the countries concerned and on their
potential losses in terms of structural transfers after
enlargement takes place.
At the same time, this is not to deny that, in many
cases, the regions concerned require, continuing
assistance for a number of years yet to help overcome
their structural weaknesses and to ensure that they
are in a position to take advantage of these
opportunities.
The importance of establishing closer ties and, more ·
specifically, of creating formal procedures for joint
consideration of matters of common concern appears
to be recognised in the regions neighbouring the
Union, to the South as well as the East. Many
national governments and local authorities in the
countries in question have already demonstrated a
strong desire to co-operate more closely with their
counterparts in the Union over spatial development
issues and to enter into collaboration ventures.
In order for increased co-operation to become a
reality in tackling spatial issues of common concern
effectively, however, there is a need to develop an
appropriate institutional framework in these
countries and to devolve more responsibility for both
the design and implementation of spatial policies to
regional and local authorities. In many of the
countries, decision-making is much more centralised
than in Union Member States, which is partly a
legacy of their recent history, and there is an absence
of a regional tier of administration to devolve
responsibility to. This creates difficulties for the
establishment of a 'bottom-up' approach to the
formulation of detailed policy action in this area,
which, as noted below, is an important adjunct of the
general approach of the ESDP itself.
14
2.3. A polycentric territorial development path
based on diversity and decentralisation
The trends in globalisation discussed above, and the
growing competition from producers in other parts of
the world which they involve, mean that growth and
employment in the Union are increasingly dependent
on achieving and maintaining a high level of
competitiveness. This applies not only to the Union
as a whole but also to individual regions within the
Union, which are liable to suffer rising problems of
unemployment and inadequate levels of real income
unless the businesses located there are able to
compete effectively both in the internal market and
markets outside. Their ability to do this has been
given added importance by economic and monetary
unification, which has both intensified competition
and removed the possibility of them being able to
use currency devaluation to compensate for
competitive failings.
Balanced growth and employment levels across the
Union, and, accordingly the maintenance of
economic and social cohesion, therefore, depends on
overcoming the structural weaknesses which in the
past have impeded development in particular regions.
At the same time, however, the overall
competitiveness of the Union's economy and the
levels of real income and employment which can be
sustained equally depend on individual regions
fulfilling their development potential and entering
into global competition. In contrast to the
traditional, centre-periphery, view of economic
development in the Union, in which the focus is on
the competitive strength of central and North-
Western areas which then act as the locomotive for
growth in other areas, the objective should
consequently be to establish a polycentric pattern of
development, in which a number of different, and
geographically dispersed, areas contribute to the
competitiveness and growth of the Union as a whole.
A key factor in this regard is the diversity of different
regions across the Union, the significant differences
in the products they produce, their areas of expertise

and specialisation and the skills of their work force,
which stem in large measure from their diverse
cultural traditions, historical development and
features of the natural environment as well as the
climate. This diversity is major aspect of the Union's
overall competitiveness and needs to be emphasised
in the formulation of development strategies in
different regions as well as in design of policy at the
European level. A central part of any individual
region's response to globalisation and its
repercussions should be to make the most of their
special features and attributes and to build upon
their accumulated know-how. Such a response is not
only most likely to improve their competitiveness but
is also best suited to preserving their natural and
cultural heritage, as noted below.
This is all the more the case in view of the growing
diversification of demand, notably for high-quality
and differentiated products as real incomes increase,
which expands the opportunities for regions to gain
from the areas of specialisation they have developed
over the past, as well as from their cultural and
linguistic links with different parts of the world.
Regional diversity, moreover, is favoured by
technological advances which have increased the
possibilities of small-scale production and reduced
the cost advantages of large-scale mass production in
many areas of business, as well as by improvements
in accessibility through better transport and
telecommunications which have both lowered the
cost of distance and reduced the time taken to ship
goods from the supplier to the market. This is leading
to the increasing decentralisation of production and
is encouraging the growth of small enterprises, or
more generally small units, which are flexible enough
to respond quickly to changing demands, new
production techniques and new product possibilities.
Accordingly, in the context of globalisation and the
growth of service activities based on new information
technology and advanced telecommunications,
peripherality and remoteness from core parts of the
Union where traditionally decision-making centres
European Issues in the Debate
have been concentrated, could well lose much of
their significance in the years ahead. As noted above,
however, globalisation trends still tend at present to
favour more central and economically stronger areas
and while new advances in technology have the
potential to benefit peripheral, disadvantaged
regions, there is no certainty that this will be realised
if left simply to market forces. Instead, it needs to be
explicitly factored into the policy-making process,
which reinforces the importance of the ESDP
adopting a long-term, forward-looking perspective. It
also implies a need for sectoral policies across the
Union to adopt a similar perspective and to pay due
regard to their territorial effects over a number years
ahead as well as to their compatibility with spatial
development plans.
The conscious creation of a number of relatively
large, dynamic areas, integrated into the global
economy and dispersed across the Union in place of
the present concentration of economic strength in a
few traditional centres can, therefore, not only play a
key role in fostering the development of peripheral
regions and reducing spatial disparities but in so
doing can improve European competitiveness. The
focus should be, in particular, on upgrading the
capacity of the South Western Europe and the Central
and Eastern Mediterranean regions, as well as the
North Eastern and Central-Eastern parts of an
enlarged Union to assume a global role in
international competition.
In consequence, the notion of polycentric
development has, of necessity, a central place in the
ESDP as a response to globalisation trends. The
continued development of traditional international
centres, like London and Paris, needs to be
accompanied by the emergence of other large
metropolitan areas as well as integrated regions
incorporating a number of towns and cities of various
sizes, able to compete effectively in global markets
through their special areas of expertise, the
specialised functions they perform and/or the special
links they have with other parts of the world.
Although a polycentric development path of this kind
15
does not exclude the possibility of functions shifting
between different parts of the Union, from
established to emerging centres, the fact that it
enables individual areas to realise their economic
potential should increase the possibilities of growth
in the Union as a whole. Instead of being threatened
by the increased competitiveness of peripheral
regions in a zero-sum struggle for market shares,
central areas stand to gain from being part of a
stronger European economy with a greater capacity
to withstand competitive pressures from outside.
The polycentric development path needs also to
encompass the notions of networking and co-
operation between cities and surrounding areas as
critical elements in securing more balanced territorial
development in Europe. International centres will
only be able to play their full role and achieve their
full potential if they form a network of relationships
with neighbouring towns and rural areas which feed,
as well as benefit from, their activities. Equally,
smaller urban centres can only compete effectively at
the European and international level if they are part
of a network which enables them to provide access to
the support services, sources of knowledge and
various facilities and amenities essential for business
development as well as everyday life. Co-operation in
these areas is often a necessary condition for making
it possible for such towns and cities to compete on
more equal terms with their larger counterparts. In
consequence, it is an essential means of
strengthening effective competition between regions
across Europe rather than being a way of diluting it.
In this regard, the concepts of density and 'critical
mass' are of key importance. For development areas
to be viable, they have to· possess a 'critical mass' in
terms of the density of services available to
businesses, the means of communication, the pool of
knowledge and know-how, the public and communal
services, the skill levels and range of expertise of the
work force. The role of spatial development policy is
both to identify the areas where this potentially
applies and to define the means of realising the
potential to ensure that the critical mass is attained.
16
The creation of a network of local and regional
centres is often the only way of achieving the
required density of both the supply of essential
services and facilities and the demand for them.
Moreover, it can be a means of establishing a
polycentric system which is not onLy flexible and
competitive in a global context but also consistent
with the preservation and development of cultural
diversity.
2.4. Balanced territorial development
which is sustainable
Although the main objective of regional development
is to ensure high levels of employment and
satisfactory standards of living for the people living
there, it is essential that the development which
occurs is sustainable, not only from the perspective
of global trends in competition but equally
importantly in terms of safeguarding spatial balance
and protecting the environment. Development, in
other words, has to be sustainable, economically,
socially and environmentally. Indeed, unless the
latter is assured, it is likely to prove impossible to
achieve economic objectives in the long-term.
Equally, however, unless adequate levels of economic
activity and employment are attained, it could well
prove difficult to achieve spatial objectives, if these
are defined to encompass preservation of the cultural
and historical heritage as well as of the natural
landscape and the local ecology. If inadequate
numbers of jobs are generated in an area, then
people will tend to move out, reducing population
below the level required to maintain these features.
While it may be beneficial from an ecological and
wildlife perspective to retain certain areas of land in
Europe as wildernesses which are largely uninhabited,
problems are likely to arise, given the size of the
European continent, if such areas spread too widely.
There is a need, therefore, for any development
strategy to maintain a balance between economic
and spatial objectives. This means not only

identifying the potential conflicts between the two,
but even more importantly helping to define paths of
development which ensure that the two are
compatible and, ideally, reinforce each other. The
economic activities which are developed in particular
regions, therefore, should be conditioned by their
spatial features, specifically those which it is
important to preserve, and should preferably resultin
these being strengthened rather than damaged. There
is no necessary conflict here between preserving a
region's natural and cultural heritage and improving
its competitiveness. As stressed above, developing
activities based on the special features of an area
and the know-how of its local businesses and people
may be the best way of strengthening its ability to
compete in global markets. The importance of
adopting a long-term perspective is particularly
evident in this regard.
This is forcibly demonstrated in respect of tourism,
which represents a major means of reconciling
economic and spatial objectives for many areas,
especially those on the periphery of the Union where
development is lagging. While the growth of tourism
is bringing much needed income and jobs to regions,
especially coastal areas and islands in the South and
West of Europe, though also to inland areas of natural
beauty in various part of the Union, including in the
Far North, it aLso threatens to destroy over the years
the very features which are responsible for it
occurring.
It is essential, therefore, for a balance to be struck
between the short-term objective of expanding
economic activity in regions where there is an urgent
need for more employment and the long-term
imperative of safeguarding the natural environment
and preserving the historical and cultural heritage in
different parts of Europe and, wherever possible,
traditional ways of life. This means, in turn, that the
growth of tourism and the forms which it takes need
to be consciously managed within a forward-looking
perspective to contain the pressures on the natural
and physical environment which it inevitably creates.
European Issues in the Debate
The same is true in respect of other areas in which
environmental protection is a major issue, in
particular, the management of water resources and of
agricultural development. In the case of the former,
the environmental problem manifests itself most
notably in the form of floods and droughts, and there
is a widespread tendency to focus policy on tackling
these once they have occurred rather than on
preventing them occurring in the first place. A
preventative approach, however, cannot be narrowly
confined to managing water per se but needs also to
include regulation of land use and the location of
economic activities as well as of other types of
development. It needs, moreover, to include wide co-
operation between the various people and
organisations involved in implementing the
measures. This holds equally for agriculture, where it
is important to enlist the support of farmers for the
policy followed and to include them in the decision-
making process.
In more general terms, there is a need to address
explicitly the relationship between urban and rural
areas and between small and medium-sized towns
and cities, which is important for creating viable
areas .for the design of a spatial development
strategy, to ensure that they contain the 'critical
mass' of services and facilities necessary to support
business development and residential settlement. The
objective is, therefore, to define areas which through
co-operation between the various constituent parts
give rise to more dynamic labour markets and greater
potential for job creation of the area as a whole than
if the individual regions functioned entirely
separately. Establishing closer relations between
urban and rural areas, moreover, is likely to widen the
choice of viable development paths open to each of
them and make it easier to reconcile economic and
spatial objectives.
There is also a need to ensure that the balance
between these two objectives is respected by sectoral
policies, especially those implemented at the
European level, which is a further reason for the
formulation and execution of such policies to pay due
17
regard to their implications for the sustainable
development of different parts of the Union.

The role of the ESDP: summary of main functions

From the above, the role of the ESDP in spatial

development can be summarised as follows:

• to outline a strategy that integrates economic

and spatial development considerations in a
long-term, outward-looking and polycentric
perspective, which takes due account of the
implications of globalisation and Union
enlargement as well as of the opportunities open
to different regions to realise their development
potential;
• to enhance the coherence of government
intervention at different levels as well as that of
sectoral policies defined and implemented at the
Union, national, regional or local level;
• to highlight the potential contribution of
diversified but balanced spatial development for
the competitiveness and growth of the Union as
a whole;.
• to strengthen policy at the regional and local
level, to increase employment creation and. to
secure more balanced development across the
Union in the context of economic and monetary
union;
• to help identify a sustainable path of
development which ensures simultaneous
achievement of economic objectives and the
preservation of the natural and cultural
environment.

18

3. EROM VISION TO PRACTICE:
Two refinements are necessary for the global
perspective of the ESDP to be implemented on the
ground.
Two refinements are necessary for the global
perspective of the ESDP to be implemented on the
ground.
In the first place, the importance of following a
polycentric territorial development path, based on
the principles of diversity and decentralisation and
taking account of the comparative advantages and
the specific geographical features and aspirations in
different parts of Europe, largely defines the
transnational policies to be followed. One of the
major points to emerge from the seminars held during
1998 and from the February 1999 Forum is that the
concrete implementation of the ESDP guidelines in
different regions involves the definition of strategies
which are both viable in the context of globalisation
and which are accepted by those on the ground who
need to put them into practice. It is at the level of
transnational areas of co-operation that the ESDP can
be translated into territorial development strategies
to stimulate the design and execution of spatially-
coherent projects.
Secondly, the desire to achieve balanced
development, which is both economically and
spatially viable defines the policy options and precise
guidelines capable of clarifying the choices open to
those at the national, regional and local level
responsible for the design and implementation of
concrete measures as well as the Community policies
to be implemented at the Union level. The Noordwijk
document put forward a series of policy options
organised around three major themes: a more
balanced and polycentric urban system with a new
relationship between town and country; more equal
access to infrastructure and knowledge; and a better
management and development of the natural and
cultural heritage. Suggestions were made during the
seminars and Forum for improving and strengthening
the kinds of action included under each of these.
European Issues in the Debate
APPLYING THE ESDP
3.1. Learning from experience: Lessons from
INTERREG II C, Pilot Actions and TERRA
The seminar and the Forum confirmed that the ESDP,
together with the policy options which it sets out,
represents a appropriate framework for structuring
transnational co-operation over territorial
development. Indeed, nearly every programme
undertaken under INTERREG IIC and the Article 10
Pilot Action have followed the ESDP guidelines, if to
differing extents, and have accorded priority to the
major themes set out in the Noordwijk document. The
programmes and pilot actions, in effect, provide the
link which has so far been missing between policy at
the European level and that implemented at the
national, regional and local level, as well as being a
useful framework for the design and execution of
concrete projects.'
In addition, it was considered important to create
the possibility for those involved in policy on the
ground at the local level to test the new machinery
and instruments put in place, to see how far they can
be transposed from one Member State or region to
another. This led to the introduction of the TERRA
programme, launched under Article 10 of the ERDF, as
a 'test-bed of ideas' and 'an experimental research
instrument for territorial development at the local
level'.
At the same time, a great deal of effort was made to
focus on the specific priorities for each co-operation
area, in line with the emphasis in the ESDP on the
need to adapt the general guidelines to the individual
features and aspirations of particular regions if they
are to be effectively implemented in practice. While
in South Western Europe the focus was on
partnership between town and country and the
development of more balanced urban systems, in the
Alpine Space, it was on the sustainable development
of fragile mountainous areas, in the Northern
Periphery, on the provision of services to households
and SME in sparsely-populated areas, and in the
Atlantic Area, on research and technology transfer as
19
well as on maritime transport. Maritime transport was
also given a certain amount of priority in the Western
Mediterranean, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea
programmes. In other programmes, the accent was
put on strengthening the natural and cultural
heritage through sustainable economic activities
such as tourism (in Archimed, North Sea,
Mediterranean Gateway, and so on).
The first set of transnational programmes, which have
been largely experimental, have demonstrated the
importance of testing on the ground the coherence
with thé various sectoral policies (particularly
Community ones) and of differentiating policy
options and priorities territorially according to the
geographical context in which they are being applied.
This dynamic process should continue and should
encourage interaction and cross-fertilisation between
the ESDP itself, the programmes established in each
region and the associated development path to be
followed, and the concrete projects themselves.
In this global perspective, the seminars have also
demonstrated the need to conceive common strategic
visions of territorial development in transnational co-
operation areas of an appropriate size. Such visions
are regarded as essential for implementing a model of
development which is genuinely polycentric and
which takes account of the specific features and
diversity of different parts of Europe.
At present, three different approaches are being
followed in the different areas:
• a 'horizontal approach', setting out priorities and
measures covering most of the policy options
distinguished in the Noordwijk document;
• a 'targeted approach', concentrating on a
number of specific policy areas reflecting the
characteristics of the co-operation area
concerned - such as in the IRMA programme
(protection against floods) or the 'Mediterranean
Gateway' pilot action (preservation of the
cultural heritage);
• an 'outward-looking approach', focusing on
measures for strengthening competitiveness in
20
the context of globalisation (as in the North
Western Metropolitan Area, South Western
Europe and Northern Periphery).
Whatever the approach followed, it is important that
it involves defining an 'identity' and a 'development
concept' in each case. The transnational development
strategies have not reached the same level of
elaboration in the different co-operation areas
defined under the INETRREG IIC and Pilot Action
programmes, largely because of differing degrees of
'maturity' in terms of the extent of experience of co-
operation in the different areas. In the Baltic Sea
region, for instance, the priorities established under
a strategy which has already been developed - the
VASAB 2010 territorial vision - will be made more
precise through adding a 'bottom-up' dimension,
which is only possible because of co-operation on
concrete policies in the past. In contrast, in other
areas there is no previous experience of co-operation
of this kind to draw upon. At present, of the 7
INTERREG IIC co-operation areas, five have set out or
are in the process of setting out a common territorial
development strategy, and of the four Pilot Action
areas, one has set out such a strategy.
In this initial learning phase, in which co-operation
is being intensified, the main aim is to stimulate
partnership and the definition of common methods of
working. Some flexibility is required in this regard to
ensure compatibility with developments in
neighbouring areas as well as with other aspects of
policy (such as national and regional planning
exercises and existing agreements and co-operation
schemes).
At this stage, co-operation is limited in some cases
to joint reflection on issues of common interest,
though not necessarily culminating in an agreed
vision of spatial development. In the NWMA, the
North Sea, CADSES and the Alpine Space areas, on the
other hand, it was decided at the outset to develop
joint strategies, while in the Atlantic Area and
Northern Periphery, the possibility of developing a
joint strategy is being considered.

In general terms, the legal status of such
transnational visions of development is regarded as
less important than their operational merits. Their
main value lies in the opportunity they provide for
Member States and regional and local authorities to
exchange views and jointly to define a common set of
priorities, in line with the overall perspective set out
in the ESDP. An important task in the future is to
ensure an effective cross-fertilisation between the
latter and the specific strategies defined at the
transnational, national, regional and local level.
The 15 TERRA projects, which involve 63 local
authorities, demonstrate the importance of a multi-
sectoral, integrated approach which takes account
of the interdependence of sectoral policies and their
territorial impact, an approach which entails true
partnership at the local level and the exchange of
experience between those affected by similar
problems. One of the tangible contributions of
TERRA is the development of the concept of
sustainability through the establishment of concrete
and measurable indicators, capable of serving as the
means of integrating spatial and economic
planning, in line with one of the basic principles of
the ESDP.
In addition, the TERRA projects provide examples of
procedures under which local organisations and
individuals can be involved in the design of policies
and territorial development measures which affect
them and which enable them to play a part in the
implementation of these. The experience of TERRA is
particularly relevant for environmentally sensitive
areas or those which are vulnerable to damage, for
the establishment of new relations between town
and country and for the integrated planning of
transport.
In brief, a programme such as TERRA provides
authorities at different levels with the opportunity to
develop procedures and the means for genuine co-
operation in the implementation of the ESDP policy
options. This kind of framework for experimentation
should be maintained in the future.
European Issues in the Debate
3.2. The lessons from the transnational
seminars: Strengthening and refining the
ESDP guidelines
The seminars and the Forum served to validate to a
large extent the policy aims and options defined in
the Noordwijk document under the three major policy
orientations for spatial development. There was,
nevertheless, a widespread call for these to be
strengthened and refined in order to provide clear
and precise guidelines to those on the ground
responsible for spatial development in practice. There
was also a call for a stronger European dimension to
be adopted. The main specific points made at the
meetings were transmitted to the German Federal
Department of Transport, Construction and Housing,
responsible for co-ordinating the final drafting of the
ESDP, for inclusion in the chapter on 'Territorial aims
and policy options for the European Union'. In what
follows, the proposals made in the seminars and
Forum in respect of each of the three main policy
orientations are presented, before listing the
corresponding policy options in their final form as
they appear in the ESDP after the co-ordination
exercise undertaken by the German authorities.
3-3· Polycentric spatial development and a new
urban-rural relationship
Two of the seminars, in Lille and Salamanca, were on
the themes of the European urban system and
partnership between town and country. They gave
rise to a number of proposals for strengthening the
Noordwijk document by slightly modifying the policy
aims in the ESDP. These can be divided into four
groups.
Polycentric and balanced spatial development
for the EU
If the proposed polycentric 'path of development
aimed at strengthening European competitiveness in
the global economy is to be realised, it is important
to support new centres of economic gravity, whether
21
of global importance or regional centres of
development. This raises a question about the
relevance of drawing the main distinction between
urban and rural areas rather than between the
different forms of relationship between the two types
of region and in terms of the competitive viability of
the spatial entities formed by them co-operating
together. The focus in this regard should perhaps be
on the twin notions of suitable places where people
can work - where jobs can be effectively created -
and suitable places where they can live.
The first notion puts the accent on the need to define
areas which possess a critical mass in economic terms
and a relatively high degree of autonomy as centres
of economic decision-making. This implies that they
have a minimum level of infrastructure, especially of
transport,, business services and public institutions.
It also implies a capacity for endogenous
development, which means, in turn, the existence of
their own natural, cultural and other resources. The
concept of a suitable place for people to live is
somewhat wider and entails the existence of a
minimum level of communal, personal, leisure and
public services.
As regards the urban system, there is a need to define
the functions and roles which towns and cities should
perform within the general framework of the
polycentric development model proposed. This
implies, in particular, a need to improve the capacity
of major cities in the peripheral and lagging regions
to provide high quality, diversified services of a
global standard, taking account of their comparative
advantages, so as to encourage them to engage more
fully in international competition. For smaller cities
and towns, it involves defining the mutual benefits
which could be achieved at a regional level through
a policy of 'decentralised concentration', dividing
activities and functions between those located in a
given area.
The latter implies encouraging the formation of
clusters of neighbouring towns and cities, in part
through improving transport links between them and
with major cities elsewhere, so that they can reach
22
the critical mass required to develop their local
potential. The construction of such networks,
moreover, should be centred on co-operation in
specific policy areas or on particular issues likely to
further their development. At the same time, it is
important to avoid creating an overly rigid
hierarchical structure that would freeze the existing
status quo and jeopardise the benefits to be achieved
from (limited) competition and from a flexible
adaptation to changing circumstances.
The policy options, which have resulted from the
drafting exercise co-ordinated by the German
authorities and which incorporate the proposals set
out above, are:
• Strengthening of several larger zones of global
economic integration in the EU, equipped in
high-quality, global functions and services,
including the peripheral areas through
transnational spatial development strategies.
• Strengthening a polycentric and more balanced
system of metropolitan regions, city clusters and
city networks through closer co-operation
between structural policy and the policy for the
Trans-European networks (TENs) and
improvement of the links between
international/national and regional/local
transport networks.
• Promoting integrated spatial development
strategies for city clusters in individual Member
States, within the framework of transnational
and cross-border co-operation, involving
corresponding rural areas and their small cities
and towns.
• Strengthening co-operation on particular topics
in the field of spatial development through
cross-border and transnational networks.
• Promoting co-operation at regional, cross-border
and transnational level with towns and cities in
the countries of northern, central and eastern
Europe and the Mediterranean region
strengthening north-south links in Central and
Eastern Europe and west-east links in Northern
Europe.

Dynamic, attractive and competitive cities and
urbanised regions
As well as adapting institutional structures to
encourage the formation of networks of towns and
cities and the management of metropolitan areas, it
is also necessary to focus on the potential
importance for regional development of the historical
heritage and the cultural identity of places. The
diversity of different locations across the Union
needs to be preserved, not least because it represents
a factor for more balanced development as well as
being an important asset for Europe. The role of
universities, research centres and cultural activities
of international renown can be significant in this
respect as well as in generating and diffusing
knowledge, as noted below.
Equally, there is a need to develop 'gateway' cities
providing access to the Union as well as those well
placed to become regional centres which could
attract business to the wider area in which they are
located.
One of the implications of the desire to make cities
more attractive and competitive is the need to
promote diversification across the city and the
surrounding area, particularly in order to improve
urban and rural landscapes and the quality of life. At
the same time, it is important to secure a safe
environment for the people to live, especially by
tackling the factors that give rise to social exclusion
and marginalisation of sections of the community. In
addition, there is a need for prudent management of
urban ecosystems, particularly in relation to waste
disposal and the use of natural resources.
An inevitable consequence of encouraging greater
co-operation between towns and cities is the
limitation of competition between them, which
implies in turn the desirability of establishing
accepted norms, which define the areas within which
such a limitation is mutually beneficial and avoid it
leading to inefficiencies and cost increases for
businesses.
European Issues in the Debate
The policy options proposed in the first official
version of the ESDP are as follows:
• Expansion of the strategic role of metropolitan
regions and "gateway cities", giving particular
attention to the development of peripheral
regions of the EU.
• Improvement of the economic base, the
environment and urban service infrastructure,
particularly in economically less favoured
regions, in order to increase their attractiveness
for mobile investment.
• Promotion of an economic diversification
strategy in cities which are too dependent on a
single branch of economic activity, and support
for the economic development of towns and
cities in less favoured regions.
• Promotion of integrated urban development
strategies sensitive to social and functional
diversity. Particular attention should be given to
fighting social exclusion and the recycling
and/or restructuring of underused or
economically outdated urban sites and areas.
• Promotion of a wise management of the urban
ecosystem.
• Promotion of better accessibility in cities and
metropolitan regions through an appropriate
location policy and land use planning that will
stimulate mixing of urban functions and the use
of public transport.
• Support for effective methods of reducing
uncontrolled urban expansion and to overcome
strong settlement pressure, particularly in
coastal regions.
Indigenous development, diverse and productive
rural areas
The focus of policy needs to be on what unites, rather
than what divides, rural and urban areas. The relative
development of these two areas takes place within a
functional spatial system, which can be defined in
terms of the places where people work and where
they live. Agriculture is no longer the predominant
economic activity in rural areas in Europe and many
23
of the people living in these places work in small and
medium-sized towns or cities. In many rural areas,
structural change has successfully been achieved and
has led to an increase in their competitiveness. Two
kinds of area have experienced particular problems:
those subject to strong pressure from urban
development and those where the decline of
agriculture has not been compensated by the
development of other activities and where, as a
result, population has fallen.
The diversification of economic activity in rural areas
is an essential factor in development since it both
widens the opportunities available and results in
more balanced trade and economic relationships with
local towns.
Rural areas often enjoy a natural environment and
landscape which can potentially be exploited to help
diversify economic activities, towards tourism
especially, which if developed around a specific
theme can open up a large market.
Rural areas need to be regarded as modern spaces,
with their own identity and specific competitive
advantages. However, they need also to be accessible
and have adequate levels of service. The role of
medium-sized towns and cities in rural areas is
particularly important in this regard, as places where
people can purchase what they need on a day-to-day
basis. In addition, local people need to have a say in
the development path which is taken, which should
be compatible with the inherent features of the area
and, therefore, self-sustaining.
The policy options proposed in the first official
version of the ESDP are as follows:
• Promotion of diversified development strategies,
sensitive to the indigenous potentials in the
rural areas and which help achieving an
indigenous development (including the
promotion of multifunctionality in agriculture).
Support of rural areas in education, training and
in the creation of non-agricultural jobs.
24
• Strengthening small and medium-sized towns in
rural areas as focal points for regional
development and promotion of their networking.
• Securing sustainable agriculture, application of
environmental measures and diversification of
agrarian land utilisation.
• Promotion and support of co-operation and
information exchange between rural areas.
• Use of the potential for renewable energy in
urban and rural areas, taking into account local
and regional conditions, in particular the
cultural and natural heritage.
• Exploitation of environmentally friendly
development potential of tourism.
Urban-rural partnership
To be effective, partnership between town and
country should comprise close relations between
businesses in urban and rural areas as well as co-
operation between administrative authorities. To be
viable, partnership should also be based on an equal
standing between those involved, on joint
responsibility and a clear specification of the mutual
benefit to be achieved. Effective partnership implies,
in addition, that consideration should be given to the
adequacy of the administrative structure in relation to
development needs as well as the needs of everyday
Life and to the nature of the links in relation to those
with other cities and urban networks. The long-term
viability of places of work and those where people live
depends in part on the way in which functions are
divided between villages, small towns, medium-sized
cities and large cities or metropolitan areas. The
establishment of networks of small towns is
particularly important to avoid excessive competition
between them, to the detriment of the development of
each, and to encourage a complementarity of interests
as regards the development path followed in order to
attain critical mass, in terms of the overall level of
demand as well as the services and facilities provided.
This implies a need to put in place integrated
structures of management between the various
administrative authorities concerned and to encourage
public/private partnership.

In addition, it is important to identify 'fragile', or
vulnerable, areas in order to ensure that development
is sustainable ecologically as well as being
economically viable. This involves some difficulty
insofar as the definition of such areas is not
unanimously agreed, and many different kinds of
place could potentially be covered. However defined,
their future vitality increasingly depends on the
economic regeneration of the urban centres located
there and their success in making the most of their
natural and cultural assets as much as, if not more
than, on developing their agricultural potential. This
requires a re-evaluation of partnership between
towns and cities in these areas and the surrounding
countryside, a re-evaluation which needs to be linked
to the identification of the networks and clusters of
towns and cities required to attain the critical mass
necessary to achieve sustainable development.
Policy options proposed in the first official version of
the ESDP are as follows:
Maintenance of a basic supply of services, and
public transport, in small and medium-sized
towns in rural areas, particularly those in
decline.
Promotion of co-operation between towns and
countryside aiming at the strengthening of
functional regions.
Integrating the countryside surrounding large
cities in spatial development strategies for urban
regions, aiming at more efficient land use
planning, paying special attention to the quality
of life in the in the urban surroundings.
Promotion and support of partnership-based co-
operation between small and medium-sized
towns at a national and transnational level
through joint projects and the mutual exchange
of experience.
Promotion of company networks between small
and medium-sized enterprises in the towns and
countryside.
European Issues in the Debate
3.4. Equivalent access to infrastructure
and knowledge
The second broad set of policy options in the
Noordwijk document deals with the strengthening
and improvement of the accessibility of regions and
sources of knowledge, with the aim of equalising
opportunities across the Union. The Naples and
Manchester seminars, on transport and
telecommunications and the diffusion of knowledge
and innovation, gave rise to a number of suggestions
for enriching the policy options contained in the
ESDP on these issues.
An integrated approach to improving transport
links and access to knowledge
Urban centres arid metropolitan areas need to be
efficiently linked with one another and with the
respective hinterland as well as with the global
economy and dynamic areas outside the Union.
Efficient transport and communication links are an
essential aspect of reducing disparities in economic
performance between different parts of the Union.
This is especially the case for the more peripheral
areas, which are still considerably less accessible
than more central regions. However, transport and
telecommunication structures are not sufficient
prerequisites on their own for regional development.
It requires an integrated approach with accom-
panying measures in other policy areas, such as
structural policies, education and training, to
improve the location advantages of the regions.
The need to be more effectively linked to high-speed
networks to ensure rapid transport of goods and
reasonable journey times to other parts of the Union
for business and other travellers as well as the same
level of access to information and knowledge as is
very important. The development of such links needs
also to be complemented by improvements in
secondary networks within and between regions in
order to increase the chances of the potential
benefits to development actually being realised.
25
In order to lowering the traffic burdens integrated this means that the European territory as a whole is
inter-modal solutions must be promoted supporting globally competitive. At the same time, the transport
the development of more environmental friendly system as a whole needs to be considered in the
transport systems and a more efficient use of existing context of the globalisation of the economy, with a
infrastructures. consequent focus on gateway cities, transport
corridors and the links with neighbouring countries.
Polycentric development model: a basis for better Moreover, it is important not to neglect the potential
accessibility role of maritime transport as a means of achieving a
better balance of economic activities and of
The notion of density is central to the achievement promoting sustainable development which respects
of a polycentric pattern of development which, on the environment.
the one hand, avoids excessive concentration and
congestion and, on the other, reduces regional To ensure its compatibility with balanced regional
disparities. The need is to attain a level of demand development across the Union, every large transport
for transport and telecommunications in different project needs to be preceded by a spatial impact
regions, which is high enough to ensure a rate of study so as to make the territorial consequences of
economic and financial return within an acceptable its implementation explicit and open to informed
period of time, large enough to justify the debate.
expenditure entailed. This should be coupled with
the recognition of the critical role of secondary links. Telecommunications are perhaps of even greater
potential importance in reducing disparities in
This concept of density is equally relevant in relation accessibility, ensuring a more equal diffusion of
to intangible investment: Innovation is the knowledge and in achieving more balanced territorial
responsibility of everyone in any given region and development. In particular, telecommunications are
entails their participation in a full public-private often complementary to transport systems insofar as
partnership. It is, therefore, important to bring about they enable the efficiency of these to be increased.
sufficient institutional density in different regions, Moreover, they can contribute, through smaller-scale
which is only possible within a decentralised model investment than in the case of transport, to the
involving local people and organisations in the development of more remote regions. This requires,
decision-making and consultation process. however, that the advanced services necessary for
their use are readily available at reasonable cost and
The aim of bringing about parity of access to are capable of being exploited. If telecommu-
infrastructure and knowledge implies the adoption of nications are to play their potential role in the
a long-term view for the development of transport pursuit of a polycentric pattern of development, they
and telecommunication systems, a view which need to be supported by wider changes, not only as
reconciles the liberalisation of markets with the regards the legal and institutional framework but also
pursuit of territorial balance. This reconciliation, in as regards the ability of people and organisations in
turn, implies the need to give due attention to the different regions to take full advantage of the new
issues of charging, taxation and obligations possibilities which they open up.
regarding parity of access to services ('universal
service obligations'). The policy options suggested in the first official
version of the ESDP are as follows:
The major trans-European networks need to ensure
good access to all the different regions in Europe, • Strengthening secondary transport networks and
especially the more remote ones, and to ensure by their links with TENs, including development of

26

efficient regional public transport systems.
• Promotion of a spatially more balanced
accessibility to intercontinental traffic of the EU
by an adequate distribution of sea- and airports
(global gateways), an increase of the service
level the improvement of links with their
hinterland.
• Improvement of transport links of peripheral and
ultra-peripheral regions, both within the EU and
with neighbouring third countries, taking into
account the air traffic and further development
of corresponding infrastructure equipment.
• Improvement of access to and use of
telecommunication facilities and the design of
tariffs in accordance with the provision of
"universal services" in sparsely populated areas.
• Improvement of co-operation between transport
policies at EU, national and regional level.
• Introduction of territorial impact assessment as
an instrument for spatial assessment of large
infrastructure projects (especially in the
transport sector).
Efficient and sustainable use of infrastructure
While it is important to develop 'intermodal' systems
of transport, it is equally important to recognise that
their implementation requires a complex organisation
and co-ordination of all those involved in different
countries and regions, who may have very different
cultural traditions and established practices.
Moreover, i t should also be recognised that
telecommunications are not only a means of reducing
journeys and congestion in some regions, but also a
means of managing flows to enable existing transport
systems to be used more rationally and, accordingly,
of making the use of transport more compatible with
sustainable development.
At the same time, modes of transport need to be
diversified and, wherever possible, the use of the
least polluting means in relation to the amount of
freight carried or the number of passengers conveyed
needs to be encouraged. The possibility of
European Issues in the Debate
developing transport by water, both by sea and river,
as well as by rail, is particularly important in this
regard.
At the same time, it is important to reduce the
negative effects of the use of transport in heavily-
congested areas through encouraging more
environmentally-friendly modes of transport, through
appropriate road pricing policies and the
internalisation of external costs so that they are
borne by the polluter rather than by society at large.
The policy options proposed in the first official
version of the ESDP are as follows:
• Better co-ordination of spatial development
policy and land use planning with transport and
telecommunication planning.
• Improvement of public transport services and
provision of a minimum supply in towns and
cities.
• Reduction of negative effects in areas subjected
to high traffic pressure through strengthening
environmentally sensitive means of transport,
the charging of road tolls and the internalisation
of external costs.
• Promoting networking of inter-modal junctions
for freight transport, in particular for transport
on the European corridors, regarding especially
shipping and inland navigation.
• Co-ordinated and integrated infrastructure
planning and management for avoiding
inefficient investments (for example superfluous
parallel development of transport infrastructure)
and securing the more efficient use of existing
transport infrastructures.
Diffusion of innovation and knowledge
To attain the critical mass and density of centres of
innovation necessary for the dissemination of
knowledge essential for economic and cultural
development in all parts of Europe and to avoid a
widening of regional disparities in innovative
capacity, it is likely that the various strata of
27
research establishments in any region need to be
linked to an international network.
A systematic consideration of the different forms of
innovation would help to identify where action needs
to be taken to increase density, establish networks
and create clusters of businesses and effective
centres for technology transfer, in order to reduce
present disparities between central regions and those
elsewhere. More particularly, intervention should be
adapted to the specific characteristics of the
processes of innovation and dissemination of
knowledge in each region, which will depend on the
skills and know-how in the particular industries that
have developed there. It is also important to provide
access to education and training systems to ensure
life-long learning as well as establishing close links
between the local labour market and the needs of
business.
The policy options proposed in the first official
version of the ESDP are as follows:
• Wide-ranging integration of knowledge-relevant
policies, such as the promotion of innovation,
education, vocational training and further
training, research and technology development,
into spatial development policies, especially in
remote or densely settled areas.
• Securing a Europe-wide access to knowledge-
relevant infrastructure taking account of the
socio-economic potential of modern SMEs as
motors of sustainable economic development.
• Fostering networking among companies and the
rapid diffusion of innovation, particularly
through regional institutions that can promote
innovations.
• Support the establishment of innovation centres
as well as co-operation between higher
education and applied R&D bodies and private
economy, particularly in economically weak
areas.
• Development of packages of measures which
stimulate supply and demand for improving
regional access and the use of information and
communication technologies.
28
3.5. Wise management of natural and
cultural heritage
The third main area of policy options in the
Noordwijk document is concerned with the
preservation and, where possible, improvement of
Europe's natural and cultural heritage for future
generations. The Thessaloniki and Goteborg seminars
addressed this broad issue and focussed specifically
on the protection of the environment and the
management of the countryside and sensitive areas,
such as coastal areas and wetlands, as well as of
water reserves to prevent droughts and floods.
Natural and cultural heritage as a development asset
The natural and cultural heritage of Europe - the
distinct features and variety of the landscape in
different areas and the historic buildings and
monuments in innumerable town centres and other
places - is both an expression of its identity and an
important factor in its economic and social
development. An attractive environment is
increasingly becoming a major consideration in the
location decisions of both businesses and individuals,
as well as being a sine qua non for the growth of
tourism. It, therefore, represents a key aspect of a
region's competitiveness. Accordingly, the
preservation and enhancement of the natural and
cultural diversity, which exists across Europe is
important not only to safeguard the identity of
different places and local traditions, but also to
support polycentric economic development.
Preservation and development of the natural heritage
There is still an important need to improve our
understanding of natural phenomena and the
capacity of different types of environment to
withstand pressure. This requires, in addition, the
development of indicators to measure environmental
changes over time.
It is important to maintain efforts to avoid damaging
protected areas and those which are environmentally
sensitive and to recognise the potential effects on

the latter of different kinds of economic activity. In
this regard, there is a need to continue and extend
the policy of integrated management of
environmentally sensitive areas, which has already
been adopted in respect of coastal areas,, and to
ensure that development in such areas is centred on
activities with relatively little impact on the
environment. This needs to be coupled, more
generally, with the introduction of clean technologies
and the better education of consumers and
businesses (including in their choice of modes of
travel and their leisure and tourist pursuits) about
the potential environmental effects of their actions.
Tourism needs to be a particular focus of attention in
this respect, as noted above, to ensure that its
growth is sustainable.
In addition, it is important to adopt a rational
approach with respect to risk assessment and
management and to determine consciously an
acceptable level of risk as regards natural· disasters,
such as floods, which might cause damage to the
environment which is either irreversible or very costly
to remedy. Particular attention needs to be paid to
ecological 'corridors' and 'networks' and to
establishing 'buffer' zones around these areas. In
general, the aim should be to seek greater coherence
between economic activities and environmental
protection and to encourage the systematic
preservation of the natural heritage everywhere
where it is of particular value to the people living
there as well as to Europe as a whole.
The policy options proposed in the first official
version of the ESDP are:
Continued development of European ecological
networks, as proposed by Natura 2000, including
the necessary links between 'nature sites and
protected areas of regional, national,
transnational and EU-wide importance.
Integration of biodiversity considerations into
sectoral policies (agriculture, regional policies,
transport, fisheries etc) as included in the
Community Biodiversity Strategy.
European Issues in the Debate
• Preparation of integrated spatial development
strategies for protected areas, environmentally
sensitive areas and areas of high biodiversity
such as coastal areas, mountain areas and
wetlands balancing protection and development
on the basis of territorial and environmental
impact assessments and involving the partners
concerned.
• Greater use of economic instruments to
recognise the ecological significance for
protected and environmentally sensitive areas.
• Promotion of energy and traffic saving
settlement structures, integrated resource
planning and increased use of renewable
energies in order to reduce C02 emission.
• Protection of the soil as the basis of life for
human beings, fauna and flora, through the
reduction of erosion, soil destruction and
overuse of open spaces.
• Development of strategies at regional and
transnational levels for risk management in
disaster-prone areas.
Water resource management - a special challenge
for spatial development
The effective management of water reserves is crucial
for the achievement of territorially balanced
development across Europe. Accordingly, policy for
water needs to be integrated into a multifunctional
spatial strategy to ensure the sustainability of
reserves, which are both a public and private good,
rather than being limited to tackling floods and
drought, which are the manifestations of the system
in operation.
To identify the appropriate action to take, it is
necessary, in the first place, to distinguish between
the different forms of flooding and drought, for
example, between torrential floods in Southern
regions, sporadic tornadoes which are very localised,
large areas of drought close to major water tables and
areas subject to less frequent droughts. Secondly, the
appropriate measures to take need to be integrated
into a spatial policy which encompasses the whole of
29
the area which is both affected by the problem and a
potential source of it. In the case of floods, this
means the water catchment area, which might be a
major river basin spanning more than one country,
and, more generally, it means areas which are most
relevant for the implementation of prevention and
warning systems.
There is an associated need in this regard to conduct
more research on the development of water reserves,
the effect of changes in climatic conditions and so
on, as well as to improve the dissemination of
knowledge.
It is equally important to involve all those affected
as consumers, especially farmers, or suppliers in the
management process and to define the most
appropriate economic instruments to apply. This
should help to ensure a suitable balance between
supply and demand, which is a necessary condition
for the pursuit of a sustainable path of development.
The policy options proposed in the first official
version of the ESDP are:
• Improvement of the balance between water
supply and demand, particularly in areas which
are prone to drought, of development and
application of economic, water management
instruments, including promotion of water-
saving agricultural methods and irrigation
technology in areas of water shortage.
• Promotion of transnational and interregional co-
operation for the application of integrated
strategies for the management of water
resources, including larger ground water reserves
in areas prone to drought and flooding,
particularly in coastal regions.
• Preservation and restoration of large wetlands
which are endangered by too much water
extraction or through the diversion of inlets
• Concerted management of the seas, in particular
preservation and restoration of endangered sea
ecosystems.
• Strengthening of regional responsibility in water
resource management.
30
• Application of environmental and territorial
impact assessments for all large scale water
management projects.
Creative management of cultural landscapes
The notion of landscape is particularly important in-
spatial development in Europe, given the diversity
that exists in this regard. Specifically, the landscape
is part of a region's heritage and should be explicitly
taken into account in plans for managing and
protecting vulnerable areas as well as in agri-
environmental policies. It is one of the assets of a
region which distinguishes it from elsewhere and
which potentially enables it to gain a competitive
advantage. Its preservation and development for
economic purposes require the co-ordination of
intervention measures and sectoral policies which has
often been lacking in the past.
The policy options proposed in the first official
version of the ESDP are:
• Preservation and creative development of
cultural landscapes with special historical,
esthetical and ecological importance.
• The enhancement of the value of cultural
landscapes within the framework of integrated
spatial development strategies.
• Improved co-ordination of development
measures, which have an impact on the
landscapes.
• Creative restoration of landscapes which have
suffered through human intervention, including
recurvation measures.
Creative management of cultural heritage
As noted above, cultural assets are potentially an
important factor in development, a factor which
defines the identity of a place and differentiates it
from others and, accordingly, a factor which
contributes to its competitiveness. They are, at the
same time, a Living element, which reflect different
ways of life and the way that these have changed
over time and which give rise to economic
 European Issues in the Debate

opportunities. Urban landscapes are, therefore, one

of the main attractions for people living in the area
and one of the factors attracting businesses to locate
there.

The policy options proposed in the first official

version of the ESDP are as foLlows:

• Development of integrated strategies for

protection of cultural heritage, which is in
danger or is decaying, including the
development of instruments for assessing risk
factors and for overcoming critical situations.
• Maintaining and creative redesigning of
protection worthy urban ensembles.
• Promotion of contemporary buildings with high
architectural quality.
• Increasing awareness of the contribution of
urban and spatial development policy to the
cultural heritage of future generations.

The policy aims and options set out above

demonstrate the need to co-ordinate sectoral policies
in various areas with territorial planning and to tailor
the spatial strategies pursued to the specific, and
diverse, features of different parts of Europe in order
to improve competitiveness and accessibility, to
preserve the natural and cultural heritage and,
thereby, to achieve balanced and sustainabLe
development. They also demonstrate the necessity of
trans-regional and transnational co-operation in the
design and implementation of policy and of the
involvement of those on the ground who have the
most interest in the strategy adopted and stand to be
most affected by its success or failure.

The implementation of the ESDP, however, also

necessitates the development of instruments to help
make the transnational policies a reality and to assist
in the co-ordination of sectoral and spatial measures
at the Union and Member State level.

31

4. THE MAIN CHALLENGES FOR THE APPLICATION OF
THE ESDP IN THE FUTURE
The application of the ESDP policy options at a
transnational Level requires the development of co-
ordination and co-operation between the different
layers of government concerned and the
establishment of the means by which this can be
made effective. This implies, in addition, a need to
strengthen the spatial co-ordination of sectoral and
Community policies.
4.1. Reinforcing co-operation and
coordination at all levels
The need for partnership and local involvement
Transnational co-operation programmes, by their very
nature, provide a basis for partnership between the
various organisations and individuals involved,
including the European Commission, national
governments, regional and local authorities, local
businesses, trade unions and representatives of other
organisations on the ground which have an interest
in the development of the area concerned. Up to now,
because they have been introduced only very
recently, the scope of the programmes implemented
has been relatively narrow and their scale relatively
small, so that comparatively few people and
organisations have been involved in their design and
implementation. Nevertheless, the exercise of
bringing representatives from different regions and
countries together to consider common problems and
possible co-operative solutions, though
comparatively short lived, has so far proved entirely
beneficial. Indeed, in a number of cases, there has
been very limited experience in the past of joint
consultation even between adjoining regions, let
alone of co-operation, and one of the most valuable
initial results has been to encourage the recognition
of the need for collaboration and the beginnings of
procedures for putting this into effect.
As the programmes expand, they will tend to involve
more organisations and more local people in their
design and implementation. Indeed, if they are to be
effective in dealing with strategic issues, it is
European Issues in the Debate
essential that those who on the ground who will be
affected by the policies pursed and who can influence
their outcome have a say in their formulation and
execution. This means that regional and local
authorities (including cities), and not just central
government and European-level institutions, must be
closely involved in the definition of priorities and
choice of measures along with key players in the
private sector. Accordingly, they will be encouraged
to work towards a common vision of the development
of the area in question which is relevant to those on
the ground and to agree on the broad lines of the
strategy chosen, at least as it affects them. This, in
turn, should ensure greater coherence of the actions
taken in different policy areas and in different parts
of the region.
The programmes, therefore, provide a framework for
co-ordination and arbitration of conflict between
different levels of government and different planning
authorities, and between these and the businesses
and organisations on the ground who are affected by
the decisions they take. Moreover, by bringing all of
these together, they establish the basis for a cross-
sectoral approach and for consideration of sectoral
policies to be integrated into the spatial planning
and decision-making process. In this way, they
encourage those responsible for different aspects of
policy to work in partnership towards coherent
spatial objectives and make it possible to assess
systematically the consistency of sectoral policies,
including those implemented at Union level, with
these objectives - with preservation of the natural
and cultural environment as well as with balanced
economic growth and adequate rates of job creation.
At the same time, by involving regional and local
authorities as well as those in the private sector in
different parts of the area concerned who have a
deeper understanding of local issues, they enable the
'top-down' approach of the ESDP to strategic
development to be combined with, and
complemented by, a 'bottom-up' approach. In this
way, priorities can be defined, operational issues
addressed and measures chosen in the light of the
33
specific nature of the problems facing in dividual
regions.
Shaping rational areas of co-operation: The outlook is important to recognise that there is no one unique
for INTERREG III
The identification of suitable areas for transnational
and transregional co-operation is Largely determined
by common interests, which, in turn, are related to
the similarity and/or complementarity of the natural
features, of the historical and cultural heritage and of and that, in addition, this may change over time.
the broad areas of economic specialisation, as well as
to the Links which at present exist or did so in the
past. These factors will decide whether or not it is
both possible, and, equally importantly, relevant, to
formulate a common vision of development for the
area and, therefore, an agreed joint spatial strategy.
The definition of appropriate areas for co-operation
ultimately depends on the ability of the various
authorities concerned (national, regional and local)
to achieve this.
It also depends, however, on the capability of the
regions concerned of organising, implementing and
managing the strategy envisaged, which can only
really be determined in the light of experience,
though it is an argument against making the areas
too large. In such cases, the danger is that co-
operation becomes limited to the exchange of
experience and information and does not extend to
the joint implementation of a common policy in any
meaningful sense. On the other hand, a high level of
agreement over the objectives to be pursued and the
development path to be followed, which is most
likely to occur when the different regions comprising
the area have a great deal in common (such as in the
case of the Northern Periphery which extends from
the North of Scotland through Northern Scandinavia
and potentially across Russia), can transcend
organisational difficulties. Indeed, the latter often
arise from a lack of consensus over spatial strategy,
which is not necessarily related to the size of an
area, though equally it need not be a function of
common spatial characteristics if the overall vision of various organisations and individuals involved in this
future development is not shared.
34
Accordingly, rational areas for co-operation can
legitimately be of very different sizes in terms of
both land mass and population. At the same time, it
configuration of co-operation areas in Europe, that
the identification of suitable partners on one set of
criteria may differ from those identified on another
set. Moreover, it also has to-be recognised that in
some sense most regions of Europe have some
problems in common or some reason to co-operate
This argues for a flexible approach to the formation
of co-operation areas, for some degree of overlap
between the areas formed and for the establishment
of links between the areas once they are formed. It
also argues for an outward-looking perspective,
insofar as common interests do not stop at the
Union's borders but in many cases encompass
neighbouring regions in third countries.
Defining areas of co-operation in relation to flooding
and drought is somewhat easier because the primary
criterion is one-dimensional. Nevertheless, even in
these cases, other considerations apart from the area
affected by either problem need to be taken into
account, insofar as floods and droughts are, in many
cases, the manifestation of problems of water
resource management, which, in turn, involve a range
of other problems to do with land use across perhaps
a much wider area.
By one means or another, however, the policies
developed in areas prone to floods or drought need
to be co-ordinated with those formulated for more
general areas of transnational co-operation.
4.2. The means of co-operation
and co-ordination
To improve the implementation of the ESDP policy
aims and options, there is a need to develop
instruments for facilitating co-operation between the
task, whose actions need to be co-ordinated. More

specifically, it is necessary to formulate the
Legislative means of supporting transnational co-
operation, to construct indicators for assessing the
territorial impact of the measures taken and to
provide an institutional framework which enables
common instruments to be established and tested.
The co-operation which is required for the ESDP to
stimulate and underpin a dynamic process of
territorial development is more likely to occur if
suitable instruments are putin place. Indeed, a major
need over the next few years is to demonstrate a
capacity for innovation in respect of the management
tools which are used and the policy measures which
are taken to influence territorial development.
The need for legislative frameworks for
transnational co-operation
The seminars and Forum drew attention to the
inadequacy and complexity of the present structures
for managing transnational programmes involving a
number of countries, regions and local authorities in
joint action to plan territorial development. Various
different kinds of machinery have been put in place
in INTERREG IIC et Article 10 Pilot Action co-
operation areas for the administration and financing
of the programmes, but they all entail a relatively
high degree of complexity and unwieldiness. In some
cases, difficulties caused by the lack of a common
legal structure in the Member States involved have
led to Lengthy delays in implementing the
programmes. The establishment of legislative
frameworks to facilitate the joint management of
programmes and projects in transnational areas is
one of the main tasks that needs to be undertaken
during the next few years if common policies for
spatial development are to be implemented.
At the same time, the legal and financial machinery
for the various EU programmes which are relevant in
this regard needs to be better co-ordinated. In
particular, the system established for the planning
and financial management of programmes aimed at
third countries (PHARE, TACIS, MEDA) should made
more consistent with Structural Fund procedures.
European Issues in the Debate
The need for common territorial impact measures:
The development of territorial indicators and
spatial impact studies
A major need which has been evident for a few years
is the absence, or lack of uniformity, of indicators for
measuring the territorial impact of different policies
and trends. In particular, one of the reasons why it
has proved so difficult to get agreement on the
design of maps to illustrate the different features of
spatial development in the Union and neighbouring
countries is the lack of a common definition of
generally accepted indicators (both the description
of these and the units of measurement to use).
In view of these deficiencies, it was suggested to
create a European Spatial Planning Observatory
Network (ESPON)and to select various centres and
institutes (national focal points) from the.15 Member
States to be included in this. In an experimental
phase, a study programme, launched under Article 10
of the ERDF, set up seven working groups charged
with developing indicators of spatial differentiation,
three concerned with a strategic study of partnership
between town and country and one dealing with
innovative cartography. Proposals for a common set
of harmonised indicators, capable of being
represented cartographically, should be put forward
before the end of 1999. It is undoubtedly the case
that, once defined, such indicators, by constituting a
common basis of reference, would help to improve
co-operation between the various authorities and
individuals involved in the design and
implementation of joint policy.
At the same time, there is a need for an innovative
approach to cartography in order to develop maps
capable of summarising visually spatial strategies and
policies in different parts of Europe in a readily
comprehensible and informative way.
Equally, it is also important to improve the
methodology for territorial impact studies to support
major infrastructure projects, especially for transport
and water. Ideally, the methodology underlying these
35
should be developed in the next few years, perhaps
drawing upon what has already been done in the past
in respect of environmental impact studies. Precise
instructions for carrying these out could be proposed
by the Commission to Member States.
4.3. Co-ordination of spatial
and sectoral policies
One of the leitmotifs running through the seminars
and the Forum was an emphasis on the need for
better spatial co-ordination of the sectoral policies
implemented at regional, Member State or Union
level. The ESDP provides an overall framework and
precise guidelines for the formulation and
implementation of sectoral policies. At the Union
level, perhaps the most obvious example is that of
the trans-European transport networks and the need
to ensure that the form which they take is in line
with the priorities identified for balanced territorial
development across Europe.
A number of Member States have begun to integrate
the ESDP guidelines into their own territorial
planning systems and policies at the national and
regional level and to incorporate the European
dimension, as well as the 'Community interest', into
their plans. By broadening the perspective, these
steps make the planning exercises concerned more
consistent with each other and provide a more
coherent framework for co-ordinating sectoral
policies on the ground. The ESDP has, therefore,
begun to stimulate, and should continue to
stimulate, greater coherence between the various
policies and measures undertaken by the different
authorities in Member States.
This action demonstrates the parallel need to ensure
similar coherence of Community policies
implemented at EU level with spatial objectives. The
Commission has taken the initiative by involving 19
Directorate-Generals, Eurostat and the European
Environmental Agency in an exercise aimed at
increasing the importance of the territorial
36
dimension in the formulation of new guidelines and
in the implementation of current Community policies.
The report produced at the end of this exercise was
presented at the Forum and the first part of it is
reproduced as an annex to the present document.
The report emphasises that Community policies have
a significant territorial impact, the nature and extent
of which depends in part on the means by which they
are implemented (whether through the distribution
of financial resources from the Community Budget,
the issuing of legal directives or regulations, the
specification of guidelines, and so on). The
measurement of the impact is difficult, moreover,
since such policies influence the behaviour of
organisations and individuals which is also affected
by other factors such as the Single Market.
It is, therefore, proposed to address the question of
the relationship between Community policies and
territorial development through whether or not they
use spatial concepts, whether or not these are close
to the ESDP policy options and whether or not it is
feasible to align them without undermining internal
coherence of the sectoral policies concerned.
The analysis undertaken indicates that, in general,
there is quite a large degree of coherence between
the objectives of the various Community policies and
the ESDP policy options. This is especially so in
relation to economic and social cohesion and
sustainable development. The co-ordination of
sectoral polices in pursuit of these objectives,
however, seems still to be too limited and, in
particular, not sufficiently adapted to territorial aims.
It is, therefore, proposed to develop in the future a
reference framework to ensure coherence between,
and a strengthening of, the concepts used. To do
this, it is necessary to develop complementary
analyses of the impact of economic integration on
the territorial distribution of activities, to define
geographical options more concretely in the ESDP, to
emphasise, as begun during the preparation of the
Structural Funds for years 2000 to 2006, the need to
 European Issues in the Debate

bring together policies for particular areas (sensitive

areas, urban areas and so on), to develop dialogue
with countries neighbouring the Union on the need
for territorial coherence in the implementation of
sectoral policies and ways of ensuring this, and to
construct the means of enabling information to be
'territorialised' (i.e. to improve the availability of
data by region and on the regional effects of
policies).

The Commission intends, therefore, to carry out

further consultation on these points in the years
to come.

37

5. CONCLUSIONS: FUTURE STEPS IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ESDP
5.1. Conclusions from the perspective of the
German Council Presidency by Ulrich
Schiiller, Director General, Ministry of
Transport, Construction and Housing
In the view of those attending the conference, the
drafting phase of the ESDP is now at an end. The
ESDP is the expression of a new concept of territorial
development. The blueprint of a development path
which is balanced and sustainable both economically
and spatially is about to be confirmed. The
polycentric model of development is the vision which
should inspire the EU and should safeguard the
development of all regions, including those on the
periphery.
The conference has agreed that no region should
have a development path imposed 'from above'. Each
region must find its own development strategy in the
context of economic, social and environmental
Union. Cities and regions are, therefore, encouraged
to develop their own identity and exercise a 'bottom-
up creativity'
There is unanimous agreement that the
implementation phase of the ESDP will begin with
the meeting of Ministers in Potsdam on the 10 and
11 May. At this Forum, a whole series of ideas and
proposals have been put forward. We have learned
that a large number of policy options have already
been implemented. In my view, the 'Alba-Ter-
Flußgebiet' (Alba-Ter river region) project shows
clearly how developments at the European level can
awaken local interest. Minister Herr Müntefering
suggested during the discussion yesterday the idea of
a European competition for regions with a prize for
the best implementation of the ESDP.
We are grateful to the European institutions (the
European Parliament, the Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions) and
the many other groups and organisations which have
taken part in the process of consultation on the ESDP
and have enabled the widest possible consensus to
be reached. There are, however, different views
European Issues in the Debate
between the Member States and the European
Parliament on the appropriate institutional structure
to set up for territorial development. Nevertheless,
there is unanimous agreement on the fact that the
implementation of the ESDP rather than legal
questions should be the focal point of the joint work
which will take place in the months and years to
come. After the meeting of Ministers in Potsdam, the
German Presidency will present the document to the
European institutions which have taken part in the
debate.
There is a need for the national authorities
responsible for territorial development to work more
closely together. The ESDP should be made more
consistent with sectoral policies. It is possible that
the document will be considered by various Councils
of Ministers. Commissioner Ms Wulf-Mathies
explained how the Commission is implementing the
ESDP at the Community level in the context of the
reform of the Structural Funds and in other areas of
policy with a territorial impact.
Transnational co-operation should be the key to the
new INTERREG I I I Community Initiative. Such co-
operation needs explicitly to concern not only border
regions but also interior ones. INTERREG I I I is the
right means of integrating these regions. The ESDP
Forum has made an appeal to the Commission: there
is a need, in the interest of greater spatial cohesion,
to enable joint cross-border projects on territorial
development to be undertaken which allow regions
and local authorities to co-operate across a larger
area than simply very close to national borders. It is
important, therefore, that INTERREG I I I incorporates
a balance between cross-border projects between
immediately neighbouring areas and transnational
ones. At the same time, INTERREG I I I should
consolidate and transpose good planning practices
from the preceding INTERREG IIC Initiative.
Co-operation with the candidate countries for
accession is very important and needs to be
increased through joint projects. In this regard,
closer co-operation with the Council of Europe is
39
important, especially in the context of the
Conference of Ministers with responsibility for
territorial development which will take place in
Hanover at the EXPO on 7-8 September 2000.
The network of European institutes for research into
territorial development should be formalised as soon
as possible. In my view, it would be desirable to
include from the outset the similar network which
already exists in Central and Eastern Europe (the
secretariat of which is situated in Dresden).
Allow me to say a word about the Potsdam
conference : from the point of view of the German
presidency, it would be very welcome if the delegates
could present initial examples of applying the ESDP
in practice, showing how it will be implemented in
their national policies for spatial development. It
would then be possible during the following meeting
of Ministers in Finland to put forward a catalogue of
good examples of application. Our common need is,
through integrated policies, to follow our own paths
for developing regional potential. The examples
which were presented yesterday and today show that
the moment has come to move on to the practical
implementation phase of the ESDP.
5.2. Conclusions from the perspective of
the European Commission by
Jean-Charles Leygues, Director, Regional
and Cohesion Policy
The presentation concentrates on three main points:
• to echo the rich contribution of the Forum
• to consider how 'to progress from principles to
practice' which is the title of this Forum
• to consider the agenda for territorial
development in Europe after Potsdam
The debate on spatial development at the European
Level has reached a turning point. The first phase of
discussion of contents is now at an end. Indeed, after
the examination of the first draft of the European
Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) at Noordwijk
40
in 1997, and following the commitment to finalise
the first ESDP in the Spring of 1999, a wide public
debate has taken place at the European level:
• a series of 8 transnational seminars has been
organised by the Commission and the
conclusions of these have been presented at the
Forum;
• a thorough consultation process has taken place
in Member States involving all levels of
government, the social partners, non-
governmental organisations and individuals
involved in spatial development;
• a debate has been held in European institutions,
in particular, in the European Parliament, the
Committee of the Regions and the Economic and
SociaL Committee.
All of these discussions have generated a substantial
number of ideas, suggestions and points of
clarification, even criticism, all of which will help to
finalise and improve the ESDP.
The Commission has produced a set of four reports,
which have been presented at the Forum, aimed at:
• reviewing the discussions at the transnational
seminars;
• drawing out the Lessons to be Learned from the
projects undertaken under INTERREG IIC and the
Pilot Actions under Article 10 of the ERDF;
• presenting the preliminary work carried out by
the Commission services on the relationship
between Community policies and spatial
development.
This wide consultation has helped to:
• reinforce the strategic nature of the ESDP by
emphasising key principles such as polycentric
development;
• refine and enrich the content and the
formulation of the ESDP policy options in a
perspective which takes account of the wider
European dimension.

A number of new and interesting ideas, however, have
emerged during the course of the Forum and these
should also be considered with a view to integrating
them into the final ESDP. A few of them are:
• a sustainable policy of territorial development
tends to Lead to a better allocation of resources
and, as a consequence, has the potential to free
up creative economic forces, capable of helping
to reduce unemployment, especially in
disadvantaged regions. Such a policy is aimed at
exploiting the diversity of European regions as a
comparative advantage;
• the potential of the ESDP as a means of
stimulating co-ordination between the various
Community policies with a strong territorial
impact; this potential can encourage integration
tendencies both within individual Community
policy areas and between them. Thus, for
example, rural development should be seen both
as the second pillar of the CAP and as a way of
strengthening economic and social cohesion.
The need is to follow a multisectoral approach
within a framework of integrated economic
development;
• such co-ordination, of Community policies is an
aspect of governance within a perspective of co-
operation between the three levels of
administration - European, national and regional
or local. There is an expectation about what the
Commission can and should do, and the
document of the Commission services on the
territorial impact of Community policies is a
contribution in this regard. It is usual to divide
Community policies between those concerned
with competitiveness, those concerned with
solidarity and those with co-operation, and it is
clear that these have different territorial effects.
Besides the areas which we are used to
examining, there is a particular need to pay
attention to the territorial impact of policies on
RDT and on enterprises, especially those relating
to SMEs, as well as to the question of Universal
Service Obligations which is relevant across a
number of policy areas;
European Issues in the Debate
• one of the main requirements of the ESDP, which
has been stressed many times, concerns the need
to see the European continent in its entirety and
to widen the field of vision beyond simply
focusing upon the current Member States of the
Union and their regions;
• territorial development, which is aimed at
coordination and limiting duplication of effort,
can be a means of improving the of various
policies and their effect on economic
performance, so enabling government deficits to
be reduced, though this implies that the need
for co-ordination is not used as an excuse for
creating additional layers of decision-making;
• by looking to convey practical experience at the
Local level, to disseminate details of this and the
lessons to be learned about how policy might be
improved, thè territorial planning envisaged in
the ESDP encourages greater participation
among those on the ground and enables the
people themselves to become involved in
European integration; this is the second
important aspect of the governance referred to
above;
• territorial planning can provide the opportunity
to reassess the functioning of the administrative
authorities, particularly the overall system of
managing spatial development, in relation to
possible modernisation and simplification. It is
important not to underestimate the cultural
change which such a challenge can bring about;
• many speakers have called for the European
Observatory (ESPON) to be set up without delay
in order to increase our technical knowledge
about territorial development. It is important
that this is accompanied by the development of
indicators and relevant concepts to assist
decision-making.
From principles to practice
The fact that this title was given to the Forum is
intended to underline the real challenge facing
European spatial development during this critical
phase.
41
I hope that, following the discussion we have had,
our capacity to convince and our influence will be
increased and that we will be able to deploy even
better arguments, clearer messages and more striking
examples to demonstrate the benefits to Europe of
adopting a strategic territorial development
perspective.
We should try to ensure that our concepts are easy to
understand, not least by the public at large.
I also hope that the efforts made up to now will help
to show that there is a cost to refusing to plan
strategically, just as we used to say that there was a
cost to 'non-Europe', that there is a danger:
• of duplication of effort and over-investment,
• of excessive and detrimental competition
between regions,
• of not taking advantage of potential synergies.
These risks are serious. It is important, in addition,
to show that co-operation at the European level -
between Member States and regions and with
neighbouring countries - aimed at developing and
implementing a coherent territorial strategy for
Europe is the only way of reconciling the need for
growth and economic prosperity with social justice
and environmental quality.
Our strategy and the policy aims and options which it
implies should be seen generally as being relevant
and useful.
Is it enough? Simply to ask the question is to suggest
a negative answer. The moment has come to make
decisive progress by making the ESDP more relevant,
more credible and easier to communicate. In other
words, in our work today and in the future, we should
never forget that we have a duty to achieve tangible
results.
This is the new challenge which we face and the new
phase of spatial development at the European level
which from now on is the order of the day.
42
The items for a possible future agenda
I believe that there is an agreement today, both
between the Member States and in the Commission
that the time has come to begin to apply and test
out the policy aims and options of the ESDP.
To this end, the Commission welcomes the Member
State proposals for preparing a programme of action
or an initiative to implement the ESDP guidelines.
There is clearly a need to:
• increase our understanding of European spatial
development;
• establish appropriate mechanisms for monitoring
and evaluating national, transnational and
European-wide experience;
• increase co-operation with third countries;
• concentrate our efforts and co-operation on a
limited number of strategic issues with a clear
European dimension, in particular, enlargement,
reform of the guidelines for trans-European
networks, the future of the Common Agricultural
Policy and the increased economic integration
which will result from EMU.
The Commission intends to contribute to this process
by consolidating its work in a small number of key
areas.
To this end, the Commissioner plans to inform the
Commission about the adoption of the finaL ESDP and
the results of the Potsdam meeting. The Commission
now and in the future needs to consider the
implications for Community, policies and their
prospective development.
On the basis of the discussion, the Commission will
also decide how to follow up the report on
'Community policies and territorial development',
which is a first attempt by the Commission services
to increase the weight given to the territorial
dimension in the formulation of new policy
guidelines as well as in the implementation of
present Community policies.
 European Issues in the Debate

By so doing, the Commission has responded to the

requests of the European Parliament. Further steps
need to be decided in the light of the decisions taken
at the Ministerial meetings in Potsdam as well as
during the Finnish presidency.

In the reform of the Structural Funds, the key

elements of the ESDP have been incorporated in the
guidelines fixing the Commission priorities for the
next programming period, 2000 to 2006 (which also
cover the Cohesion Funds). In the third part, the
guidelines refer explicitly to the ESDP and the need
to promote balanced and harmonious territorial
development across Europe.

The ESDP and the experience gathered from the

INTERREG IIC Community Initiative and Article 10
Pilot Actions represent a basis for promoting co-
operation on spatial development under the new
INTERREG I I I Initiative, especially transnationally,
including, in an appropriately balanced way, with
countries outside the Union.

The Commission, therefore, intends to use the ESDP

as a means of guiding co-operation over spatial
development with the candidate countries for
accession, other neighbouring countries and
international organisations with an interest in this
issue, such as the Council of Europe and 0ECD.

What I have set out above is why I believe this year

to be crucial for the future of the debate on spatial
development at the European level.

The adoption of the first ESDP in May will mark the

end of long period of reflection, consultation and the
building of a consensus. The next phase should show
that we have been right to emphasise the advantages
on the ground of the ESDP in terms of improving the
efficiency and coherence of policies.

43
 European Issues in the Debate

6. ILLUSTRATIONS

The following illustrations were displayed at the Transnational Seminars and the ESDP Forum in Brussels.
They where displayed in English language.

6.1. The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) 46

6.2. Distribution of the population on the EU territory 47

6.3. Improving parity of access to infrastructure and knowledge 48

6.4. Integrating strategies for the management of Europe's cultural and natural landscapes .49

6.5. INTERREG I I C co-operation areas 50

6.6. INTERREG I I C programmes for flood mitigation and drought prevention 51

6.7. Areas for transnational co-operation on pilot actions under Article 10 of the ERDF 52

6.8. A European Union of 26 countries, 15 Member States and 11 accession-countries .53

45
The Eu ropean Spatial Development Perspective
(ESDP)

a common vision guiding territorial development

■
a global strategy integrated at local, regional, national,
transnational and European levels
■
a spatial planning policy aiming at polycentric and balanced
development of the Eli territory
■
enlargement of the EU territory: a new spatial context
■
co-operation and task-sharing for improved competitiveness,
cohesion and sustainability
■
a debate to agree a democratically validated strategy for the
future of the EU territory
■
spatial orientations of policies:
polycentric spatial development and a new urban-rural relationship
- equivalent access to infrastructure and knowledge
- wise management of natural and cultural heritage

46
 Distribution of the population
on the EU territory

Γ·λ
!M/kww\ β Cananas (E)

Guadeloupe Maniitique Η ι::Ί. 1

*. ν β
(Β (R (F)

Population density by NUTS5 region, 1991

inhabitants/km2

| 50- 100
UK (Scotland): NUTS4
^ j 100- 200
| 200- 500 Source : Eurostat (SIRE)
| 500- 1000
>= 1000

47
 Improving parity of access to
infrastructure and knowledge

M'
;Γ\
m
WÎ
>■'■■)

6S|
n-c
!fm

ΤΕ
ίΕΡο«τ ni r>ar
r-^T*"1·■ \
Promotion of multi-modality
mi Β v tia
and of combined transport on ■ 'Il

Euro-corridors
Better access to telecommuni­
cations facilities and adjustment of
tariffs in remote areas

Raising awareness of
challenges and benefits from
the Information Society
Better access to higher
education, research and
innovation centres

48
Integrating strategies for the management of
Europe's cultural and natural landscapes

Controlling the pressure on

cultural heritage generated by
urbanisation and tourism
Development of a European ecological
network linking protected sites and
using features of the landscape

Rehabilitation of landscapes
degraded by human activities

Management of water
resources to ensure the balance
between supply and demand

49
 INTERREG I I C co-operation areas

INTERREG 2 C General Cooperation Programme·

Φ^ <D m ® D T I Ä l
Φ ΦΕ3 ΦΠ3 Φ
Prsgremm§ boundaries within nøn-EU etste· ere Indicative For t h e » ir««·
eeoeeratien 15 envisaged,

50
INTERREG II C programmes for flood
mitigation and drought prevention

Community Initiative INTERREG II C : Flood and Drought

] Member Stales
1 OihcT countries
I FLOOD
I DROUGHT

51
 Areas for transnational co-operation
on pilot actions under Article 10 of the ERDF

B8Œ

Alili V­­^

/L I > <.
•r
Northern Periphery
■~ '

■" ,­i
*=Γ§=^
"MS

'■-z
/ / S

¿»i Mediterranean ­.,.­

^ ^ . ^ . j G a t e w á y (E, Ρ, Morocco)
S Archimed
(South East Mediterranean) + MT, CY

Article 10 Pilot Actions

52
 A European Union of 26 cou ntries
15 Member States and 11 accession countries

A Europe of 26 would mean:

+ 52% area
+ 29% population
+ 8% GDP
m
United Kingdom Λ

Situation on 1 September 1998

Ireland
á
Denmark T f L j J

^Jie-Netherlands
mm Member State Belgium Germany
Luxembourg

H Acceding countries
-^JI^Austria

Portugal

Cyprus

53
 European Issues in the Debate

7. ENCLOSURES

7.1. Report of the European Parliament 57

7.2. Opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 14 January 1999 69

7.3. Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 94

7.4. Co-operation on spatial planning in the context of the enlargement of the European Union 106

7.5. Community policies and spatial planning

(Part I of the Working Document of the Commission Services) 113

55
28 May 1998 A4-0206/98

REPORT
on regional planning and the European Spatial Development Perspective

Committee on Regional Policy

Rapporteur: Mr Alfonso Novo Belenguer

57
 CONTENTS

Page

Procedural page 3

A. MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION 4

B. EXPLANATORY STATEMENT 9

58
In response to a request from the Conference of Committee Chairmen, the President of Parliament announced at the
sitting of 24 October 1997 that the Committee on Regional Policy had been authorized to draw up a report on
regional planning and the European Spatial Development Perspective.

The committee had appointed Mr Novo Belenguer rapporteur at its meeting of 22 September 1997.

It considered the draft report at its meetings of 23 April and 26 May 1998.

At the latter meeting it adopted the motion for a resolution unanimously.

The following were present for the vote: Howitt, acting chairman; Napoletano, vice-chairman; Novo Belenguer,
rapporteur; Berend, Botz, Celiai, Crampton, Ephremidis, Girão Pereira, Izquierdo Collado, Karamanou, Kellett-
Bowman, Klaß, de Lassus, Lindholm, McCarthy, Myller, Nicholson, Novo, Otila, Querbes (for Gutiérrez Díaz),
Rack (for Costa Neves), Raschhofer, Schröder, Schroedter, Todini, Vallvé, Varela, Virrankoski (for Monfils) and
Walter.

The report was tabled on 28 May 1998.

The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the draft agenda for the relevant part-session.

59
 A
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

Resolution on regional planning and the European Spatial Development Perspective

The European Parliament.

- having regard to the first official draft of the European Spatial Development Perspective,

- having regard to its resolution of 29 June 1995 on Europa 2000+: Cooperation for European territorial
development'),

- having regard to its resolutions of 26 October 1990 on a concerted regional planning policy(2) and of 16
September 1992 on Europe 2000(3),

- having regard to the reports by the Committee of the Regions on the subject,

- having regard to the first three-yearly report on Cohesion, COM(96)0542,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy (A4-0206/98),

A. whereas the mandate in Article 130b of the EC Treaty seeks to ensure that Community policies are
coordinated with the national economic policies, with the aim of encouraging economic and social
cohesion in order to promote the overall harmonious development of the Community,

B. whereas many Community policies, particularly the agricultural policy, the Structural Funds and the
Cohesion Fund, the trans-European networks and the policies to protect the environment and nature,
research and competition, have a direct impact on the regional distribution of human settlements and
economic activity and thus affect the balanced development of the whole European area,

C. whereas the analytical work of the Commission, particularly Europe 2000 and Europe 2000+, show that a
number of problems persist and cannot be solved in a strictly national framework and point to the impact of
the various Community policies on the equilibrium of the European region; whereas the main contribution
made by these documents was to combine a sectoral approach with an integrated view of the European
region,

D. whereas the three-yearly report on Cohesion recently provided an analysis of the impact of the various
Community policies on regional disparities in the Union, highlighting their frequent inconsistency and
contradictory effects,

E. whereas its own previous positions have favoured the development of a Europe-wide regional planning
policy, capable of ensuring that the various Community policies complement, and are consistent with, the
aim of achieving balanced and sustainable development throughout the territory of the Union, thus
strengthening its economic and social cohesion,

F. whereas an integrated and consistent regional planning strategy is also essential to improve the Union's
competitiveness,

G. whereas the first official draft of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) is the political
extension of analytical work previously done by the Commission; whereas it has the intrinsic value of
being the result of the consensus between all the Member States within the Regional Development
Committee,

(') OJ C 183, 17.7.1995, p. 39.

(2) OJC295, 26.11.1990, p. 652.
(3) OJ C 284, 2.11.1992, p. 75.

60
H. whereas the basic objectives of the ESDP, namely economic and social cohesion, sustainable development
and a balance between competition and cooperation throughout Europe, match Parliament's own priorities
as stated in its previous resolutions,

I. whereas the European regions are extremely diverse, as is the very concept of regional planning in the
various Member States,

J. whereas the ESDP is based on the principle of subsidiarity and hence on respect for the present allocation
of responsibilities for this policy between the Community, national, regional and local spheres; whereas its
nature is indicative and not compulsory, just as its purpose is evolutionary,

K. whereas the drafting of the ESDP has highlighted the difficulties in obtaining data that is harmonized and
comparable between the Member States; whereas these difficulties highlight the need to have a permanent
structure that will provide analytical support for the final wording of the ESDP and its continual updating,

L. whereas its previous positions favoured the establishment of a European Observatory for regional planning;
whereas, further, the conclusions of the Informal Councils of Regional Planning Ministers have, since the
meeting held in Leipzig in September 1994, expressed the support of the Member States for the
establishment of the Observatory,

M. whereas the practical application of the ESDP is hampered by the institutional weakness arising from the
absence in the Treaty of specific Community powers in this area, the informal nature of the Council of
Regional Planning Ministers and the temporary nature of the Regional Development Committee,

N. whereas the transnational and interregional spheres are priority and exemplary areas for Europe-wide
regional planning activity; whereas there have been successes, but also difficulties, in implementing the
Interreg A and C Initiative, and whereas there is a proposal to consolidate this programme as part of the
new generation of Community initiatives,

0. having regard to the activities in the field of interregional cooperation and regional planning which have
been financed under Article 10 of the ERDF,

P. having regard to the reform of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund currently under way and its
effect on the application of the principles set out in the European Spatial Development Perspective,

Q. having regard to the challenges entailed in the forthcoming enlargement in the field of regional planning
and to the activities of the Council of Europe in the field of regional planning and transfrontier and
interregional cooperation, in particular its Regional Planning Perspective and Charter and the Framework
Convention on transfrontier cooperation by local or regional authorities,

1. Welcomes the first official draft of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP); considers the
political value of this document, the result of consensus and cooperation between the Member States and,
hence, a fundamental stage towards final adoption of the Perspective, to be substantial;

2. Fully agrees with the essential aims which the draft perspective attributes to regional planning: the pursuit
of economic and social cohesion, sustainable development and balanced competitiveness throughout the
European territory; considers, however, that it will be necessary to establish clearer guidelines and a
methodology for coordination between the three aims;

3. Regrets that the Treaty does not at present provide for specific Community powers as regards regional
planning, in view of the fact that many of its provisions imply and indeed require coordination of the
effects of Community and national policies with a view to ensuring the harmonious, balanced and
sustainable development of the Union's territory;

4. Considers that the Perspective must form an indicative and non-compulsory framework, that its application
must be based on respect for the principle of subsidiarity and that it must be subject to a process of periodic
revision and adjustment;

5. Takes the view that cooperation and consensus must form the basis of the practical application of the ESDP
and, accordingly, considers it essential to incorporate the principle of partnership in the drawing up,
revision and implementation of the Perspective;

61
6. Considers it essential to find ways in which the regional and local authorities may participate actively in the
various development stages of the ESDP, particularly as the political will required for progress to be made
in this area can only be sustained with the resolute support of the public;

7. Considers that the intergovernmental dynamic has exhausted its opportunities for action and that it is
therefore essential at the present stage to include regional planning in the Community sphere; accordingly,
strongly urges the formalization of the Council of Regional Planning Ministers and the establishment of the
Regional Development Committee as a permanent body, with members of the European Parliament's
Committee on Regional Policy being invited to attend meetings of the Regional Development Committee;

8. Welcomes the fact that the Conclusions of the ministerial seminar held in Echtemach in December 1997
reflect the Member States' agreement on the need to take the draft Perspective into consideration at
regional, national, transfrontier, transnational and Community level, thus anticipating its implementation;

9. Considers that the Commission, in the exercise of its powers to propose legislation and of its executive
responsibilities, has immediate responsibility for and the opportunity of improving the complementarity
and consistency of Community policies, in particular by establishing the internal mechanisms for
coordination between its various departments and by incorporating a regional impact assessment in any
measure that is adopted;

10. Considers that the current reform of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund must make it possible to
incorporate the principles and policy options defined in the ESDP in the programmes supported by the
Funds; calls on the Commission to take them into account when determining the guidelines which should,
in accordance with its legislative proposals, influence the way the programmes are drawn up;

11. Considers that the ESDP should provide the framework for giving more consistency to the Community
policies which have a regional impact, so as to prevent those policies from hampering the promotion of
social, economic and regional cohesion as well as of a sustainable development model throughout the
European regions;

12. Repeats its call for the establishment of a Regional Planning Observatory and supports, as a transitional and
experimental solution, its introduction in the form of a research programme financed under Article 10 of
the ERDF;

13. Is willing to consider the creation of a special budget heading for the funding of a European Regional
Planning Observatory (ORATE) of a Community nature, consisting of a network of research institutes;
considers that the main task of ORATE should be the provision of the analytical support required for the
continual updating of the ESDP, under the direction of the Regional Development Committee and in
cooperation with the Commission;

14. Is aware of the provisional nature of the policy options set out in the draft Perspective; nevertheless
expresses its concern at the basically urban and continental nature of the concept of European regional
development which.the document provides and the inadequate consideration of the many regional realities
of Europe (islands and archipelagos, coastal and maritime regions, areas of low population density, areas of
outstanding ecological importance, mountain areas, etc.); calls for a consistent and integrated approach to
these areas;

15. Considers that the key function of the transport policy is not sufficiently reflected in the present draft
Perspective; takes the view that a transport policy directed towards improving the accessibility of the
peripheral regions and aimed at greater sustainability could help to counteract the growing process of
congestion facing the territory of the European Union;

16. Points out that equal access to communications infrastructure and the harmonious growth of employment
and business in the EU's various regions are the ESDP's top priorities; emphasizes that one of the main
objectives to be pursued must be the creation of trans-European networks designed to reduce the
phenomenon of the peripheral and/or insular nature of some regions, the ultimate aim being the
implementation of a genuine overall policy to correct regional imbalances;

17. Draws attention to the need to pursue policies for developing and reviving the European ports, essentially
those situated in the EU's outlying and outermost regions;

62
18. Underlines the need to promote an overall shipping policy designed to facilitate intra- and extra-European
communications by promoting maritime transport, a mode of transport that respects the environment and
helps to ease congestion in transport on land, but one which is at present underdeveloped, especially in the
outlying and outermost regions;

19. Takes the view that the application of the Perspective could contribute to the implementation of Natura
2000, in particular of the Habitat Directive and the Birds Directive;

20. Underlines the urgent need to incorporate in the draft ESDP a chapter on the regional perspectives of
enlargement;

2 f. Considers that the ESDP should give greater attention to regional planning in the field of transnational,
transfrontier and interregional cooperation; repeats the need to develop a legal framework that will
facilitate cooperation, on the lines of the Council of Europe's Framework Convention on transfrontier
cooperation by local or regional authorities;

22. Welcomes the Commission proposal to maintain Interreg, with particular regard to transfrontier
cooperation; considers that its financial endowment should be consolidated and that it is therefore
necessary to go beyond the present predominantly bilateral form of cooperation and promote the creation of
joint management bodies for the programmes in which greater participation by the regional and local
authorities can be assured;

23. Is in favour of strengthening the pilot projects financed under Article 10 of the ERDF in the field of
regional planning and interregional and urban cooperation, maintaining their decentralized nature;

24. Calls on the Commission to report regularly on all aspects of European spatial development policy;

25. Considers that there is a need to strengthen cooperation with the Council of Europe;

26. Wishes to be actively involved in the organization of the forum on regional planning to be held in Brussels
in 1999;

27. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, Commission, the parliaments of the
Member States, the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee.

63
 Β
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

This explanatory statement follows on from the working document considered by the Committee on Regional Policy
at its meeting of 1 December 1997. That working document reviewed what was already a lengthy discussion process
on regional planning at European level and recalled Parliament's positions which had strongly favoured the
development of a Community policy in this area, based on the principle of economic and social cohesion.

There is now a need to take a more practical approach and set out Parliament's position on the draft European Spatial
Development Perspective and, still more specifically, on the problems that would be raised by its formal adoption and
implementation. There are two aspects to this: first, to engage in the great debate launched by the informal meeting of
Council Ministers held in Noordwijk in June 1997 and, second, to continue and consolidate Parliament's regional
planning strategy, a strategy developed through a number of resolutions which does not always coincide with the
views of the other institutions or the Member States.

The first official draft European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP): Context

The document produced at the Noordwijk Informal Council, the fruit of the Regional Development Committee's work,
must be considered and assessed in the light of the difficult and complex development of political attitudes to regional
planning in the European Union.

The first stumbling block is the very concept of regional planning. It directly affects the functions of government
authorities. The idea of regional planning implies a basic political option, namely intervention by government to
obtain the best possible distribution of social and economic activities in its territory, with the ultimate aim of
increasing the welfare and standard of living of its citizens.

So far, the idea is universally accepted and practised throughout the Member States. It implies that the public
authorities should be empowered to correct economic trends, anticipate social and economic change and, ultimately,
endeavour to make the most of the advantages of their particular region and offset its handicaps.

Even at national level, this exercise involves securing a difficult political and social consensus, by calling into play not
only questions of the regional and institutional division of powers but also purely ideological issues. It is thus hardly
surprising that suspicions should be aroused and progress slow when the idea of regional planning reaches the
European domain.

On the one hand, as the Perspective itself points out, the Union has a direct impact on its territory through its policies.
It is also true that the Treaty itself entrusts to the Community powers which affect the distribution of prosperity
throughout the European area. Moreover, the promotion of 'economic and social progress which is balanced and
sustainable' has always been one of its main objectives. To this must be added the mandate conferred by Article 130b
of the EC Treaty, which requires consistency between the various Community policies and national economic policies
with the aim of economic and social cohesion 'in order to promote [the Community's] overall harmonious
development'. As a result, strategic thinking on the regional development of the Union can no longer be avoided.

But by what means, in what context and by whom is this to be done? The difficulties arise precisely when we try to
answer these questions.

This is where the draft Perspective becomes most useful. In spite of its inadequacies and shortcomings, and the over-
tentative approach in Section IV on the practical implementation of the ESDP, which is still incomplete, the document
is an undeniable step forward since it has managed to secure the consensus of the Member States. It represents the
extension in policy terms of the analytical work done at the Commission's initiative over the previous years. The draft
Perspective should be assessed on the basis that it represents no more than the measure of what is possible, as pointed
out in the discussion paper which the Italian Presidency presented to the informal Council in Venice.

Thus, while its content may give rise to objections, its political approach deserves full approval.

64
Substance: Sections I, II and III of the ESDP

As regards the document's substance, and in accordance with Parliament's previous positions, we may fully endorse
the main objectives of the ESDP as laid down in Leipzig:

* economic and social cohesion

* sustainable development
* balanced competitiveness throughout the European territory.

The same may be said of the idea of interdependence between regions, sectoral policies and levels of government,
which is one of the ESDP's premises. This interdependence compels us to define the regional approach as seeking 'a
better balance between competition and cooperation so that the whole European territory may reach the optimum level
of competitiveness'.

These general aspects are set out in Section I of the ESDP, which also defines the political character of the document
and its indicative and non-compulsory nature, as well as its evolutionary purpose.

Section II: 'Spatial issues: the European dimension' forms the analytical part of the document. It not only tries to
identify the main trends determining development of the European regions but also includes an assessment of the
impact on the European territory of Community policies it considers most significant for regional stability.

The drafting of this part of the document, which still needs to be supplemented and expanded, has highlighted the lack
of harmonized data comparable between the various Member States, one of the main arguments for the immediate
establishment of the Regional Planning Observatory (ORATE).

Section III: 'Policy aims and options for the European territory' constitutes the political message of the document and
sketches the framework for an integrated European regional planning policy based on a search for consistency through
coordination between territories (geographical), sectoral policies (horizontal) and levels of government (vertical).

This part of the document defines three thematic options which are not mutually exclusive:

* a more balanced and polycentric system of cities and a new urban-rural relationship;

* parity of access to infrastructure and information throughout the territories;

* prudent management and development of the natural and cultural heritage.

This thematic selection may seem incomplete, and indeed it is. As the recent study by Eure Consult for Parliament's
Directorate-General for Research has pointed out, it takes a predominantly continental and urban view of the
European territory in which, moreover, the transfrontier and transnational regions have not received the attention they
deserve.

However, as we have already seen, the very fact that the Member States have managed to agree on a selection of
policy options is an achievement in itself. The selection not only tackles the issues mentioned but also sets out a
European agenda for integrated regional development in which the following aspects would take a prominent place:

a better spatial balance and support for economic and social cohesion;
a balanced urban and regional competitiveness developed from an integrated approach to urban networking
and the development of complementarity between towns and regions. This involves giving to the cities
regional, national and international roles;
better accessibility, in terms of transport, telecommunications, energy, information, education and training;
promoting EU border regions and transnational areas;
the development of 'Euro-corridors', as a conceptual tool for integrating policies on infrastructure, multi-
modality, cooperation between cities, etc.;
sustaining and developing Europe's biodiversity.

65
Implementation of the Perspective. Section IV of the ESDP

Section IV of the document is devoted to the Perspective's implementation. The text itself recognizes the not only
provisional but even merely preparatory nature of the future Section IV. Indeed, it is really a call for debate. A good
part of the section deals with the way this wide debate should be organized, raising questions, identifying those
involved at Community, national, regional and local level, and establishing a timetable which would culminate in the
holding of a major forum in Brussels.

This debate would form a preparatory stage before the drafting of the definitive document (though even that would
continue to evolve) and its final adoption.

This section particularly highlights the institutional weakness affecting the development of a European regional
planning policy. It is hard for an informal Council of Ministers to adopt 'formally' a document drawn up and intended
to evolve in a Regional Development Committee which does not have a permanent basis. This weakness in the
institutional structure will make it difficult for a document to produce its full impact when, even if it does not claim to
have the force of law, it does seek to influence the various sectoral policies and decision-making at every level.

The very establishment of the Regional Planning Network Observatory (ORATE) comes up against difficulties of an
institutional kind which show that the intergovernmental dynamic has run aground and is plainly unsatisfactory and
inadequate.

At the Informal Council held in Noordwijk in June 1997, agreement was reached on certain lines of action:

* a political debate would be held in each of the Member States, and between the Commission and the other
Community institutions and bodies;

* parallel intersectoral consultations would be carried out within the Member States and between national,
regional and local· government. For its part, the Commission undertook to carry out internal consultations
between its various departments;

* a revised version of the ESDP would be drawn up during the British Presidency, for which Section IV was to
be developed under the Luxembourg Presidency;

* the Echtemach ministerial seminar under the Luxembourg Presidency would decide on the establishment of
ORATE.

A simple read through of the Presidency's conclusions on the Echtemach seminar is enough to show that the subject is
not progressing at the pace imagined in Noordwijk.

The only positive result of the meeting was an agreement to add a new chapter to the ESDP devoted to the regional
implications of enlargement. The development of Section IV was not concluded, although it was the subject of a
Commission note which did not secure the full support of the Regional Development Committee.

It is significant that some delegations expressed a need for a discussion of the institutional framework in the light of
the difficulties they had encountered with the establishment of ORATE. And it is no less revealing that the statement
on ORATE, which the Luxembourg Presidency had announced when it spoke to the Committee on Regional Policy,
was not the subject of an agreement and simply forms part of the Presidency's conclusions.

Development of Section IV of the ESDP: implementing measures

This is probably the most difficult subject, since there is still a need to move beyond the draft Perspective, which very
plainly shows up the institutional weakness mentioned above - a matter that is beginning to worry some Member
States.

The note drawn up by the Commission on this question is welcomed by the rapporteur, and the following comments
are largely based upon it.

66
In the first instance, there is a need to make one or two assumptions:

* although the Treaty does not provide special powers in respect of regional planning, it does contain
provisions that directly affect it, as is the case in particular of Articles 130a and 130b, which contain a
mandate to coordinate the regional impact of Community policies and national economic policies, and also of
Articles 129b et seq. on the trans-European networks, or Articles 130r and 130s on the environment;

* the indicative nature of the ESDP, and the fact that it is not compulsory, need not mean that no practical
results can be obtained. It should be taken into account when Community policies with a regional impact are
drawn up and when national, regional or local decisions are taken. This will involve a continuing effort of
information and dialogue;

* in view of its indicative nature, cooperation, consultation and consensus should form the main pillars of
ESDP implementation. Compliance with the principle of subsidiarity will, in this context, involve making use
of the principle of partnership;

* the various Community policies already provide legal instruments and financial incentives (notably through
the Structural Funds) which may help with the practical application of the ESDP; they need to be identified
and used for this purpose.

On the basis of the above assumptions, certain instruments may now be identified for implementing the Perspective:

1. A number of Community policies have an impact on regional balance. Section II of the draft Perspective
analyses this aspect. The Commission has immediate responsibility for coordinating such policies in the
exercise of its powers to propose legislation and of its executive responsibilities.

After the Noordwijk Informal Council, the Commission embarked on a round of consultations with its
various departments. The first indications of their outcome suggest that it is feasible to set up standing
internal coordination mechanism and even to include a regional impact assessment in all areas of Community
activity.

2. Although the structural policies do not have a direct regional planning objective but aim at 'reducing
disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least-
favoured regions', as Article 130a of the EC Treaty puts it, they do have a direct impact on the regional
distribution of economic activities and, more especially, may act as financial incentives for the realization of
Community priorities. The current reform of the Structural Fund and Cohesion Fund regulations will need to
take account of the principles and policy options defined in the ESDP, particularly in the case of the
'guidelines' that will influence planning as it - emerges from the legislative proposals adopted by the
Commission.

3. The transnational, transfrontier and interregional spheres represent model opportunities for European
cooperation on regional planning.

Parliament has repeatedly expressed support for the adoption, and even inclusion in the treaties, of a legal
framework to encourage cooperation in these spheres.

The Community Interreg Initiative has demonstrated its potential in its A and C sectors. According to the
Commission proposals, it constitutes, as part of the reform of the Structural Funds, one of the three areas on
which this kind of programme should be concentrating. There is a need to ensure here that it is financially
consolidated and that joint management bodies, in which the regional and local authorities' participation is
enhanced, are duly encouraged.

Cooperation with third countries must also be stepped up under the new Interreg, particularly, though not
exclusively, in the light of enlargement. Such instruments as PHARE, TACIS or MEDA should incorporate
the regional perspective. The pre-accession structural instrument must not be at odds with this strategy.

The programmes based on Article 10 of the ERDF have created an instrument which, in spite of its modest
financial proportions, has produced particularly interesting results, mainly because of the direct involvement
of regional and local authorities in the programmes.

67
 Regional planning is a continual exercise of knowledge and analysis. As long ago as September 1994, at the
Leipzig Informal Council, the ministers recommended the establishment of a European Regional Planning
Observatory, conceived as a network of national research institutes, but so far without result.

At the Echtemach ministerial seminar, the Commission put forward a proposal for the establishment of the
Regional Planning Network Observatory (ORATE) in two stages:

* the first stage, experimental in character and lasting two years (1998-1999), would involve the carrying
out of a study programme run by a network of specialist regional planning institutes selected by public
tender. The Commission would cofinance 50% of such studies under Article 10 of the ERDF. The
network would be coordinated by another research institute whose task it would be to ensure that the work
was consistent and of good quality. Selected separately, its funding would also come under Article 10 and
would cover 100% of its activity.

The Commission has devised this system because of the institutional difficulties involved in the
establishment of ORATE as a permanent body and as a means of making progress in the drafting of the
ESDP. To this extent, the Commission's action deserves the approval and support of Parliament;

* the plan for the second stage is based on the conclusions of the two informal councils held since Leipzig,
where reference was already made to the Community - and not intergovernmental - nature of its structure.

. ORATE would have the following structure: the Regional Development Committee, in conjunction with
the permanent secretariat of the Observatory, would devise an annual work programme which would be
carried out by members of the network, that network consisting of a national 'focal point' in each Member
State (a research institute or some other body) which would, in turn, coordinate a national network of
research bodies.

Its function would be to keep the ESDP up to date. This would involve the development of joint
terminology and indicators and methods to identify regional typologies and the production of maps, etc.
The permanent secretariat would also act as the secretariat of the Regional Development Committee,
which would become the administrative board of ORATE.

As may be seen, the Commission plan contains institutional implications which seem to have aroused
suspicions in some Member States.·

For its funding, it would have to draw on a special heading under Title II of the financial perspective, B2-
1820, the creation of which was recommended by the Committee on Regional Policy during the most
recent budgetary procedure.

Parliament has always expressed enthusiasm for the establishment of the Observatory. Its support is all the
more important in the present context, where institutional progress is required in order to move forward in
the development of a European view of regional planning.

It is worth pointing out that Parliament has repeatedly called for the Councils of Regional Planning Ministers
to be officially recognized and for the Regional Development Committee to be made into a permanent body.

68
 COM-4/012

Brasseis, 25 January 1999

OPINION
of the Committee of the Regions -
of 14 January 1999
on the
European Spatial Development Perspective

69
 The Committee of the Regions

HAVING REGARD TO the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP);

HAVING REGARD TO' the decision taken by the European Commission on 8 June 1998, under the first
paragraph of Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to
consult the Committee of the Regions on the matter;

HAVING REGARD TO the decision taken by its Bureau on 15 July 1998 to direct Commission 4 for Spatial
Planning, Urban Issues, Energy and Environment to draw up the relevant opinion;

HAVING REGARD TO the draft Opinion (CdR 266/98 rev. 2) adopted by Commission 4 on 11 December
1998 (rapporteur: Ms Claude de Granrut, co-rapporteur: Mr Anders Knape);

adopted the following opinion at its plenary session of 13 and 14 January 1999 (meeting of 14 January 1999) by a
majority vote.

1. General comments

1.1 The ESDP's objectives and approach

1.1.1 The decision to frame the ESDP reflects the EU's determination to meet world economic
challenges at a time when it is boosting its economic integration, recognizes the growing role of local and regional
authorities in spatial development, and is preparing for the accession of the central and eastern European countries.
This determination goes hand in hand with the three fundamental goals set by the Leipzig informal council of spatial
planning ministers, namely economic and social cohesion, sustainable development, and competitive but mutually
supportive regions.

To this end, the ESDP proposes a comprehensive concept of spatial development that has
integrated, relevant scope and facilitates more balanced, effective and responsible land-use and better management
of the EU's natural, human and technological resources.

In order to cater for regional differences and the complexity of the socio-economic challenges to
be faced, this concept postulates a decision-making process which involves the various tiers of authority and which
helps to ensure that Member States' spatial development measures are mutually consistent and complementary.

1.1.2 The ESDP also proposes effective integration of the spatial impact of Community policies, thus
securing added value and drawing maximum benefit from EU measures. Implementation of the ESDP will therefore
require horizontal and vertical coordination of the Community's sectoral policies, together with action by the various
geographical tiers of authority involved in spatial planning.

In offering an overview of the EU area, the ESDP invites Member States and regional and local
authorities to identify and take account of spatial problems which transcend their own borders. Although the ESDP
is presented as a reference document which is non-binding, it lends legitimacy to the proposed concept of spatial
planning and to the consultation process which this concept will trigger, and to the need to view any spatial planning
measures in the wider European context.

70
 To reinforce this last point, the ESDP proposes four rapidly evolving areas of spatial planning
which are relevant to the EU as a whole. The document also analyses the impact of Community policies on EU
spatial development.

The four areas are:

- implementation of a new urban policy;

- partnership between towns and countryside, and the role of rural areas;
- measures concerning transport, communications and access to knowledge;
- safeguarding of Europe's cultural and natural heritage.

The ESDP considers that the spatial impact of Community policies (the CAP, Structural Funds,
environment, competition, transport and communications infrastructure) is not neutral, and must be analysed; the
aim should be to increase synergies between these policies and to optimize their economic and social effects.

1.2 General comments and critical analysis

1.2.1 The COR recognizes the careful analysis and consideration which has gone into the ESDP, and the
illustrative value of the tables and maps, although the latter could be further improved'.

On the whole, the COR considers that the spatial development concept proposed by the ESDP
provides an important contribution to EU integration; European integration will not be complete without spatial
integration.

For the moment, the ESDP is to form a reference document for national, regional and local players
involved in spatial planning. The practices of these players - and the institutions to which they belong - vary greatly,
but the ESDP must nevertheless offer firm, innovative benchmarks that represent an advance on existing practices
and tools, institutional or otherwise. In other words, the ESDP must not become a new planning tier which can
encroach on national, regional or local spheres of responsibility; instead, the ESDP must convince these authorities
that it offers a valuable stimulus totheir policies and can help to make their action more effective. However, there
are certain areas where the ESDP's analysis could be improved.

1.2.2 The ESDP could usefully have highlighted the spatial aspects of economic globalization, and their
medium and long-term impact on trade flows, business location, financial markets, relations between the world's
main cities, the activities of EU gateway-cities and ports, and energy supply conditions. Such an analysis would
have made it possible to more effectively gauge the risks of increasing regional imbalances as outlined in the
cohesion report and, therefore, to emphasize the priority policy objectives to be pursued in the coming years to
combat such risks as effectively as possible and prepare post-2006 policies accordingly.

The same is true of EU enlargement. The candidate countries are more than just additions to EU
territory; they are countries with a past, a heritage and resources, as well as economic weaknesses which will impact
on EU spatial organization. Substantial forward analysis needs to be carried out in the near future on the direct and
indirect spatial impact of enlargement on both current and future Member States.

The reference here is to the draft distributed at the Glasgow informal council in June 1998.

71
 The ESDP should give more consideration to the strategic role of the EU's southern regions as a
natural interface between the European continent and the countries on the southern side of the Mediterranean, and as
an area which could make a greater contribution to Euro-Mediterranean cooperation policy. The ESDP should also
put forward guidelines for addressing the specific problems of upland areas.

1.2.3 The ESDP could also have scrutinized the spatial impact of the growing interdependence between
Member States, the single market, the free movement of people and capital, the spread of new technologies and the
introduction of the euro, considering their possible impact on the attractiveness of certain areas and the
establishment of new development corridors.

These considerations could have led on to a comparative study of the spatial organization of
Europe's traditional development axes, and their weaknesses in terms of the new concept of spatial development put
forward in the ESDP. This would have given an idea of the role played by a particular city or city network in
providing a "centre of gravity"; the impact of the establishment of appropriate transport infrastructure; and the
contribution of research centres to boosting the economy and enhancing employment potential in lagging regions.

1.2.4 The ESDP cites the Interreg IIC pilot schemes as an example of the benefits of transnational
cooperation and as proof that it helps make optimum use of investment. The ESDP could usefully have included
some more closely targeted regional partnership activities which, while involving smaller geographical areas or
areas suffering permanent geographical handicaps, such as climate, isolated or insular situation, altitude or relief,
would have produced more immediately apparent spatial and economic results. This would also address the
limitations presented by the lack of spatial coherence in some of the existing Interreg IIC programmes.

The ESDP fails to draw the requisite conclusions from its recognition that the EU's diversity is one
of its strengths and that this diversity must not be jeopardized, In order to retain diversity, one must recognize the
existence of spatial policies at the regional and local level and their irreplaceable role in improving living and
working conditions and in the exercise of democracy. The ESDP should have laid greater stress on the application of
the subsidiarity, principle to spatial planning. Incorporation of the regions' spatial planning policies is the keystone of
the ESDP's approach to spatial development.

The COR believes that regional and local players are fundamental to any European approach to
spatial development, as they are able to reconcile the aspirations of their fellow citizens with the need for EU
solidarity, inter alia by involving the socio-economic players who contribute to local development.

The COR feels that the ESDP should have called unambiguously for a systematic analysis of the
spatial impact of the Community's sectoral policies and for the requisite coordination between them. Public funds
must be used effectively and wisely, and the European Commission should set an example here.

1.3 The functions of the ESDP

Concluding these general comments, the COR would like to see the ESDP fulfil information,
proposal and policy functions.

72
1.3.1 The information function

The ESDP itself acknowledges that this function needs to be improved. The workshops organized
by the European Commission and Member States and attended by COR members seek to address the problem2.
Each topic is first presented by experts and then discussed by representatives of the various geographical tiers of
authority, using Interreg IIC schemes as examples.

The COR recommends that the lessons learned from these workshops - which enable provisional
finalization of the ESDP - should be bome in mind when deciding the tasks of the European Spatial Planning
Observatory Network (ESPON). The COR suggests that special attention be paid as of now to exchanges, studies
and research with the central and eastern European countries.

1.3.2 The proposal function

The COR recommends two courses of action in the short term. The first is experimental, the other
is institutional.

On the basis of the ESDP work, a few EU spatial action areas should be selected in addition to the
Interreg IIC regions. These would provide a testbed for the ESDP approach, to coordinating spatial development
programmes and injecting a spatial dimension in other Community policies. One of the action areas should include a
town-country partnership.

In addition to geographical coordination instruments, the ESDP should propose legal and financial
instruments for putting the various forms of transnational cooperation on a more structured footing.

1.3.3 The policy function

For thè moment, the policy function of the ESDP will be limited to gaining the support of policy
makers, at all geographical levels, for its rationale and approach. The credibility of the ESDP depends on the added
value of its analyses and proposals. This credibility will be enhanced by the use of the ESDP approach in pilot
action areas, by the involvement of the different tiers of geographical authority - notably regional - in all spatial
planning, and by consensual decision-taking.

The ESDP must not overlook a further factor which influences policy options, namely the
Community's sectoral policies and, in particular, the CAP and the Structural Funds. The Member States will
recognize the ESDP as a useful policy tool once they realize that the ESDP approach helps to prevent programmes
overlapping, and helps to gain a better return on investments (even over the longer term). The ESDP does not seek
to amend the distribution of powers among the various tiers of geographical authority, but to show them how to
follow a spatially-oriented path. Each physical area is a resource that is deployed in order to secure a more rational
and more integrated use of its facilities and of its development potential.

Berlin, 27-28 April: presentation of the ESDP; Naples, 25-26 May: transport; Lille, 22-23 June: urban policy; Thessaloniki, 1-2 July:
water management; Manchester, 17-18 September: access to innovation; Gothenburg, 26-27 October: environment; Salamanca, 15-16
October: rural areas; Vienna, 25-26 November: enlargement.

73
2. Specific comments

2.1 Regarding the proposal for a more balanced and polycentric urban pattern

The COR is pleased that the ESDP considers towns as vital to the dynamism of regional
economies and to the EU's global competitiveness, and as an active custodian of European culture and civilization in
all their manifold forms..

2.1.1 Regarding the diagnosis

The COR considers that the ESDP has enumerated the problems which handicap the development
of the EU's towns and which in some cases are causing their decline. Nevertheless, each town has its own
combination of problems and potential. In analysing these, the ESDP could have pointed out that the policy pursued
by local authorities is vital, and must be accepted and coordinated with all other national or European measures.

The ESDP notes that relevant, comparable information on Europe's towns is a prerequisite for their
proper administration. Here the COR recalls the European Commission's decision to conduct an urban audit of
quality of life in 58 cities, eight conurbations and 21 metropolitan regions. The COR also reiterates its call for an
evaluation of the applicability, validity and viability of certain yardsticks for living conditions in urban areas of all
sizes.

The European urban forum which was held in Vienna in November 1998 scratinized these surveys
and this approach, and recognized the irreplaceable role of local authorities in the framing of an integrated urban
policy. If a group of urban development experts is set up and given permanent status, it is important that such a
group should include representatives of local authorities.

2.1.1.1 There are a few points to which the authors of the ESDP could have given closer attention. One is the
continuing expansion of urban areas, and the other is the changing factors that affect business location and that
encourage the emergence of new growth points. Broadly speaking, the ESDP seems to provide a snapshot of the
present situation, rather than looking ahead to the next 10 or 20 years:

• What is the role of the gateway cities? Should we try to create more of them, and to protect them against their
weaknesses?

• Has the creation of urban clusters and networks helped to determine the optimum population density for '
development? Is there a structural link between urban network and corridor? In what ways do they complement
each other?

• Does the financial cost of the growth of cities and the development of suburbs hide the real cost of the transport
system and other infrastructure?

2.1.1.2 The COR has identified a serious shortcoming in the whole development rationale: 80% of the EU
population live in urban areas, but the ESDP does not take any stance vis-à-vis ordinary people; while it rightly
denounces social exclusion and its damaging effects, it does not envisage giving a role to those who live among or
alongside the victims of exclusion.

74
2.1.2 Regarding strategy

The ESDP puts forward the concept of polycentric cities and of decentralized concentration. It
rightly considers that as urban development has a significant impact on the geographical balance of the EU, each
development must be planned in coordination with other cities/and or with their catchment areas. Furthermore, any
measures to help cities will necessarily involve trans-sectoral spatial planning strategies. All this should lead to a
more balanced, polycentric urban system. This system would have the added benefit of encouraging cooperation
between cities, rethinking the interface between a city and its hinterland, curbing the unnecessary spread of
conurbations, and forging a new relationship between cities and countryside.

2.1.2.1 The polycentric urban system and the functional urban region

The polycentric urban system proposed by the ESDP can provide a spatial action framework
within which cities and neighbouring areas can voice their needs and establish appropriate responses to them.

The COR acknowledges that EU cities face similar problems, and that a more systematic,
coordinated approach is desirable. However, their diverse nature means that it is not possible to impose a one-size-
fits-all system. The COR calls for a flexible application of the three main strands of urban policy, namely:

• strengthening the urban structure and economic competitiveness;

• improving access and transport flow, with priority for public transport;
• highlighting cultural identity and combating all forms of exclusion.

In its concern to reduce urban sprawl and anchor cities more firmly to their catchment areas, the
ESDP could have used the concept of "functional urban regions" (CdR 316/97 fin)3; this means a network of cities
and surrounding areas that are closely interrelated in terms of local and regional economy and the daily mobility of
their citizens.

This concept makes it easier to conduct a multisectoral policy and to adopt decisions in
consultation with all the tiers of geographical players. It also helps to target action on key issues which will vary
from one area to another (economic development, transport, rundown neighbourhoods, pollution, the quality of the
landscape, support for cultural activities). The concept of a functional urban region is also relevant for deciding the
optimum scale and targeting of measures.

Lastly, the COR points out that in order to enhance the impact of the work of local and national
players, the EU must adapt those of its sectoral policies which affect urban areas; new Community measures may
also be needed. This is a moral commitment without which an EU urban policy is not feasible.

2.1.2.2 Sustainable development of cities

To safeguard the future of urban areas, the ESDP puts forward a series of policy options designed
to keep up their economic and service functions, curb urban sprawl, promote prudent management of their eco-
systems, and improve the mobility of their inhabitants.

The COR would like to flesh out these theoretical options by proposing some concrete measures;
such measures, which are a regular feature in some of Europe's cities, seek to bring out the interplay between the
different policy aspects of spatial planning, notably as regards the physical urban area.

OJC251 of 10.8.1998, page 11

75
 For instance, urban sprawl increases transport costs, land-use and energy consumption. Cities may
seek to forestall this by planning growth so that it occurs alongside "established" neighbourhoods, thereby ensuring
that new housing has access to good public transport facilities.

Quality of life has become an important factor in company location. Alongside the availability of
land, companies and their employees are increasingly paying attention to the presence of transport and R&D
facilities and other services. Accordingly, the creation of stable, high quality jobs and a reduction in unemployment
must be the overriding objective of all policies to promote productive activity and of spatial planning policies geared
to this end. Regional planning must stimulate regional productive activity.

Transport is a crucial part of city life. The COR calls for an intermodal transport system with
single pricing for journeys within a defined area, dovetailing with a common transport system for small and medium
sized towns within the same development area, so as to create complementary cultural and economic links.

For conurbations in industrial regions undergoing change, the main aim of sustainable
development should be to devise new urban activities on and around derelict industrial sites.

Lastly, special attention should be paid to historic city centres. Most of Europe's major cities have
a historic core which should be renovated and revitalized, so that it is on a par with other parts of the city. World
heritage cities such as Florence, Weimar or - a few years from now - Prague and Krakow should not be museums,
but cultural centres that are open to all forms of contemporary art.

2.1.2.3 The organization of partnerships

In order to improve urban balance and thus the spatial balance of the EU as a whole, the ESDP
advocates partnerships between towns and considers that these will inject added value into local and/or national
activity.

The COR points out that such partnerships already exist, and that lessons can be drawn from them.
Partnerships between medium sized towns generally embrace several fields; they should have a high profile, and
should produce swift, tangible results. This is vital if they are to win the support of local residents and get them to
work together.

Partnerships between the largest conurbations (gateway cities, capitals, ports and airport cities)
generally cover just one or two main activities and are based on experience-swapping and on the prospect of a
satisfactory solution to a major problem in a reasonable timeframe.

Interreg IIC seeks to encourage such partnerships and to apply the guidelines laid down in the
ESDP. In the north western metropolitan area, the national and regional authorities have focused on urban areas and
transport. In the former case, the aim has been to boost the competitiveness of border towns and give stronger
support to town networks. In the transport sector, the focus has been on improving the accessibility of urban
transport, limiting road traffic, and developing intermodal systems.

If all Europe's towns are to be able to take part in partnership schemes, they must be helped along
the way by learning from existing partnerships. This is particularly important in the case of the partnerships to be
forged with the cities of central and eastern Europe. The relevant COR liaison group could help consider the
adjustments that will be needed here.

76
 The COR would have liked the ESDP to give more details about the aims and practical procedures
of such partnerships, as they could inject new vigour into existing economic activities or help to foster future
development. This last point is particularly important for regions at risk of "desertification", certain outlying regions
and, above all, for the outermost regions. The ESDP should have given more consideration to the special problems
of these regions; it should have suggested spatial measures for making the most of their potential, and instilled
confidence in the worth of the proposed action.

2.1.3 Implementation

On the subject of the ESDP's urban policy proposals, the COR reiterates the regrets it has
repeatedly expressed about the failure of the new Objective 2 to take sufficient account of urban measures and to
draw the appropriate conclusions from the Urban initiative. The same is true as regards rural areas; the ESDP should
have provided ideas on the use of the Structural Funds in these areas.

2.1.3.1 The COR asks that the eligibility criteria for Objective 2 authorize operations (including ad hoc ones) that
fit into the wider planning of cities and functional urban regions. The COR considers that Objective 3 should
promote the economic growth of cities and functional urban regions, and help them to fight exclusion. Lastly, it
suggests that measures to help cities and functional urban regions be encouraged and extended within Objective 1.

The COR reiterates its call for Community sectoral policies to cater for programmes for cities and
functional urban regions. Community aid should also be available for facilitating programmes which are coordinated
among the different tiers of geographical authority.

2.1.3.2 As was noted in the COR opinion on urban issues (316/97 fin), the implementation of an EU urban policy
also requires some changes at institutional level. Progress has been made regarding the establishment of an
interdisciplinary team, assisted by a group of experts, within the European Commission. The COR points out that
local authority representatives should also take part. Their involvement will not only bring the benefit of their
expertise, it will also enable local authorities in general to give new thought to urban issues.

Action to help cities and functional urban regions generally calls for long-term, costly
programmes. Support should be enlisted from private and sometimes foreign investors; the globalization of the
economy can and should be exploited in order to inject new vitality into EU towns and functional urban regions.

2.1.3.3 The COR stresses the need to involve the local authorities because it is through them that the public can
play a part in boosting social cohesion and economic development. At present, the public is largely unfamiliar with
the ESDP; yet the ESDP could provide a useful opportunity for them to reconsider their role in the planning and
development of their region.

2.2 A new form of relations between urban and rural areas

2.2.1 Partnership between towns and countryside

The COR feels that metropolitan rather than rural regions pose the main problems in this context,
and that their problems often upset the balance of rural areas. For instance, some big cities "encroach" on rural areas
to meet their need for land on which to build transport infrastructure and housing. At the same time, certain factors
complicate relations between the big cities and their catchment areas.

77
 Despite steady urbanization, businesses and people continue to relocate from city centres to the
suburbs. People are becoming increasingly demanding about the size and cost of accommodation and quality of the
environment. All too often, these aspirations can only be met outside city centres. This also leads to social
segregation. Companies which are no longer obliged to set up inside cities seek larger, cheaper sites near road and
motorway networks, where they can operate and expand more easily.

Cities are obliged to maintain their infrastructure, especially social and cultural facilities, despite
falling revenue. They also have to extend the public transport network to surrounding areas, and this is very
expensive. Commuter journeys become longer and longer, causing rush-hour congestion on the main access roads.

City development has to involve the suburbs too, as in conurbations administrative responsibilities
give way to political imperatives. In order to overcome the ensuing administrative constraints and financial
problems, the COR considers that there is an urgent need to improve joint city/hinterland planning and regional
cooperation by providing for forms of spatial planning coordination between local and regional authorities.

The EU population will continue to live mainly in the large urban regions which are the motor of
Europe's economic development. In order to achieve the ESDP's prime aim of sustainable, balanced development, it
is vital to establish special policy strategies for these regions.

Finally, the COR would stress two points:

• the problems faced by major conurbations and by smaller towns in relation to their catchment areas differ, and
call for different solutions;

• the ESDP should limit itself to offering guidelines which best respect the activity of local operators.

2.2.2 Diversification of activity in rural areas

The ESDP makes a short but discerning analysis of the development of the role of rural areas.
However, the policy options which it proposes for rural areas suggest that their main purpose is to safeguard the
viability of conurbations. For instance, it states that energy production close to large cities, from biomass and urban
waste, could help economic diversification in rural areas. Under no circumstances is this the right path for
sustainable rural development.

Similarly, the COR cannot endorse the unqualified statement that intensive farming does not
aggravate matters. Intensive farming could eliminate the attractions of the countryside as a place for tourism and
relaxation; it also poses a threat to ground water and may speed up soil erosion. Neither can traditional agriculture
be left to meet the challenges of international competition unaided; this type of farming is much better geared to
sustainability and helps to preserve man-made landscapes.

Rural areas account for almost 80% of the EU. They play a key role in the production of foodstuffs
and in wider ecological terms, but these are not their only functions. Rural areas must not be considered as a
repository of biodiversity, natural assets, landscapes and environment solely at the service of city dwellers. The
importance of rural areas as independent areas of habitation and economic activity is beyond dispute. The COR
thinks that the ESDP guidelines and considerations should pay them greater attention.

78
 Each rural area should be considered in terms of its structural strengths and weaknesses. After
obtaining a snapshot of the different areas and pinpointing the disparities between them, guidelines should be drawn
up for securing autonomous development while also ensuring an equal quality of life. Rural areas should not be
viewed as "poor relations" of urban areas, but as equal partners who can be involved in joint projects.

The Council of Europe's European convention on rural areas (1998) stresses the need to treat urban
and rural areas equally, and to tailor rural development first and foremost to the interests and needs of the rural
population. The COR supports the Council of Europe's recommendations on the development of rural areas, and
proposes that the ESDP take account of the abovementioned European convention.

The often high levels of unemployment in rural areas near large towns reflect the economic .
difficulties of these areas. Inadequate education and training facilities in rural areas force young people to move
away, as well as creating social disparities and aggravating the ageing of the population.

In peripheral, thinly populated rural areas, small towns act as important economic and cultural
centres. The ESDP's policy objectives should therefore include sustainable growth of such towns, for example
upgrading their roads, public transport networks, and linkages with their catchment areas.

The Nature 2000 programme of protected regions will be applied almost exclusively in the EU's
rural areas. While the programme may affect the potential for developing economic activity in some areas, it will
nevertheless offer opportunities for diversification. The COR calls for local populations to be involved in the
implementation of Nature 2000. The economic, social and cultural function of these areas should be preserved, so
that they do not become "nature museums".

Eastward enlargement of the EU will also increase the need to strengthen rural areas, as most of
EU's internal border regions are rural. The COR considers that the development of these regions should also be
promoted by cross-border cooperation between national, regional and local authorities.

2.3 Access to communications infrastructure

EU infrastructure and transport policies should aim for a more coherent and environment-friendly
transport and communications system. Advances in communications technologies will also bring major changes in
the siting and nature of economic activity.

2.3.1 The COR suggests the following ways of improving access to transport and communications
infrastructure:

• improve infrastructure, including ground and air transport services and shipping services, in landlocked,
peripheral, ultraperipheral and other remote regions;

• promote more balanced intercontinental mobility to and from the major ports and airports;

• improve accessibility in areas without direct access to the main networks, by means of regional public transport;

• improve access to telecom facilities and adjust tariffs to make them compatible with the provision of "universal
services" in sparsely populated areas and in economically less favoured regions.

79
2.3.1.1 With a view to more effective, sustainable use of infrastructure, the COR recommends the following:

• encourage location policies which reduce dependence on private cars and encourage multi-modal transport;

• contain road transport on congested axes, for instance by road pricing and inclusion of environmental costs in
transport and by encouraging a shift in freight transport from road to rail.

• promote multi-modal and combined transport on Euro-corridors, including exploitation of opportunities offered
by European ports for coastal and short sea shipping;

• share and coordinate management of infrastructure where competition is resulting in over-supply;

• improve links between national and regional-level transport services, particularly in sparsely populated areas.

The regions have an important part to play here, alongside the Member States, in drawing attention
to their particular circumstances and exploring the potential for including some of their development projects in
cross-border cooperation schemes.

The COR deems it essential to classify EU sub-regions on the basis of criteria applicable to
different countries (or regions). This will enable local and regional authorities to compare their typologies, policies
and tools in place, to launch new joint activities and to establish a "clearing-house" for these.

2.3.1.2 The COR considers that the structure, form and use made of infrastructure determine the organization of
the EU area. Account must also be taken of technological advances in the transport, mobility and communications
field (télécoms, high-speed rail links), the tightening-up of environmental standards, and the opening-up of business
links with central and eastern Europe which will bring new transport flows.

The COR notes that national policies regarding major infrastructure have often led to
inconsistencies. The remaining regional gaps must be filled.

Any plans must also bear in mind that while road transport is undoubtedly the most important
mode, other modes become more competitive as distance increases. Intermodal policies, inter alia for cross-border
areas, must therefore receive priority attention. The development of public transport fits in with this approach and
must be supported.

This development is vital for a number of reasons. It helps to relieve urban congestion, breathe
new life into residential areas, and boost economic and cultural vitality. It improves links between rural areas and
nearby "magnet areas". It means that high-speed train links can be used over medium distances, and that train and
air services can complement each other.

2.3.1.3 We are now seeing the emergence of development corridors with heavy traffic flows and a highly dynamic
siting of economic activities.

A "Eurocorridor" links EU-level metropolitan areas and is characterized by significant

supraregional and international traffic and trade which can buttress local development processes.

80
 Eurocorridors should thus be an important tool for coordinating spatial planning at national and
regional level, provided that national and regional authorities reconcile economic growth with environmental
improvements; in other words, that they apply the principle of sustainable development.

Cross-border networking is of great importance for exploiting the synergies offered by the larger
European market, establishing closer links between regions and - in the case of more peripheral regions - keeping up
with new developments in the core regions of Europe. Cooperation with third countries such as the countries of
Eastern Europe also benefits considerably from the further development of Eurocorridors.

In conclusion, an integrated EU approach to spatial planning must embrace infrastructure,

transport modes and distribution, and accommodate the rapid growth of telecommunication technologies.

2.3.2 Access to new information and communications technologies (ICT)

The COR feels that the establishment of an EU information policy is essential, given the
continuing development of the telecommunications sector. Without a coherent strategy on this, there is a serious
danger that certain regions and towns will become less attractive.

The ESDP rightly sees ICT as a means of overcoming the adverse impact of geographical
remoteness on business start-ups. The expansion and spread of communication networks throughout the EU must
therefore be stepped up.

2.3.2.1 The COR thinks that geographically balanced development of ICT is a precondition for achieving the broad
aims of the ESDP. Concentration of ICT in the most developed regions and cities can only increase disparities, and
will encourage migration. The COR therefore strongly urges that account be taken of the close relation between
regional disparities and the development of ICT access.

2.3.2.2 The COR wishes to draw attention to two points:

• the whole population must have access to ICT. The information society is a user-friendly educational
instrument; it concerns everyone, young and old;

• the national and regional authorities should address the effects of deregulation, especially the danger that
services will deteriorate or become more expensive.

The COR notes that public monopolies failed to establish the requisite infrastructure, and that the
most developed networks are to be found in regions where there has been deregulation.

Regional and local authorities must take steps to ensure that their communities are not excluded
from the information society. This problem is felt in most of the outlying regions, and will also arise in the candidate
countries.

81
2.3.3 Diffusion of knowledge and innovation capacity

The COR approves the manner in which the ESDP considers this issue. In order for innovation to
help the economy cope with global competition, the EU's handling of research must be improved, and a constructive
dialogue must be established between scientists, industry and the political and administrative authorities. The
regions must be involved in the framing and implementation of knowledge and innovation policy, as this will make
the policy more effective. Lastly, the benefits of innovation must no longer be the preserve of just a few countries,
and of a few regions within those countries.

2.3.3.1 Access to knowledge and innovation

While some areas of the EU enjoy intense scientific activity and high levels of investment, others
have traditional, sometimes obsolete, unprofitable economic structures based on artisanal techniques. In these (often
outlying or upland) regions, firms tend to be small and to lack knowledge and innovation capacity. These regions
and their populations raise issues of social cohesion and solidarity for the whole EU.

The ESDP proposes improving general education levels and skills in these regions, and including
research and development and innovation in a development strategy.

The COR recommends measures more closely geared to the specific needs of the local economic
fabric, and to improving the skills of participants in existing or potential business networks and familiarizing them
with new production methods and technologies.

The ESDP might have pointed out that a significant contribution from the Structural Funds is vital
for launching such a policy. The percentage allocated so far has been woefully inadequate, at an overall 1%4. In
order to meet their social cohesion and development goals, the Structural Funds must support knowledge and
innovation and encourage regional programmes which devote serious attention to them. Successful examples are not
lacking .

2.3.3.2 Action to support small businesses

Measures for disseminating knowledge and innovation must be directed first and foremost at small
businesses since their access to innovation is only half that of large firms. A balanced, polycentric urban system will
mean a more even spread of knowledge throughout the EU. This will help both SMEs and lagging regions.

To this end, the COR wishes to recommend measures calculated to help businesses make the most
of innovation. Innovative businesses create twice as many jobs as traditional ones, and any costs should be offset
against the economic, social and human costs of lay-offs or closures. The COR recommends:

• training schemes to help the local workforce leam innovative techniques;

• support for research institutes which establish partnerships and exchanges with other institutes, and offer
researchers business placements either to familiarize them with management techniques or to facilitate the
transfer of technology. Partnerships with large companies should also be encouraged;

• the introduction of technologies for disseminating knowledge, and logistical back-up for job creation;

1994-99 figures for Objective 1: 5%; Objective 2: 17%; Objective 5b: 2%; Objective 6: 8%.
5
North Jutland (Objective 2), Wales: regional technology plan.

82
• establishment of a legal and financial framework assisting SMEs with long-term loans, pension funds, venture
capital, and tax breaks for the launch of new products or the adoption of new production methods.

The COR considers that the ESDP should adopt the above measures to help Europe's small
business sector.

2.3.3.3 The role of the regions

The ESDP policy options mention the role of the regions.

The COR points out that the EU's regional and local authorities have total or partial responsibility
for education and training. They would therefore appear ideally placed to spread ICT use not only in schools but
also among the population in general.

The regions can also draw up an integrated R&D and innovation strategy that is tailored to their
economic structure and fleshes out the regional development plans for the next programming period of the Structural
Funds. Drawing on past experience, it should be possible to make an ex ante evaluation of the consistency of the
R&D and innovation strategy set out in the regional development plans. A set of indicators should be devised for
monitoring and assessing how effectively knowledge and innovation are being disseminated.

The COR points out that the concept of the "learning region", combined with those of business
"clusters" and industrial districts, has already shown its potential. These formulas all promote the role of local
players and the active support of the regional authority, recognizing that this is the best level at which to identify
mismatches between supply and demand for knowledge and innovation, effectively organize dialogue between
businesses and the education/research system, see that no exclusion or fragmentation of employment ensues, and
propose appropriate financial aid.

2.4 Management and development of the natural and cultural heritage

The COR regrets that the policy options recommended in the ESDP do not pay more attention to
protection of the natural environment and EU environmental protection policy. This is also true of the policy
statements on air pollution, climate, soil conservation, land use, and exploitation of the natural environment.
Sustainable spatial planning must take account of all aspects of environmental protection.

The sections on the natural and cultural heritage must be revised. It is illogical to consider the
natural heritage only in relation to rural areas, and the cultural heritage only in relation to urban ones. Natural and
man-made landscapes are all part of the same Europe, and one can hardly describe the châteaux of the Loire or the
castles of the Rhine as part of the "urban" cultural heritage. Urban areas too have natural landscapes which it is
particularly important to preserve. At the same time, and as an essential complement to the network of natural areas
(Nature 2000 network), thought must be given to the establishment of a network of open spaces around towns and
cities, to interlink the network of natural landscapes and provide areas for recreation.

83
 Tourism is a vital economic activity for protecting and making the most of the natural and cultural
heritage. However, it must not be confined to the most well-known natural and cultural attractions. The promotion
of a regional "green" tourism in man-made landscapes is an essential stage towards protecting them and for the
economic survival of rural communities. It is also important that the public be made aware of the ecological
importance of these landscapes.

The COR thinks that this chapter of the ESDP needs to be expanded.

2.4.1 Protection and development of the natural heritage

The COR considers that this requires more than simply identifying individual protected areas. It
therefore supports the establishment of a network of protected areas as provided for in the Habitats directive. When
the Habitats directive has been fully implemented, the Community will have a basic European.conservation network
to safeguard its natural heritage. This will provide a springboard for the ESDP and for EU spatial planning,
dovetailing with the other policy strands.

The COR considers that forests have a strategic role in the future EU area. It therefore thinks that
the proposals on the various ecological and economic functions of forests should be expanded, as should indications
for encouraging rational technical management of them.

Natural disasters - when not caused entirely or in part by man - are part of the ecosystem. The
serious damage they cause is in many cases the result of the way the area has been used. A long-term prevention
policy is needed in order to save human life and physical assets.

2.4.2 Conservation and creative management of the man-made landscapes of Europe

The COR stresses the importance for regional identity of the EU's man-made landscapes, which
are also essential for the economy and for tourism.

Cultural landscapes are those which have been fashioned by human activity. The interest of man-
made landscapes originates in the use of traditional farming practices, and conserving them often necessitates
extensive farming methods which will not damage them. Their upkeep must thus be encouraged, especially in
upland and mountain regions. In cases where activities have to be prohibited in order to protect the landscape,
compensation should be provided.

The COR feels that, in present circumstances, it is not generally possible to "develop these
landscapes creatively"; programmes must nevertheless be drawn up which take account of the great importance of
maintaining them.

2.4.3 Conservation and creative management of the urban cultural heritage

Aside from the special importance of historic buildings in determining city identity and character,
the COR thinks that this chapter should cover the main man-made assets whose upkeep is too costly to be
shouldered by local and regional authorities.

84
 Europe also has a significant scientific and industrial heritage which is as just as much a part of its
culture as its historic monuments. Mention should also be made of archaeological remains that have yet to be
discovered; and which must not be allowed to disappear for ever under the concrete of new buildings. These remains
must also be protected against some of the effects of intensive farming and the construction of road and rail
infrastructure.

The COR points out that the EU's cultural heritage does not just involve physical assets. Regional
traditions, communication culture and popular art are integral parts of the European spirit and of regional identity.

2.4.4 Management of water resources

Universal access to a sufficient supply of high-quality water is a prerequisite for sustainable

economic development.

The ESDP rightly notes the importance of water as a natural resource and proposes that water
management be included in spatial planning, stressing the need for a transnational approach. However, the ESDP's
analysis focuses on two main problems, namely flood prevention and the fight against drought. These are not the
only possible water management policies, nor indeed does the ESDP appear to cover all aspects of these two.

2.4.4.1 Prevention of flood risk

Traditional flood prevention methods need to be improved. Disasters caused by floods are
becoming more and more frequent and carry increasing socio-economic costs. Further scientific research is needed
on water issues, notably as regards the impact of abstraction, dams and public works (e.g. roads, deforestation),
world and local climate change, changes in land use, study of flooding patterns, and the maximum extent ofrivers
during high-water periods.

The ESDP could have laid more stress on the impact of certain sectoral policies (whether EU,
national or regional), such as urbanization and housing, transport infrastructure and the CAP. It should be stressed
that the best way of protecting cities and plains from flooding is to take greater care over upland settlements,
continue to practise farming and forestry, and keep anti-flood defences in good order.

The COR supports the preventive measures promoted by Interreg IIC with the aim of combating
river flooding and flood damage. This programme should be extended to other river basins (mainly those straddling
borders), and Interreg IIC's financial resources should be increased.

2.4.4.2 The fight against drought

Some of the above comments and suggestions also apply to drought-threatened areas. However,
account must also be taken of other, more complex factors at play in these areas.

Technical advances in irrigation and heavy demand for agricultural produce have led to an
increase in cultivated area, which has aggravated water shortages. The building of new dams and reservoirs has not
sufficed, and ground water has had to be pumped out, bringing the risks of over-exploitation and use of polluted
water.

85
 In such regions, the problem is not only one of water shortages, but also of competition between
users. This raises the question of whether the cost of water should be increased in response to the shortages caused
by drought. The COR rejects this idea. It is up to the EU, national and local authorities to ensure a minimum
constant supply to affected regions.

The COR offers the, following suggestions:

• develop techniques for reusing urban waste water and irrigation water;

• conduct further research on desalination, both of water for urban areas and for irrigation;

• explore the possibility of building large-scale water storage facilities, as is done in the case of gas, using
northern Europe's water.

3. The implementation of the ESDP and its implications

The ESDP seeks to provide a spatial planning framework for constructively integrating policies
and action programmes. In so doing, the ESDP should help to further the EU's economic and social cohesion,
sustainable development, balanced competitiveness, and environmental conservation; this latter point has received
insufficient priority hitherto.

The application of the ESDP's concept of spatial planning also depends on its espousal by all the
relevant EU, national, regional and local players, who must cooperate and coordinate their respective action
programmes.

To facilitate this, the ESDP proposes:

• systematic inclusion of spatial-planning considerations in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of

Community policies, inter alia regarding the candidate countries;

• swifter development of transnational, interregional and crossborder cooperation between States and regions, for
instance via the Intereg IIC pilot measures;

• information campaigns to make the relevant players and the EU public more familiar with the ESDP approach.

The COR broadly supports these proposals, but wishes to add some further comments on the
following points:

• Community sectoral policies;

• Agenda 2000 - reform of the Structural Funds and enlargement;
• Extension of the Interreg initiative;
• Regulatory bases and tasks of the ESPON.

86
3.1 Community sectoral policies

Spatial planning demands a cross-functional approach that ensures consistency between sectoral
policies at EU, national and regional level. The aim should be to achieve greater equity between regions and their
populations, countering the sometimes adverse effects of unchecked market forces which are not offset by public
intervention. Those responsible for spatial planning often opt for a different approach: it is not a matter of securing
more even growth in a particular region, country or part of Europe, but of concentrating development instruments on
particular appropriate areas. The aim is to build on an analysis of needs in order to gamer the support of all the
relevant local and other players, with a view to meeting these needs as effectively as possible.

In the COR's view, this does not mean amending or supplementing Community sectoral policies,
but reviewing their implementing arrangements in the light, firstly, of their impact on particular regions and,
secondly, of the requisite dialogue with local players.

The interdepartmental group which the European Commission has appointed to look into the
relations between Community policies and spatial planning is a step in the right direction, but does not go far
enough as it does not affect the actual framing of sectoral policies. The group should produce a Commission
agreement to alter the procedure for framing sectoral policies and their content "from within". It is reasonable to
suppose that if, for instance, the Essen European Council's programme for EU transport infrastructure had been
buttressed by other Community sectoral policies or national or regional programmes that lent weight to it, a larger
proportion of this infrastructure might have been built - or might be being built - by now.

3.1.1 The Common Agricultural Policy

The new CAP reduces support for farm prices, and places greater emphasis on rural development
and environmental measures. The CAP thus has new tasks that have spatial planning implications: diversified
agriculture, the promotion of related activities in rural areas, assistance for young farmers and to stem the rural
exodus, creation of jobs in the forestry sector and in environmental protection, upkeep of the landscape, tourism and
the processing of agricultural products.

The COR has endorsed these objectives before (see Opinion CdR 239/96 fin6). In the light of the
ESDP, it recommends that the CAP pay even greater attention to rural development, and invest the requisite
resources in the diversification of the rural economy, quality production, the processing of agricultural products, the
organization of recreational and tourist areas, and the safeguarding of rural society on the basis of viable, family .
farms that can compete on world markets.

A spatial analysis of the CAP's impact on land use and on natural resource management should
help with the framing of an environmental policy for the agriculture sector. If the ESDP is to succeed in promoting
prudent management of the natural and man-made heritage, account must be taken of the CAP's impact on local and
regional efforts to safeguard natural areas and biodiversity.

With a view to EU enlargement, and given the importance of agriculture in the candidate
countries, the resources freed under the new CAP should be used to help reform farm structures in these countries,
drawing on experience with certain problem sectors in the EU in order to strike a balance between structural
improvement of agricultural systems, appropriate price levels and health standards for foodstuffs, and diversification
of the rural economy.

OJ.C116 of 14.4.1997, page 39

87
3.1.2 Environment policy

The ESDP should help to provide a clearer definition of the areas covered by the relevant
directives (Habitats directive, environmental impact directive, etc.) and by conservation measures (Nature 2000).
Description of the environmental protection measures to be taken within the EU will help local and regional
authorities in their activity. Such measures include waste management and monitoring plans that take account of
techniques for emission abatement, discharge monitoring, and separation of waste at the point of origin. Community
environment policy must get in step with the ESDP, so that decision-taking can benefit from the grassroots
knowledge of the local and regional authorities.

3.1.3 Trans-European networks

The COR notes that although the ESDP stresses the need to consider transport systems from a
wider perspective, it does not devote sufficient attention to short and long distance sea transport. The COR considers
that the development of sea transport, whether in the Mediterranean, the Atlantic or the Baltic, could help to secure a
more even and effective distribution of trade over a wider area. The interface between sea and land transport
represents a major spatial planning issue for the EU, and will test its ability to meet the challenge of globalization.
The COR also stresses the importance of developing inter- and intra-regional links that encourage economic activity
and economic relations between the regions concerned.

3.2 Agenda 2000 - Reform of the Structural Funds and enlargement

The COR considers that greater coordination is needed between the ESDP and Agenda 2000, not
least because they both seek to use the EU budget more effectively in the light of past experience and world
economic developments and in preparation for the accession of new member states.

Certain considerations common to both documents need to be further developed:

3.2.1 The reform of the Structural Funds

The Agenda 2000 proposals for reforming the Structural Funds have been shaped by three main
factors: experience with these Funds since the 1992 reform, Member States' reluctance to increase their
contributions, and, above all, the prospect of EU enlargement to those candidate countries which fulfil the political
and economic criteria for opening the pre-accession process.

3.2.1.1 The ESDP provides vital new input for this reform because:

• it seeks to make existing instruments more effective, so that the same amount of EU resources will provide
more efficient support; this in tum should bolster Agenda 2000's objectives for prospective member states and
offset possible limitations on public spending in existing Member States;

• it accommodates the proposal (made by both the Commission and the COR) for operational coordination of the
various Structural Funds and for harmonization of administrative procedures so as to avoid overlaps and
excessive costs.

In its Opinion 131/97 on arrangements for structural policy after 1999, the COR stated that "EU
structural policy needs a new approach making it possible to establish more ambitious development strategies based
on partnership and on territorial development projects....".

88
3.2.1.2 The COR notes that all too often, projects are "divided up" so as to receive financial assistance according to
the specific rales of each fund. The COR favours systematic provision for global programmes eligible for support
from several funds (ERDF+ESF+EAGGF-Guidance and Guarantee). This would provide an unequivocal
demonstration of EU added value. The COR recommends that programmes in Objective 1 regions adopt the ESDP's
spatial planning approach. The ESDP approach is more difficult to apply in Objective 2 areas, which are more
complex and receive less funding, but the ESDP is even more vital here, especially for urban areas and the relation
between urban and rural areas.

The COR emphasizes the usefulness of the global approach and of identifying the relevant
geographical area when drawing up an Objective 2 programme. The areas selected should tap a wide range of
measures spanning research and development, innovation, transport and communications infrastructure, aid for
small businesses and the setting-up of service companies, training for young people in deprived neighbourhoods,
specific local measures and local public/private partnerships. Such measures should trigger a real regeneration of the
urban fabric and economy.

Once the ESDP approach has been tested, fine-tuned and developed, it could provide the basis for
the next reform of the Structural Funds in the year 2006.

3.2.2 Enlargement

EU enlargement represents a unique opportunity and challenge, and could also provide the
opportunity to try out the ESDP's spatial approach.

There are three preconditions for this:

• the local and regional authorities of the candidate countries must be given the capacity and resources to become
major players in spatial planning;

• the administrative authorities in the candidate countries must be equipped with instruments enabling them to
draw up global programmes, with their local and regional authorities, qualifying for EU financial aid;

• EU aid must be coordinated (Ecos/ouverture, Phare, Tacis, and aid from the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development).

The COR's liaison group could give the various authorities the benefit of their experience here and
provide practical information on the EU's sectoral policies and on use of the Structural Funds.

This approach could be extended to the regions of neighbouring countries such as Switzerland and
Norway. The COR recommends that environmental, R&D, culture and transport infrastructure policies be
incorporated in regionally based development programmes geared to the different local and regional situations. This
would illustrate the soundness of the ESDP approach, and the added value which it injects. It would give local and
regional decision-makers in these countries a say in the development of their regions, and could speed up their
accession to the EU. A similar approach could also underpin action in the Mediterranean area. The COR thinks that
using the Interreg cooperation procedure, in all its forms, will also improve the chances of success.

89
3.3 Extension of the Interreg initiative

The ESDP rightly stresses the lessons to be learned from the Interreg IIC pilot actions, deeming
these a vital instrument for promoting transnational, interregional and crossborder implementation of the ESDP, and
for developing a spatial approach based on "relevant action areas"; this should make it possible to deal with different
configurations and prevent the action areas from becoming too unwieldy.

In order to achieve this objective of extending and "standardizing" cooperation, the COR considers
that four conditions must be met:

• the national, regional and local authorities concerned must have "credible" machinery for discussing, devising
and administering spatial planning schemes;

• these authorities, and the EU, must be sure of having sufficient funding to carry out their joint programmes;

• there must be spatial coherence across the areas concerned in terms of common strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats;

• the management body must have a clear legal status, in order to put crossborder and/or transnational
cooperation on a firm footing.

The COR feels that this last condition is essential. If the crossborder body does not have a
recognized legal status it will not have the stature needed to influence the relevant authorities and to receive and
administer the funds needed for the programme for which it is responsible. The COR would also stress that although
the cooperation bodies should give priority consideration to the action areas proposed by the ESDP, they should be
free to add other more specific topics geared to their local circumstances, and to decide the geographical area which
the programme will cover.

The COR does not feel it appropriate to enter into the detailed implementing arrangements for the
various strands of interregional, crossborder and transnational cooperation. It would nevertheless recommend that
interregional cooperation (i.e. cooperation which only covers a few regions, whether adjacent or not) be treated on
the same footing as cooperation between several countries and generally covering larger areas.

Lastly, the COR suggests that the Commission organizes specific follow-up to all the cooperation
projects, in order to swap information and fuel discussions within the ESPON, make provision for the financial
resources to be drawn from the Structural Funds, and take stock of the widening of Interreg IIC with a view to
launching an Interreg III which is more broadly based in terms of action and legal and financial back-up, paying
particular attention to the development of city networks.

90
3.4 Regulatory bases and tasks of the ESPON

The COR hopes that the ESPON will be finalized as soon as possible. The COR wishes to be
involved in its operation, by participating in its administrative board and in its various activities.

The COR stresses the importance of the legal bases of the ESPON, with a view to ensuring that it
receives the appropriations needed to carry out its duties. It is not feasible for the ESPON to receive ERDF Article
10 funding indefinitely. Under the current EC Treaty, it would be up to the Member States to provide financial
contributions and to decide which member(s) of their information and discussion network will participate. The COR
recommends that an effort be made to use Treaty Article 235 as the regulatory base, and that the ESPON be
allocated a special line in the European Union budget, which will be approved by the European Parliament, thereby
ensuring that ESPON activities are supported by the European Commission.

The Spatial Development Committee (SDC) will entrust the ESPON with a certain number of
duties that should help to spread the ESDP rationale among all spatial planning players. Here it should draw on the
proceedings and the conclusions of the thematic seminars.

The COR stresses the importance of assessing the effectiveness of the territorial partnership and of
the regions' involvement therein. The COR thinks that the regions should have direct access to the information
gathered by the ESPON, as well as access to its scientific and technical documents. The COR supports the idea of a
link between the ESPON and the bodies responsible for Interreg IIC activities. It recommends that this link be
extended to all the interregional partners. Lastly, the COR asks that the regional and local authorities be consulted
on the selection of the network(s) that will be responsible for coordination within the Member States.

4. Conclusions

The ESDP is an ongoing process for discussing and adjusting Community policies in the light of
their spatial impact. It represents Member States' chief instrument for appreciating the common factors which
underpin their spatial development and hence for taking the necessary account of the ESDP when administering
their respective areas.

The ESDP seeks to reach a consensus on the coordination and adaptation of Community sectoral
policies and on the framing and implementation of the resultant programmes carried out by local, regional and
national authorities. This involvement should also include the socio-economic players who contribute to local
development.

The ESDP forms part of a democratic strategy based on the subsidiarity principle and on
interregional, crossborder and transnational cooperation.

The COR supports the ESDP approach and spatial development concept, and will work for their
success. To this end, the COR asks that local authorities - who play a significant practical and financial role in
spatial planning policies - be fully consulted on and involved in the framing and implementation of the ESDP. The
COR also asks to sit as an observer on the Spatial Development Committee.

91
4.1 The present opinion seeks to enhance the first draft of the ESDP which offered too limited a choice
of policy options and guidelines. These relate to the spatial aspects of economic globalization and of EU
enlargement, the emergence of some of these territories, the crucial importance of access to innovation and new
communication technologies for SMEs and for the general public, the importance of surface transport, the scant
attention paid to rural areas and to the role they play, the need to guarantee them a real partnership with urban areas,
the lessons to be learned from all forms of intra- and interregional cooperation, and the attention that must be
devoted to culture, the environment and the EU's man-made and natural heritage.

The COR has endeavoured to flesh out the policy options put forward in the ESDP by suggesting
practical initiatives, many of which have already been tried out by local and regional players. These schemes help to
meet the economic and cultural challenges facing Europe's urban areas and their hinterlands, and relate to the daily
lives of their populations. Whether people live in urban, suburban or rural areas, they share the same concerns - their
job (most often in a small company), the time they spend travelling, the need to update their skills, the state of their
environment, and their cultural identity.

Here the COR points out that it is up to the ESDP to help the lagging, peripheral and
ultraperipheral and upland regions to analyse their needs and potential, so that EU policies can help enhance their
competitiveness within the EU spatial area.

The COR thinks that the ESPON should give local and regional authorities a bigger input into its
activities.

The COR urges that proper Community legal basis be established for both the ESDP and ESPON,
recognizing the need for both the Commission and the Spatial Development Committee to have ownership of them.

4.2 In addition to these comments and recommendations, the COR reiterates the principles which must
guide the future development of the ESDP.

The ESDP was not set up as a new tier of planning, or to alter the powers and responsibilities of
national, regional and local authorities.

instead, it seeks to promote institutionalized cooperation on spatial planning policy at EU level:

• firstly, by encouraging a change in the framing and implementation of Community sectoral policies, so as to
take account of their impact on spatial planning and make them more effective;

• secondly, by developing the concept of "relevant planning and action areas", which may be regional,
interregional or transnational, so that all programmes promoted by the geographical authorities are implemented
in a coordinated manner.

The ESDP should build on Interreg IIC and ensine that Interreg III has a clear legal basis and
makes provision for specific pilot measures on the topics included in the final draft of the ESDP; these topics should
be supplemented by the conclusions of the current series of seminars and by suggestions from the EU institutions,
notably the COR.

92
 These programmes could be conducted in "European cooperation areas". They would provide a
testbed for increasing the effectiveness of the Structural Funds and for new CAP tasks, first and foremost as regards
the environment and the countryside. They should also help further economic development and create new jobs.

The ESDP should help with EU enlargement, by proposing specific measures to help the border
areas of the candidate countries meet the economic, demographic and logistical challenges facing them. These
measures could also be extended to other countries bordering the EU.

4.3 The COR points out that the ESDP must provide an opportunity for regional and local authorities
to develop their diversity while showing their ability to ground their spatial planning programmes in a European
approach. To do this, it must insist on adherence to the "bottom-up" approach and the vital nature of the partnership
with regional and local authorities.

Throughout this opinion, the COR has shown that local and regional authorities are key players in
spatial planning, and that their participation is essential for achieving most of the objectives of the ESDP. This
participation must henceforth be guaranteed at both national and European level.

Lastly, given that the role of the. ESDP is to offer a new spatial perspective to national, regional
and local decision-makers, it must also provide them - via the ESPON - with information and arguments to convince
them of its worth. Its analysis and recommendations must be presented in clear terms, backed by appropriate maps,
and must be accessible to local development players and to the public.

The success of the ESDP's spatial approach depends on its espousal by the public and by the
authorities closest to them. This represents a challenge for democracy and subsidiarity and for the sustainable
development of the European economy.

Brussels, 14 January 1999.

The President The Secretary-General

of the of the
Committee of the Regions Committee of the Regions

Manfred Dammeyer Dietrich Pause

93
 REG/131
ESDP

Brussels, 9 September 1998

OPINION
of the
Economic and Social Committee
on the
European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) - First official draft

94
 On 2 July 1998 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 23(c) of itsralesof
procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the

European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) -first official draft.

The Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning, which was responsible
for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 17 July 1998. The rapporteur was Mr
Boussat.

At its 357th plenary session (meeting of 9 September 1998), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 110 votes to two, with two abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1 At the informal meeting of spatial planning ministers held in Liège in 1993 under the
Belgian Presidency, the Member States decided to draw up a European Spatial Development Perspective
(ESDP), in order to provide guidance on EU spatial development policy.

1.2 An initial document entitled principles for a European spatial development policy was
adopted at the informal meeting in Leipzig in 1994. This document lays down the general criteria and
guidelines for drafting the perspective and is based on a Commission Communication, issued the same
year, entitled Europe 2000+ - cooperation for European territorial development, on which the
Committee issued opinions in March1 and September 19952.

1.3 The Spatial Development Committee (an inter-governmental working group comprising
representatives of the Member States and the Commission) drew up a first official draft of the ESDP
which was submitted to an informal meeting of the competent ministers in Noordwijk on 9 and 10 June
1997.

1.4 The presidency's conclusions on this occasion stress the importance of the draft as a basis
for political discussions on how, in accordance with the practical objectives set in Leipzig, EU spatial
policy can help to intermesh cohesion, sustainability and global competitiveness and provide a framework
for strengthening the links between policies aimed at urban and rural areas.

1.5 These conclusions - like the first official draft of the ESDP - state that the draft must be
discussed widely at political level, not only within and between Member States, but also between the
Commission and the other EU institutions, including the ESC.

OJC 133of31.05.1995

OJC301 of 13.11.1995

95
1.6 The ESDP document is a policy paper which takes an indicative rather than prescriptive
approach, and will be regularly updated. It is designed to provide a cooperation framework that takes
account of the various tiers of political and spatial organization within the EU. It will pursue three equally
important fundamental goals: (i) economic and social cohesion, (ii) sustainable development, and (iii)
balanced competitiveness of the EU area. The ESDP should be finalized in mid-1999 under the German
Presidency.

1.7 The Committee greatly hopes that the work will be completed on schedule, bearing in
mind that it has now been under way for five years.

2. General comments

2.1 The Committee considers that spatial planning policy - promoted inter alia by the ESDP -
is essential for balanced, sustainable development of the EU area. A number of Committee opinions in
recent years have advocated the framing and implementation of a coherent EU spatial planning strategy,
as an important precondition for sustainable development.

2.2 It is clear that the EU spatial model will be difficult to sustain in the future, as population,
economic activities and wealth in general are excessively concentrated in certain central areas of the
Union. Unless there is a significant reorientation of all policies with a spatial impact (and of economic
and employment policies in particular), the prospect of further enlargements can only reinforce this
concentration.

2.3 The need for an EU spatial planning policy which respects national allocation of powers
follows logically from various articles of the Treaty (in particular Articles 129b, 129d, 130 and 130s), and
from several sections of the white paper on growth, competitiveness and employment.

2.4 The Committee thus welcomes and supports the moves to frame such a strategy, as
exemplified by the first official draft of the ESDP. It endorses the presidency conclusions adopted at the
Noordwijk informal council of spatial planning ministers in June 1997, which stressed" the importance of
the draft "as a basis for political discussion on how European spatial policy can contribute to the
integration of cohesion, sustainability and global competitiveness".

96
2.5 The Committee approves the underlying aims of the ESDP as they are in keeping with the
priorities which it too has identified. However, the Committee regrets the failure to recognize.that quality
of life is an underlying aim of any spatial initiative, and recalls its earlier comment that "quality of life
constitutes both the overriding objective of European spatial planning activity and the principle criterion
for identifying appropriate solutions"3. The difficult socio-economic situation facing many of the EU's
urban areas makes this objective particularly important.

2.6 The Committee considers that, broadly speaking, the first official draft represents an
advance on its predecessors, as it analyses the main problems more carefully and in greater detail.
However, the Committee feels that the document takes a rather academic and declaratory approach,
especially in its analysis of spatial issues and in its description of the EU's spatial strengths and
weaknesses. The Committee is sorry to see that the document does not base any analysis on the main
regional divisions (Mediterranean, Baltic, Atlantic Arc, Alpine Arc, etc.), as these are more relevant than
the national level for the purposes of defining and implementing an integrated spatial planning policy;
indeed, such an approach was recommended by the Commission itself in its Europe 2000 and Europe
2000+ papers.

2.7 The Committee also regrets the failure of the draft to address the specific problems of the
EU's upland, outermost and island regions. The Committee points out that uplands account for more than
30% of the EU area, and have almost 30 million inhabitants; the Community cannot neglect their
economic, social and environmental problems.

2.8 The Committee urges that upland areas - and also the outermost and island regions - be
fully considered in any discussion of spatial development, and that their special circumstances be
recognized.

2.9 On the more specific matter of urban policy, the Committee would refer to the comments
and recommendations put forward in its September 1996 opinion on the role of the EU in urban matters*
and in its January 1998 opinion on the Commission communication Towards an urban agenda in the
European Union5. The Committee would however highlight the need for a closer examination of the
problem of outlying regions, inter alia with reference to their relations with urban areas, and of the role of
towns as a link between rural areas and the big cities.

See footnote 1
4
OJ C 30 of 30.01.1997

OJ C 95 of 30.03.1998

97
2.10 A detailed analysis of the document would appear premature at this stage. Before it is
finalized under the German Presidency, it will undergo major modifications, in light of the discussions
taking place at inter-institutional level and elsewhere and of the findings of the seven transnational
seminars culminating at the end of November.

2.11 Nevertheless, some comments may usefully be made already regarding both the method
used in framing the ESDP and its actual content. These comments are based inter alia on the principles
which the Committee feels should underpin the first official draft of the ESDP6. They are:

- consideration of regional dynamics, potential and problems;

- respect for the diversity of geographical, socio-economic and cultural situations underpinning regional
organization and the preservation of internal balance;

- adoption of a transnational and cross-border approach at national, regional and local level, generating synergy
between these different levels while ensuring consistency with the policies of the Member States concerned;

- coordination of decisions on sectoral policies which affect spatial development (economic and employment
policy, trans-European networks, structural policies, competition policy and so on);

- convergence of "bottom-up" and "top-down" initiatives.

3. Widening the debate: closer involvement of the socio-economic partners

3.1 The Committee considers that a partnership with the socio-economic players must be
established as a matter of urgency; such a partnership has hitherto been woefully lacking. The Committee
is pleased that the Noordwijk meeting recognized the need for a wide debate between all interested
parties, and for inter-institutional dialogue, with a view to forging a consensus on the objectives and
principles which should underpin the ESDP, the preferred policy options and the means of putting them
into practice.

3.2 This is made particularly urgent by the fact that one of the anticipated results of the draft
under review is to encourage all regional development players to realize the growing interdependence
between different areas, sectoral policies, and tiers of government; greater recognition of this
interdependence should enhance cooperation. The draft also emphasizes the need to identify potential
partners with whom this responsibility can be shared, and to establish rules and arrangements for the
partnership and the scope for joint action7.

See footnote 2

ESDP first official draft, point 1 .F

98
3.3 Despite these intentions, the Committee regrets the way in which the first official draft
failed to guarantee the requisite transparency, more especially as regards involvement of the various
regional development players. Earlier Committee opinions emphasized that the ESDP should be framed
in partnership with all these players, including the socio-economic groupings. For instance, the
abovementioned ESC opinion of September 1995 stated that:

" the framing of the ESDP must be seen above all as a partnership process operating at a
relevant level, and involving all interested parties, allowing practical account to be
taken not only of outside influences on development processes but also of the
interactions and synergies between regional development players and decision-
makers. "

3.4 This comment illustrates the shortcomings of the intergovernmental approach, and
particularly of the working methods of the Spatial Development Committee (SDC), which seem to rule
out information and consultation. This again raises the question of bringing spatial planning within the
Community remit.

3.5 The Committee reiterates that the very idea of spatial planning presupposes transparency
and giving the public a direct say in the decisions made; it also presupposes full involvement of all the
relevant players - and chief among them the socio-economic partners (including the non-profit sector) - at
all geographical levels.

3.6 Extending the field of debate is vital, as the ESDP will provide a benchmark in years to
come for the planning and implementation of Community policies with spatial implications.

3.7 This prospect may seem to conflict somewhat with the affirmation that the ESDP is non-
binding, although the ESDP should also provide a reference point for the Member States, at the relevant
tiers of authority. Moreover, the Committee thinks that in order to provide a useful reference point, the
ESDP should be updated at regular (but sufficiently long) intervals, such as every five to seven years.

3.8 The urgent need to extend the field of debate is underscored by the fact that the pilot
projects which will foreshadow the ESDP are already being drawn up without proper involvement of the
local and regional stake-holders (see point 6 below).

3.9 The Committee therefore again insists that the partnership principle must underpin the
framing, revising and implementation of the ESDP. It also stresses the need to remedy the institutional
shortcomings of the intergovernmental approach. This means reviewing the case for bringing spatial
planning within the Community remit, institutionalizing the council of spatial planning ministers, and
reviewing the status of the SDC.

99
3.10 The SDC should be made a consultative committee which should work in close
cooperation with the local and regional authorities and the socio-economic organizations. The functions
and working methods of the SDC also need clarifying, and its membership should be reviewed so as to
included representatives of the socio-economic organizations which have a role to play in spatial
development.

4. The ESDP and Community policies

4.1 The first official draft of the ESDP clearly illustrates the interplay between spatial
planning and certain sectoral policies, and the synergies which can be achieved in support of economic
and social cohesion. The draft stresses that "the capacity for the ESDP to promote greater consistency of
Community policies should therefore be put at the very heart of the debate on European spatial planning"
- a sentence which neatly sums up the task ahead.

4.2 The Committee fully approves this view as being consistent with its own analyses.
However, in achieving these synergies the aim must be to remove the partitions between policies,
reducing potential sources of conflict, and exploiting these policies to optimum effect as part of an
integrated approach to spatial planning that will benefit all strands of society.

4.3 The Union and its Member States must shoulder their responsibility for the impact of
some sectoral policies (e.g. the CAP, environmental policy). Consistent action at EU level, together with
coordinated information campaigns, would make these policies clearer and improve public understanding
of them.

4.4 The Committee stresses the importance of trans-European transport and

telecommunications networks policy. As well as promoting geographical integration, these networks also
- and more importantly - facilitate economic and social integration. The Committee believes that equal
access to infrastructure is vital for the balanced development of the EU area.

4.5 The Committee is extremely surprised and disappointed that the draft does not discuss the
impact of employment policies on the EU's spatial cohesion, and the role which such policies can play in
reducing disparities between regions. This is a serious shortcoming in the draft, and is particularly
surprising in view of the fact that no spatial planning initiative - be it at EU, national, regional or local
level - can succeed if it neglects the local impact of employment policies, in terms of spatial organization,
population distribution and wealth distribution.

100
4.6 The Committee stresses that the balance of the EU area can only be improved over the
long term by a strategy which is able to reconcile competitiveness with economic and social cohesion,
economic performance with the principles and objectives of solidarity and social equity, and economic
development with social development. Employment policies clearly have a crucial role to play here, and
this makes it vital to frame and implement an integrated spatial planning policy. The territorial
employment pacts, which are designed to involve all parties concerned with employment at the
appropriate geographical level, are an illustration of this type of integrated approach8, and demonstrate
the importance of the spatial dimension in the building of a sustainable Europe9.

4.7 Research and technological development (RTD) policy is listed among the policies
with the greatest impact on the EU area, but - curiously - it is not included among the policies assessed.
Yet the disparities between Member States in the RTD field are particularly marked; the first report on
economic and social cohesion estimates a ratio of 1:13 (compared with 1:5 for per capita GDP)10.

4.8 The draft also does not analyse the spatial impact of the single market, or the role of
services of general economic interest in promoting social and territorial cohesion, as enshrined in
Article 16 of the Amsterdam Treaty.

4.9 Lastly, the Committee thinks that any long term scenario for developing the EU area
should also take account of the potential spatial impact of the introduction of the Euro. The introduction
of the Euro may be expected to give a further boost to intra-EU trade in goods and services, and to have a
major impact on the geographical distribution of economic activities and population, especially in cross-
border regions. More broadly, the Euro should help to give a spatial dimension to the EU's economic and
monetary area.

4.10 The draft calls for greater account to be taken of long term priorities established under
spatial strategies, and stresses the need for greater convergence between structural policies and spatial
planning policies. However, the Member States and the Commission rule out the use of spatial criteria for
the allocation of Structural Fund support.

4.11 The Committee agrees with this, and stresses that the current debate on the ESDP must
not interfere with the institutional procedures for reform of the Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006.

See the ESC opinions on

- The future of cohesion and the long-term implications for the Structural Funds - OJ C 153 of 28.05.1996

- The role of the EU in urban matters - OJ C 30 of 30.01.1997

On this point, see the Commission's recent communications on

- Community policies in support of employment (COM(97) 611 final of 12.11.1997)

- Environment and employment (Building a sustainable Europe) (COM(97) 592 of 18.11.1997)

COM(96) 542 final/2 of 8.04.1997

101
4.12 Nevertheless, the Committee thinks that Structural Fund measures and spatial planning
policy share the same aim, namely to boost the EU's economic and social cohesion and competitiveness.
The Committee also considers that the prospect of further EU enlargements will, in due course, bring a
need for a careful consideration of the interplay between structural policies and spatial planning policy.

4.13 The Committee also stresses the urgent need to include a chapter on the spatial
perspectives of enlargement in the draft ESDP. It is pleased that the Echtemach ministerial seminar on 9
December 1997 recognized this priority, and that the Commission presented a study - to be used in the
drafting of a new ESDP chapter on this subject - at the Glasgow informal council of spatial planning
ministers on 8 June 1998. The Committee also supports the UK Council presidency's efforts to involve
the candidate countries in the ESDP process, in accordance with the Noordwijk and Echtemach
conclusions.

4.14 Here the Committee suggests that additional policy options related to enlargement be
drawn up at an appropriate juncture, in order to take account of the additional spatial problems which
enlargement will entail for both new and existing Member States, and at the EU's borders.

4.15 Enlargement will push the EU's centre of gravity eastward. This will give added weight to
the problems already faced by the outlying regions (communications, transport infrastructure, access to
economic activities, and so on), and will make it all the more important to secure a new regional balance.
Promotion of cooperation with the Council of Europe is vital, both in this context and with a view to
establishing a framework for cross-border cooperation with non-EU countries, and especially those of
eastern Europe, on such matters as spatial planning.

4.16 More generally, and with an eye to the future, the Committee regrets that the draft does
not devote sufficient attention to the EU's relations with the world's other geographical groupings.
An analysis of this would be useful for considering ways to make the most of the EU's resources and
assets, and to ensure that it can compete with its main rivals on world markets.

5. The European Spatial Planning Observatory Network (ESPON)

5.1 In accordance with principles already agreed in Leipzig in 1994, ministers in Noordwijk
renewed their broad support for the setting-up of a European Spatial Planning Observatory Network
(ESPON), which will provide the scientific and technical base for the implementation and periodic
review of the ESDP. The observatory is needed in order to improve EU regional statistical machinery for
keeping tabs on spatial developments, and in order to fill the major gaps in comparable, quantified and
geo-referenced data and agree on reliable criteria and indicators for establishing the typology of regions
and urban areas.

102
5.2 The Echtemach informal meeting of spatial planning ministers examined a draft of the
terms of reference, organization, funding and launch of the ESPON. The presidency conclusions
confirmed the idea of setting up the network. There would first be a two-year pilot stage (1998-99) that
would:

- help to finalize the ESDP in 1999, following the broad debate in the Member States and at EU level;

- define the institutional, legal andfinancialconditions needed to set up the ESPON;

- launch an ESDP-related study programme, to be conducted by a network of specialist institutes in the Member
States; the programme would be put forward by the Commission, in consultation with the Member States, and
would receive 50% funding from the Commission under ERDF Article 10.

5.3 The Committee notes that it called for the establishment of a spatial planning observatory
back in 1991, in its opinion on Europe 200011. The Committee regrets that, despite the urgency of the
matter, problems of a political, legal and budgetary nature have prevented the observatory being set up
hitherto. The Committee is delighted that the European Parliament is willing to consider establishing a
specific budget heading for the funding of a Community observatory comprising a network of research
institutes12. The Committee would nevertheless point out that thp considerable delay in setting up the
network will prevent it from contributing effectively to the finalization of the ESDP.

5.4 The Committee stresses that the ESPON must not be a planning body and must not have
decision-taking powers, as spatial planning decisions are a political matter. The Committee points out that
its 1991 opinion on Europe 200013 argued that the observatory should enjoy a certain independence vis-à-
vis the national and Community authorities.

5.5 Lastly, the Committee asks that its members - as indeed all the socio-economic
organizations - be involved in the follow-up to the observatory's work, once it is operative.

6. The implementation of the ESDP

6.1 The draft states that experimental, innovative action must be undertaken in order to "test
the relevance" of the ESDP approach and policy options. Interreg IIC is singled out as the Community's
main pilot instrument. Reference is also made to ERDF Article 10, which provides for pilot projects in
the spatial planning field.

6.2 The Committee approves this approach, and asks that these initiatives be stepped up.

OJC 339 of 31.12.1991, point 4.6

European Parliament Resolution of 2.07.1998 on regional planning and the European Spatial Development Perspective (PE 271.026,
page 39) .

See footnote 11.

103
6.3 In its September 1995 opinion14, the Committee called for the establishment of
transnational spatial planning cooperation programmes extending beyond traditional cross-border
activities. It feels that the emergence of large, cohesive geographical areas (Mediterranean, Atlantic Arc,
Baltic, Alpine Arc, and so on) implies that spatial planning cooperation should be handled by these
interregional groupings (cf. point 2.6 above).

6.4 The Committee considers it vital that the ESDP include an analysis of the strengths and
weaknesses of these cooperation areas, and of the particular issues that will shape their future.

6.5 With an eye to future EU enlargement, the Committee also thinks that cross-border and
transnational cooperation schemes in this field should be devised and undertaken in consultation with the
candidate countries in due course.

6.6 The partnership issue (raised in point 3 above) is also of crucial importance for the
execution of the ESDP. The Committee greatly regrets the confidentiality and lack of real consultation -
at any geographical level - which have hitherto surrounded the framing and implementation of the
Interreg programmes. Here too, information, consultation and involvement of all the regional
development players are vital.

6.7 The Committee thinks that the Commission should press Member States to ensure that
they conduct proper consultations with all the parties involved in spatial planning, and see that all the
relevant partners, including the socio-economic organizations, play a full part in the framing,
implementation and monitoring of the Interreg programmes.

6.8 The Commission's proposals for the reform of the Structural Funds include ground rules
for extending and deepening the partnership. The Committee strongly urges that these be incorporated in
the new Interreg programmes.

6.9 The very nature of Interreg and the pilot projects demands that they be formulated and
implemented in a transparent manner, with full involvement of all the spatial planning players, including
the socio-economic organizations.

7. Concluding comments

7.1 The Committee welcomes the efforts made by the Council Presidency during the first half
of 1998 to improve the content of the first official draft. This work has led to the extension of part II (the
European dimension of spatial issues) and part IV (implementing the ESDP), and has helped to carry
forward the debate on the first official draft.

See footnote 12.

104
7.2 The Committee particularly welcomes the new passages on research and technological
development policy and competition policy in the paper presented by the presidency at the Glasgow
informal council.

7.3 However, the Committee must reiterate its disappointment that the first official draft still
makes no reference to the employment aspect of spatial planning policies.

7.4 The Committee has noted with great interest the UK presidency's proposed list of future
actions for implementing the ESDP. The Committee is especially gratified by the presidency's concern to
identify more precisely and systematically the various levels at which action should be taken (EU,
transnational, interregional, cross-border, and within Member States).

7.5 Lastly, the Committee warmly welcomes the ministerial commitment, reiterated at the
Glasgow meeting, to adopt the final version of the ESDP under the German Presidency in May 1999. The
Committee promises to make a contribution to this final version at the appropriate juncture.

Brussels, 9 September 1998

The President The Secretary-General

of the of the
Economic and Social Committee Economic and Social Committee

Tom Jenkins Adriano Graziosi

105
 Co-operation on Spatial Planning in the Context of the Enlargement of the
European Union
Summary of study for the European Commission by Dieter Biehl,
Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main
1. Introduction

The prospective enlargement of the European Union through the accession of 10 Central and Eastern Europe
countries (CEECs - Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovak
Republic, Slovenia) and Cyprus is an event of far-reaching historical importance. The collapse of the former system
and the rebirth of democracy together with the transition to market economies have re-established cultural, social
and economic links with Western Europe and the rest of the world. The accession of Cyprus, which has a different
historical and political background, has to been seen in a Mediterranean context.
The enlargement process poses major challenges, but opens up new opportunities for both accession countries (ACs)
and EU Member States. It has, in addition, implications for the ESDP. The first official version of the ESDP will
contain a new chapter on enlargement, which the present paper contributes to.

2. Aim and scope of the paper

The ESDP has three major objectives - economic and social cohesion, sustainable development and balanced
competitiveness of the European territory - and offers policy options for three main spheres of activity:
- a more balanced polycentric urban system and a new urban-rural relationship
- parity of access to infrastructure and knowledge
- intelligent management and development of the natural and cultural heritage.
The present paper examines the relevance of these policy options for the ACs and the possible modifications to take
better account of their different circumstances. Accordingly, the focus of the paper is on conceptual and strategic
issues. To develop concrete and successful strategies, however, implies that the data needed for the underlying
analyses are available, reliable and sufficiently comparable. Great efforts have been undertaken by the Commission
services and EUROSTAT, in close co-operation with national statistical offices, to ensure this. In the future, an
important contribution could be made by the European Spatial Planning Observatory Network (ESPON) foreseen in
the ESDP.
The paper begins with a brief overview on the general framework for accession. It then considers the ESDP and its
implications for the ACs. Finally, some policy conclusions are drawn for co-operation.

3. Framework conditions for enlargement

The worldwide trends of globalisation and internationalisation, in principle, affect ACs and existing Member States
more or less equally, depending on their degree of openness and their competitiveness. The ESDP recognises that it
is important to focus on the long-term spatial implications of these trends and one of the tasks of ESPON should be
to monitor these.
Other general trends are important for the spatial development of the CEECs:
• the rebirth of democracy and the simultaneous creation of new institutional structures, including for regional and
local government reform;
• the development of new economic co-operation under the GATT/WTO and the EU association treaties;
• the differing speed of transition from planned to market economy through privatisation and liberalisation,
including the creation of new regulatory mechanisms;
• the increasing orientation towards Western Europe while simultaneously trying to maintain relationships with
other CEECs.

EU accession criteria as new framework conditions

According to the decisions of the European Council of Copenhagen 1993, the ACs have to comply with three sets of
criteria which constitute the background for the new chapter on enlargement in the ESDP.
First, institutional stability, which is a central element of the political criteria, is of direct relevance for spatial
planning and regional policy, being closely linked to the distribution of responsibilities and territorial
decentralisation, a very sensitive political issue in the ACs. From the experience of the present EU Member States,
the establishment of regional and local self-government and their participation in policy-making and implementation
at the regional level can contribute significantly to institutional stability. The ACs, like the Member States, as
sovereign nations are free to adopt procedures that are in line with their specific conditions and political preferences.

106
It may, nevertheless, be interesting for the ACs to compare the design and implementation of the distribution of
spatial responsibilities with those of the present Member States.
A second set of accession criteria deals with the economic framework for spatial development, in particular a well-
functioning competitive, socially-oriented and sustainable market economy and the protection of consumer interests.
These criteria have more indirect implications for spatial development, insofar as they determine the overall
framework for a market economy. They concern, in particular, privatisation and liberalisation, the competition
framework for private enterprises and investors and social and environmental issues. A clear, transparent and well-
balanced division of labour between the public and the private sectors can contribute to preventing excessive
regional disparities within a country, strengthening the responsibility of regional and local actors and so reducing the
need for central government intervention.
A third set of criteria concerns the acquis communautaire, a first sub-set comprising rules for spatial planning and
implementation and regional and environmental policies. The rules for economic and social cohesion are
particularly relevant as this is one of the three major objectives of the ESDP. A second sub-set fixes the
requirements for benefiting from common policies and EU-financed programmes for spatial development. A third
sub-set defines the obligations of Member States towards the Union and each other, including "rules of good
conduct" in different policy areas which sometimes can entail costs.
The new legislation to be enacted represents a major challenge to AC governments. Enlargement also implies
challenges for the institutional structure of the EU and its decision-making procedures. The Commission and the
Member States have already agreed that reforms are necessary, but there does not yet appear to be a consensus on
the action to be taken. The Commission has already presented proposals in AGENDA 2000 on the decisions to be
taken before enlargement and the German Presidency will have responsibility for bringing about agreement between
Member States.

Geographical and environmental features of Acs

Enlargement will increase the land borders of the EU relative to the coastal borders, despite the
accession of Cyprus.
The 10 CEECs together have a total area of 1,078 thousand square kilometres and will add
around 33% to the EU land mass. The area concerned includes rich and highly diversified
habitats, which will improve EU environmental balance. Enlargement will also bring in,
however, old industrialised areas located close to large rivers, such as the Labe/Elbe, Odra/Oder,
Vistula/Weichsel, Njemen/Memel and the Danube, which are heavily polluted, partly because of
the former industrial and military policies which neglected the environment, as well as the
pressure imposed by large cities.
The main transport corridors mostly date back a long way and in part follow the river valleys
running North-South. The Danube is the most important waterway running East-West. The
general lowland character of the terrain except for the Sudeten and the Bohemian Carpathian
Mountains should enable trans-European rail and road transport networks to be extended towards
the East. EU access to the ports on the Baltic and Black Sea should also improve.

Demographic framework conditions

The ACs will add around 105 million people or some 28% to the present EU population. The major demographic
trends in CEECs, except for migration, seem to be similar to those in Member States in that population is either
declining or growing slowly because of low birth rates and, in some cases increasing mortality, and the proportion of
older people is rising, though at'differing rates.
It is an open question whether these demographic trends will continue in the long-run. The ESDP emphasises the
importance of constructing alternative long-term scenarios to improve understanding of these processes and provide
better information for policy-making. These trends need to be closely monitored by the ESPON.
Nearly all ACs have serious ethnic problems. In several, large numbers of foreign nationals, sometimes concentrated
in a few areas, pose important challenges. The situation has been aggravated in some countries by flows of refugees
from the former Yugoslavia. Some of the countries, in particular Estonia and Latvia, have recently enacted
legislation to tackle the problem or are preparing to do so.

107
Migration trends

Migration trends changed markedly after 1989/90 because of the abolition of restrictions and the possibility for
emigration. However, migration of ethnic minorities has already taken place and partly because of the tighter
immigration conditions in the EU, legal outward migration is now relatively small.
Internal migration within many ACs is increasing, especially from rural to urban areas so contributing to spatial
polarisation. Moreover, it stands to be intensified to the extent that new jobs will mainly be created in the larger
urban centres. However, stabilisation of rural population and even emigration from urban to rural areas can be
observed in some ACs, reflecting better subsistence opportunities and the privatisation of agriculture, including the
return of expropriated land. Here again, the construction of alternative scenarios as suggested in the ESDP could
provide an insight into these dynamic processes and help improve policy responses.

The Economic situation and trends

Disparities in real income per head (ie adjusting for differences in purchasing power of the currencies) are much less
than nominal ones. In 1997, average GDP per head, in terms of purchasing power standards, in the CEECs taken
together amounted to 39% of the EU average, the level ranging from 23% of the EU average in Bulgaria to 68% in
Slovenia, in which, with the Czech Republic, it is similar to the level in Greece and Portugal.
After a period of decline in the early 1990s, GDP growth since 1993/94 has been higher than in the EU, although
GDP fell in Bulgaria, Latvia and Romania in 1997.

Factors determining the prospects for long-run development

Geographical location, the settlement structure, the sectoral pattern of economic activity and the infrastructure
largely determine the development potential of a country or a region. These factors also play a major role in the
analysis and policy options included in the ESDP. This approach is based on the proposition that it is the
endowment of this particular mix of resources that determines potential productivity, potential income and potential
employment.
Potential values for productivity, income and employment can differ substantially from actual ones, depending in
particular on the competitiveness of the regional economies concerned. In general, the regional development
potential of economically weak regions tends to be both low and not fully realised. This implies a need for a two-
tier-strategy: the use of spatial planning and regional policy instruments to improve the rate of exploitation of
existing regional capacity, appropriate measures ranging from traditional support to private investment and closer
urban-rural co-operation. If regional capacity is inadequate, or characterised by bottle-necks, infrastructure policies
are appropriate instruments for increasing supply potential. In this context, a broad notion of infrastructure needs to
be applied, covering transport, telecommunications, energy, water, education and research facilities and social and
cultural amenities.

Territorial organisation and the distribution of responsibility for spatial planning and regional policy in CEECs

The constitutional-institutional system of a country and its stability is not only of political but
also of economic importance. A good territorial organisation and a well-balanced distribution of
responsibilities, in particular for spatial planning and regional development, can make a valuable
contribution to the capacity for balanced growth. In all CEECs, the former system of government
was strongly unitary and centralised, including in relation to territorial planning. Many of these
countries have since decentralised or are preparing to do so.
Territorial decentralisation, in particular establishing a new regional level of government, is a
very sensitive political issue. Some ACs, especially Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic,
have nevertheless made substantial progress on administrative reforms. The small Baltic
countries - not dissimilar to small existing EU Member States - apparently do not intend to
introduce an additional regional tier of government or at least do not accord high priority to this.
A balance needs to be found between the desire to speed up the integration process of the ACs
and to give them adequate time to develop and implement an appropriate territorial
decentralisation strategy, compatible with the specific conditions and preferences of the majority
in each country.

108
4. The ESDP and enlargement

The fundamental question is whether the ESDP can be applied to the ACs without modification, or, if not, how it
should be changed. The question concerns, in particular, Part III of the ESDP, 'Policy aims and options for the
European territory'.
On the above analysis, it is arguable that, in principle, all major issues dealt with in the ESDP are also relevant for
the ACs, but that the degree of relevance and the potential effects may be less in some cases and higher in others
than in the present Member States. This is true in both qualitative and quantitative terms. The answer, however, can
vary according to the particular circumstances of individual ACs and the specific aims chosen as selection or
evaluation criteria.
On the basis of the preceding analysis, it is suggested that the ESDP should be modified or extended in four major
respects. These suggestions are preliminary and are presented simply for discussion.

Diversity and heterogeneity

The basic philosophy of the ESDP is to help Member States prepare an integrated, multi-sectoral and indicative
strategy for spatial development. In the context of international co-ordination, diversity is regarded as one of
Europe's major development assets and this will be increased by enlargement. However, national and regional
disparities will tend to be widened substantially.
The first consequence of this increased heterogeneity is that trying to identify the spatial effects of major EU-
policies and, on this basis, to design spatially-effective policies at the EU level will become in future a more difficult
and complex task. In addition, if economic convergence is to be realised within a relatively short time-span, the cost
will be very high. This suggests a different trade-off for the enlarged Union, especially for the ACs, than for existing
Member States.

Centralisation and decentralisation

Since under the former regime, the system of government in the CEECs was strongly centralised, it might be
expected that the rejection of all that this involved would have been accompanied by decentralisation and increased
regional and local self-government. While this is true for local government, it is less so at the regional level.
In addition to the reasons already mentioned, there are two further ones which might explain the strong preference
for centralisation in many CEECs. First, in countries pursuing a big bang transition strategy, centralisation has
helped to implement this faster and more efficiently. It might be the case, however, that once the new democratic
and market framework has been created and once it has been shown that the cost involved is worth the price,
decentralisation will be added as, in a sense, a crowning element of establishing democracy by incorporating the
principle of subsidiarity.
Secondly, reformers had to work with the administrations in place. Creating a new administrative culture of
decentralised decision-making is a time-consuming process. Despite recent experience with EU-programmes like
PHARE and cross-border co-operation, experience of decentralised regional policy remains limited.
Territorial decentralisation is, therefore, an issue which is economically as well as politically sensitive. Given the
importance of the transition process and the pressure of time, it is understandable that in many CEECs centralised
policy-making and implementation remains the preferred strategy.
The EU, however, needs to ensure that granting more time for decentralisation does not invite potential abuse. As
already suggested, it should be a general principle to implement well-balanced directives and regulations in terms of
benefits and costs. The ACs could also be asked to comply with a number of minimum conditions for adopting and
implementing the acquis communautaire. These minimum conditions will need to be considered country by country
given the difference in starting positions.

Spatial planning versus regional policy: unitary versus dual competence

Around half of the CEECs seem to have a unitary system of responsibility for spatial planning and regional
development and half one where the two are separated. This partly reflects differences in the legislative system, the
delimitation of legislative and executive powers and the balance of power between the Head of State and the Prime
Minister. National conditions and preferences concerning territorial decentralisation and local self-government seem
also to play a role.
Comparing the situation in ACs and EU Member States could help clarify views on the distribution of
responsibilities between tiers of government as well as on financing implications.
The respective systems of legislation provide the basis for cross-border co-operation over spatial issues between
regional and local authorities, national governments and with the Commission and, accordingly, for the integrated
European spatial development agenda envisaged in the ESDP.

109
Sustainable development, spatial planning and regional policy

It is in the interest of all countries to follow a strategy of sustainable development. However, the ease of doing this
and the cost involved may differ substantially between ACs and EU Member States. In particular, large sums of
public money are needed to decontaminate and protect soil and groundwater in areas where polluting industries,
such as chemicals, coal mining, electricity generation and steel, or military facilities were concentrated. This could
give rise to a conflict between environmental and regional policy: Given budget constraints, policy makers in ACs
could have a strong incentive to give priority to regional development programmes rather than to combating
pollution, since the former are co-financed by the EU Structural Funds while the latter generally remains a national
responsibility.

Conclusions for the three major ESDP spheres of activity

From the above, it seems that, in general, the issues covered by the ESDP are of relevance for both ACs and existing
Member States, but the scale of problems and the cost and benefits involved in resolving them can differ
substantially between the two. The specific conclusions as regards the three major ESDP spheres of activity are set
out below.

A more balanced polycentric system of cities and a new urban-rural relationship

There can be little doubt that, because of economies of scale, urban systems with a high, but not excessive, level of
agglomeration contribute significantly to the development potential of the regions and countries in which they are
located. In principle, this applies to both ACs and existing Member States. However, because such systems which
are well endowed with the necessary infrastructure do not exist to the same extent in ACs, the benefits to rural areas
of closer links with urban ones tend to be lower and the polarisation effects higher. In consequence, potential
productivity and income and/or employment will also be lower.
In addition, other factors, such as a central or peripheral location and infrastructure endowment are important.
Other things being equal, a centrally-located urban system has a higher development potential than a peripheral one
and good infrastructure endowment provides a better basis for development. Moreover, the constitutional-
institutional framework in which urban systems operate also play a role. In general, benefits tend to be greater if
there is sufficient room for regional and local initiatives, combined with accountability and the necessary finance.

Parity of access to infrastructure and knowledge

In regions with an adequate endowment of infrastructure, there is a good chance of obtaining additional benefits
from improving access to this. However, CEECs have, in general, a much lower level and standard of infrastructure
than existing Member States. As a consequence, they need much more investment to rectify this. Because of the
lower endowment, the benefits to be gained from improving access also tend to be lower, and a careful analysis is
required to determine the gains from improving access alone as compared with expanding the level at the same time.
In this regard, special attention needs to be paid to the composition of infrastructure in different regions, in the sense
that low endowment of one aspect cannot necessarily be compensated by better endowment of another. Although,
for example, different modes of transport can be substituted for each other up to a point, a good transport system
cannot compensate for a deficient educational system or inadequate research capacity. Moreover, the quality of
infrastructure might be so poor that it is not possible to obtain the level of service expected from the same
endowment in existing Member States. Identifying major quantitative and qualitative bottlenecks to determine the
requirement for investment represents a more efficient strategy than expanding all infrastructure simultaneously.

Prudent management and development of the natural and cultural heritage

The ESDP emphasises the importance of tailoring policy to the specific features of the natural heritage. This is
particularly true for most CEECs. On the one hand, some countries have large areas close to their natural state and
not much affected by pollution which will have to be protected against agricultural and industrial expansion and
development of human settlements. The latter, however, cannot simply be neglected and strategies need to be
designed for reconciling economic development with the preservation of the natural heritage. This requires a
carefully-designed system of regulation, based on the relevant elements of the acquis communautaire.
On the other hand, there are areas with a high concentration of heavily-polluting industries and area contaminated by
military use. It is difficult to apply the 'polluter-pays' principle to the new owners of the former publicly-owned
facilities, and the new democratic States have to shoulder responsibility for the bad practices of their predecessors.
Regulation alone is not sufficient and large sums of public expenditure will be required. Given the low tax capacity
of the CEECs, the financial burden will be very high, as is, therefore, the cost involved in pursuing sustainable
development.

110
Water reserves are also very vulnerable because of pollution. Insofar as large rivers which are polluted cross
national borders, this is a joint problem of neighbouring countries. The same is true of flood protection. In addition,
'water wars' have often broken out between countries through which a river, such as the Danube, flows, with some
extracting too much water for energy production or agriculture. Solving these problems requires consensus-based
transnational co-operation and the help of the EU.
Conservation of landscapes is also a cultural issue. In some cases, conflicting demands have to be reconciled, in
others it is important to guide development creatively rather than to preserve the status quo. Another important task
is the conservation of the cultural heritage in the form of historical sites, buildings and the like. In both cases, there
do not seem to be large differences between ACs and existing Member States, except again that the elements
entering the cost-benefit analysis may differ substantially.
The regulatory requirements as regards the future use of natural and cultural resources and the financial
consequences of the environmental burden inherited from the past should, however, be kept separate. In particular,
financial arguments should not be (ab)used to justify lax implementation of the environmental elements of the
acquis communautaire and "eco-dumping" should be prevented.

5. Strategy and policy proposals

The above leads to the following conclusions for policy options.

(1) In preparing for accession, individual ACs should not decide policy independently, but should co-operate
between each other and with neighbouring EU Member States over issues with significant cross-border spill-over
effects. These effects can, in the extreme, impact on the whole continent or, as in the case of green-house gases, be
global in scale. The link with sustainable development and Agenda 21 is obvious.
(2) Commission proposals for a new INTERREG III programme should be taken into account both for cross-border
co-operation with existing Member States and between themselves. The various programmes involved should also
deal with issues at a sub transnational level in order to make the best possible use of transnational projects, such as
the trans-European networks, in individual regions.
(3) In order to prepare for joining the ESDP, each AC should establish efficient horizontal co-ordination between the
Ministries and Agencies responsible for spatial planning and regional development. The EU and Member States
could help the CEECs do this by providing information and by offering technical and administrative support. This
will be beneficial for the EU as a whole, since it will enable measures to be taken more quickly and more smoothly,
facilitate connections with trans-European transport, telecommunication and energy networks and accelerate the
completion of the internal market by reducing costs to enterprises.
(4) Regionalised policy design and implementation are major features of EU regional policy. It is, therefore,
important that the ACs are also capable of developing such a decentralised approach in partnership with local and
regional authorities. This involves, on the one hand, creating the necessary regional entities and institutions and
endowing them with appropriate responsibilities and, on the other, co-ordinating spatial policy with fiscal policy as
well as with competition and environmental policies.
Such institutional reform, however, entails sensitive political issues. The CEECs should be given sufficient time to
study the pros and cons and to come to balanced solutions. During the transition, the EU and the Member States
should accept that it is the national governments and Ministries which are responsible for creating the preconditions
for participating in EU regional policy-making and implementation and for ensuring economic and social cohesion.
(5) Co-ordinating the elements of fiscal, environmental and agricultural'policies that have a strong spatial effects so
as to comply with the acquis communautaire in these areas and avoiding distortion of competition, including 'eco-
dumping' are other important tasks. In general, a balance will have to be found between the interests of the ACs for
a selective and slow implementation of the costly elements of the acquis communautaire and the opposing interests
of the existing Member States. A fair solution might be for the ACs to adopt each year during the transition period a
mix of directives and regulations which balance the costs and benefits.
(6) Spatial planning and regional development policies should be based on a clear understanding of the distinction
between the factors which determine regional development potential and those which affect the extent to which this
potential is achieved. This enables differentiated, two-tier strategies for regional development to be designed,
adjusted in the light of co-operation at national, regional and local level where this appears to be beneficial.
(7) Infrastructure is an important factor influencing development potential. Despite the trend towards privatisation,
infrastructure, because of its collective nature, is still financed by public funds. Most CEECs have a substantial
infrastructure deficit in terms of both levels and standards, so that investment in new capacity will have to be given
priority in many cases.
(8) Appropriate regulations and incentive-based policies can contribute to a balanced polycentric system of cities
and a new urban-rural relationship. Urban systems with a high but not excessive degree of agglomeration contribute
significantly to the development potential of a region. If countries do not possess a sufficient number of such
systems, the positive effects on the rural hinterland will tend to be smaller.

Ill
(9) In addition to a central or peripheral location and the constitutional-institutional framework, the benefits to be
derived from a given urban-rural system also depend on its infrastructure endowment. Possible bottlenecks are
important in this regard and identifying and rectifying these is a more efficient strategy than expanding all types of
infrastructure simultaneously.
(10) A similar argument applies to the structure of economic activity, where the framework conditions in the of form
of market access, competition, R&D and environmental regulation and so on are open to policy intervention.
Services represent the major potential area of growth only in highly developed regions and in the ACs the special
importance of industry in some regions as well as agriculture in other cases should also be considered.
(11) The natural and cultural heritage are assets with a high potential for regional development. A differentiated and
region-specific approach is required because of the substantial environmental problems inherited from the recent
past, the conflicts over water reserves in some parts and the shortage of finance to tackle these problems.
(12) To help bridge the differences in legal and administrative systems, it is suggested that made-to-measure
elements be developed for individual issues to serve as model solutions for cross-border co-operation. Examples
include facilitating cross-border administrative procedures and the tax treatment of cross-border activities. Taxation
issues could be dealt with in the framework of existing double-taxation treaties between the countries concerned. On
this basis and taking into account the experience gained from previous cross-border co-operation programmes,
regional and local governments in the countries concerned could save money and effort when engaging in future co-
operation. These results could be used to develop principles, elements and options for EU-wide applications, which
could avoid future cross-border projects starting from scratch, so reducing cost, speeding up the decision-making
process and facilitating the transfer of experience.
(13) The European Spatial Planning Observatory Network (ESPON) could contribute substantially to all these tasks
by bringing together the expert knowledge in the ACs and existing Member States to improve the basis for analysis
and evaluation and to develop scenarios in close co-operation with the European Commission.
(14) Co-operation between Member States could be improved and the construction of the trans-European networks
could be speeded up if the EU were given responsibility for the European dimension of spatial development policy.
This would also facilitate negotiations with the CEECs and, later, the implementation of the agreed results. As this
responsibility implies an additional transfer of national sovereignty to the EU, it seems fair to offer Member States a
clearer separation of the responsibilities for spatial planning and regional policy within their national territories,
based on the principle of subsidiarity.

112
 REPORT ON COMMUNITY POLICIES AND SPATIAL PLANNING
(PART 1 of the Working Document of the Commission Services)

1. THE DEBATE ON SPATIAL PLANNING AT THE EUROPEAN LEVEL 115

1.1. Background 115

1.2. The origin of the ESDP 116

1.3. The objectives and the policy options of the ESDP 116

1.4. Status of the ESDP 117

2. RELATION BETWEEN COMMUNITY POLICIES AND SPATIAL PLANNING:

KEY FINDINGS 117

3. OPTIONS FOR BETTER INTEGRATING EUROPEAN SPATIAL PLANNING

AND COMMUNITY POLICIES 120
3.1. Community policies from the point of view of the policy options of the ESDP 120

3.2. Potential elements of a pro-active strategy aiming to bring closer Community policies and the
objectives of spatial planning 121

113
1. THE DEBATE ON SPATIAL PLANNING AT THE EUROPEAN LEVEL
1.1 Background
Over the past ten years, the need to develop a strategy to guide the development of the
European territory has emerged as an important issue in the policy debate. A number of
factors have contributed to this.
- Firstly, there is growing recognition among decision-makers at all levels of increasing
functional interdependency, ifi the wake of technological changes in communication and
transport, the blurring of borders within the Single Market and increased opportunities
for networking, tying together spaces and economies throughout the continent. This
interdependency makes convergence of objectives and co-ordination of policies a
necessity.
- Secondly, the challenges of globalisation of the economy make it vital for every part of
the EU to strengthen co-operation with partners sharing the same interest and facing
similar challenges - be they immediate or more distant neighbours.
- Thirdly, the forthcoming enlargement calls for an overall strategic approach for the
development of this wide and diverse territory and the integration of the future new
Member states in the different trans-European networks - whether relating to the
European urban system, to transport, energy and communication networks or to natural
areas of Community importance.
- Finally, budgetary constraints call for an effective use of increasingly scarce public
resources by tailoring interventions to territorial specificity.
All these factors demand new unifying conceptual frameworks that make it easier to secure
convergence and co-ordination between various sectoral policies. This is where strategic
territorial development can play an important role.
Territories, though varying greatly throughout Europe, play everywhere the same roles as
(1) the physical base for productive activities, (2) the life support system for people and
natural resources, and (3) the place where the impacts of most policies can be seen or felt.
The territory, therefore, provides a unique medium for developing a crosscutting, multi-
sectoral perspective, for reconciling sometime conflicting objectives, setting mutually
compatible targets and ensuring that interventions affecting its organisation, structure and
use are coherent.
Administrative barriers, sectoral compartmentalisation and territorial fragmentation hamper
optimal territorial functionality, optimal allocation of resources and efficient public
services.
To overcome such difficulties, it is necessary to develop instruments enabling a reliable
analysis of the European territory and its different elements, the definition of clear medium-
term aims and targets and adequate co-ordination, delivery, monitoring and assessment
mechanisms. Moreover, it requires time as suspicion, vested interests and inappropriate
patterns of decision-making must be overcome.

114
1.2 The origin of the ESDP
The debate on strategic territorial planning, within the Community framework, began in
Nantes in 1989. Since then, regular meetings of the ministers responsible for spatial
planning in the Member states have clearly demonstrated the need to develop a long-term
strategy allowing better co-ordination of the various public activities which influence the
organisation and the use of the European territory1. It is in this context that the ministers
responsible for spatial planning took the decision in November 1993, to develop a European
Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP).
Since then, the efforts of the Member states - with the support of the Commission - have
led to a first draft of the ESDP presented to the ministers for spatial planning in June 1997
in Noordwijk, under Dutch presidency. After having approved the document as a basis for
discussion, ministers decided to organise a debate involving other sectors, the various
administrative levels as well as the society at large, including the main economic actors, so
as to allow the refinement and the enrichment of the ESDP. The final version of the ESDP
is envisaged under German presidency, during the first half of 1999.
It is in this context that the European Commission took the initiative to organise, in co-
operation with the Member states, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions, a series of transnational seminars centred on
the main themes indicated by the ESDP. In parallel, co-operation between the various
Directorates-General of the Commission responsible for policies and activities which affect
the structure, use and quality of the European territory, was intensified so as to increase the
awareness of the territorial dimension in the formulation of new policy guidelines as well as
in the implementation of current Community policies.
It is within this framework that this report has been prepared.

1.3 The objectives and the policy options of the ESDP

The ESDP has three broad aims:
- economic and social cohesion of the European Union;
- sustainable development; and
- balanced competitiveness for the European territory.
Consequently, the ESDP is in conformity with the key principles enshrined in the Treaty of
the Union (Art.2)2, but it goes beyond in that it does not solely address the areas eligible
under economic and social cohesion policy, but the entire European territory. Furthermore,
the three objectives mentioned above are not to be pursued separately but together, taking
into account their interactions, in order to avoid that decisions taken from divergent logic
have effects which could prove contradictory.
The ESDP identifies a series of policy options organised around few structuring concepts -
balanced urban systems and new urban-rural relations, access to infrastructures and
knowledge, and better protection of natural and cultural heritage -, which are, by their
nature, horizontal to specific territorial categories such rural areas, coastal areas or urban
areas.

1
The European Commission contributed to the initial debate with the two reports: "Europe 2000" in 1991 and "Europe 2000+" in 1994.
2
Throughout the report, the Articles of the Treaty are referred to according to the new numbering as modified after the Amsterdam
Council.

115
1.4 Status of the ESDP
The development of the ESDP is not based upon a codified process. Indeed, the ministers
responsible for spatial planning decided that the ESDP would not have any normative value.
The text of the ESDP itself specifies: "it is also clear that the approach can only be
indicative, not prescriptive. Nevertheless, it is expected to lead to tangible results for the
European territory and to stimulate action ".
It is undeniable that the policy options contained in the ESDP stem from a strong political
will of Member states - with the support of the Commission. This has a particular
significance for the process accompanying the ESDP: it is a long-term process, which goes
far beyond the period which is necessary to work out the ESDP itself.
Accordingly, the publication of the ESDP in the coming months has to be regarded as a
stage in a long-term process, whether for detailing the policy options of the ESDP according
to the various features of given territories, for defining and implementing transnational co-
operation, or for extending the ESDP inside Member states.
It is within the context of this process that it is desirable to identify ways for greater
coherence between the policy options of the ESDP and Community interventions, which
have a territorial impact. This report aims to initiate, within the European Commission
departments, and in co-operation with the other Community institutions and Member states,
a process which aims at examining territorial issues in a prospective manner and at
strengthening co-ordination and co-operation.

2. RELATION BETWEEN COMMUNITY POLICIES AND SPATIAL PLANNING:

KEY FINDINGS
The objective of the analysis of the relation between Community policies and spatial planning,
and the policy options of the ESDP in particular, presented in Part II of this report is not to
establish a formal confrontation, but rather to detect trends and cases where the integration of a
territorial dimension in the different Community policies is emerging. Furthermore, the analysis
is intended to help improving the final draft of the ESDP.
This section attempts to extract from that analysis the main findings and to derive some
preliminary policy implications.
The objectives of each Community policy are derived, at least in a formal sense, from the
provisions of the Treaties. In most cases, these objectives do not have a territorial character,
apart from the provisions arising from economic and social cohesion (Art. 158-162) whose
specific objectives each policy is invited to take account of.
Nevertheless, whether sectoral, structural or horizontal, Community policies exert significant
impacts on the territory of the Union. The territorial impact is tributary of their specific methods
of intervention, which can be grouped as follows:
(1) financial resource distribution from the Community budget. The territorial impact is
different according to whether this involves:
supports to incomes (price guarantees, market policies in agriculture),
which influence regional GDP, purchasing power in rural areas and also contribute to
fix agricultural population;
- regionalised structural measures, on the basis of economic and social cohesion
objectives. The rules of programming under Community responsibility - which

116
 influence the size of the geographical areas eligible to structural interventions as well
as the criteria for geographic and thematic concentration of financial resources - are
not neutral in terms of territorial impact;
horizontal structural measures (orientation measures designed to" improve
agricultural structures, employment and human resource development measures
involving the current Objectives 3 and 4 of structural policies), whose territorial
impact depends at the same time upon the contents of the programmes drawn up by
regional and national authorities and upon the local initiatives benefiting from these
programmes;
sectoral policies, such as the financing of research programmes and initiatives of
a cultural, education and training, tourist, environmental, energy or technological
nature. The territorial impact of these sectoral policies is largely tributary of the
location of the initiatives that get the funding. In general, the most developed regions
are those which have the most dynamic socio-economic actors;
(2) the provisions of the Treaty, as well as detailed legislation and regulations (e.g.
competition rules, market liberalisation, environmental legislation, market-based
instruments), which affect the structural context for action, both of public authorities in
Member states and of economic and social actors as a whole;
(3) the development of guidelines. This involves mainly the trans-European transport and
energy networks, which provide a long-term perspective. Associated with the financing
instruments, they play a critical role in the spatial-economic development.
The diversity of the methods of intervention of Community policies already reveals an implicit
difficulty in grasping their effective territorial impact. Whereas in the case of economic and
social cohesion, there are indicators (for example in terms of financial transfers) which make it
possible to assess with more or less precision the impact of the various Community policies, a
similar exercise is much more difficult in the context of the ESDP, and of spatial planning in
general, whose policy options are of a qualitative nature and refer to new concepts, which have
not yet been translated into precise indicators.
Moreover, a number of Community policies directly influence the behaviour of economic actors.
Yet, their actions are also determined by market forces whose effects are in turn reinforced by
the effectiveness of the Single Market. In these cases, it is often very difficult to isolate the
influence of Community interventions.
Accordingly, an approach aimed at evaluating in a systematic fashion the territorial impacts of
the various Community policies can be effective in a number of cases, but it is likely to
encounter in many other cases serious methodological difficulties.
Thus, an alternative way to approach the problem consists in examining (i) whether they use in
their design and implementation territorial concepts, (ii) whether these concepts can find a
correspondence with the policy options of the ESDP and (iii) how a greater alignment and
stronger mutual support could be envisaged.
From this perspective, a first, necessarily succinct, analysis of Community policies3 reveals
indeed a plurality of territorial concepts of a very different nature. These concepts can be
grouped in various categories:

See Part II of this Report for a detailed examination of the relation between Community policies and spatial planning.

117
(1) Delimitation of areas eligible for financial support and modulation of assistance rates
This category includes the majority of Objective areas eligible under cohesion policy. These areas
determine the interventions of territorialised structural policies as well as the possibility of State aids with a
regional purpose.
(2) Improvement of basic infrastructures
Certain Community policies intervene by financing infrastructures and basic equipment, which exert a
direct impact on the territory. This is the case, for example, of the trans-European networks, in particular in
the transport and energy sectors, both in their linear (e.g. motorways, high-voltage lines) and location-
specific (e.g. intermodality platforms, power stations) aspects. In another area, the Financial Instrument for
Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) supports measures for the management of maritime areas and the equipment of
fishing ports.
(3) Differentiation ofpolicies and measures on the basis of specific territorial criteria
A number of Community policies make use of territorial categories, for example in the case of the
implementation of legal provisions in the field of environmental protection (e.g. areas selected for
protecting given habitats and species of fauna and of flora under the network Natura 2000, vulnerable areas
in relation to underground water quality under the "Nitrates" directive), of the attribution of specific aids
(e.g. mountain regions, whose agriculture is also supported by a specific directive), of the definition of
certain RTD themes (e.g. the "marine ecosystems" and the "city of tomorrow and the cultural heritage",
themes of key-actions of the Vth Framework Programme for Research and Technology Development).
(4) Development of functional synergies
Within the framework of some Community policies, territorial elements are taken into account to establish
functional interdependencies and to emphasise synergies. Thus, research in the field of transport considers
interactions between the use of the territory and transport demand or the relation between sustainable
mobility and intermodality; regional policy attempts to promote regional innovation strategies in phase with
local needs; and energy policy is concerned with the development of solar energy in connection with town
planning.
(5) Design of integrated approaches
More ambitious than the simple acknowledgement of functional interactions and the development of the
synergies which can result, certain Community activities try to develop integrated and multisectoral
approaches with a strong territorial dimension. It is the case of the policy for the integrated development of
rural areas and in particular of the Community initiative LEADER (aid for the development and the
diversification of agriculture and forestry, SMEs development and development of rural tourism, training
measures). The Demonstration Programme on Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) constitutes
another example for cross-sectoral integration and sustainable territorial development. This initiatives -
based on the principles of participation and partnership - is aiming at the joint identification of a common
strategic vision of development through effective co-ordination and co-operation between all the actors
involved in coastal area management and by taking into consideration both the natural, economic, social
and territorial potential of an area and its hinterlands as well as the limits of its carrying capacity. Similarly,
the "Commerce 2000" action, in which several Commission services fake part, is intended to maintain and
further develop proximity trade by promoting best practice exchanges and their integration in structural
1
interventions.
Yet, these integrated approaches are still relatively few.
These territorial concepts used - more or less explicitly - by the various Community policies can
be confronted with those of the ESDP which are similar, if not identical in certain cases. Certain
policy options of the ESDP refer to territorial categories or concepts for which specific
objectives have been defined (cities and towns, rural areas, cultural landscapes, and so forth).
Other options favour synergy (accessibility and public transport, wetlands and utilisation of
water resources, etc.) or integrated management approaches (e.g. city networks, water resource
management, integrated conservation of cultural and natural heritage). It seems therefore not
only possible, but also even necessary to search for increasing coherence and convergence
between these territorial categories and concepts.
The next section presents a number of options for further discussion.

118 '
3. OPTIONS FOR BETTER INTEGRATING EUROPEAN SPATIAL PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY POLICIES
3.1 Community policies from the point of view of the policy options of the ESDP
The policy objectives and options of the ESDP do not apply solely to the areas concerned
by economic and social cohesion policy, but to the entire European territory. Their field of
interference, real or potential, with Community policies is therefore very broad. The
analysis presented in Part II shows substantial coherence between the aims of the various
Community policies and the policy options of the ESDP. In a number of cases, one can
even speak of mutual reinforcement.
Economic and social cohesion represents a first common point between Community
policies and the policy options of the ESDP. On the one hand, Community policies are
required, by the Treaty, to respect this objective. On the other hand, the ESDP not only fully
integrate it, but spatial planning can prove a remarkable instrument for strengthening
economic and social cohesion. If the implementation of certain Community policies
encounters some difficulties in relation to this objective, it is at least as much in relation to
the provisions of the Treaty as in relation to the contents of the ESDP that improvements
have to be sought at the level of these policies.
Another evident point of convergence between Community policies and the ESDP is
represented by the notion of sustainable development. While the Amsterdam Treaty
establishes that "environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the
definition and implementation of Community Policies and activities in particular with a
view to promoting sustainable development", the ESDP indicates sustainable development
as one of its key objectives.
It is equally important to consider that Community policies are elaborated and implemented
in co-operation with (more or less, according to the case) the Member states. These
interactions can have very different impacts on territories. In certain fields, they can
strengthen the sectoral character of the interventions and in others to encourage a more
horizontal approach.
The services responsible for given Community policies increasingly seek for and use
territorial concepts and objectives as instruments to better define and implement their
actions. In certain cases (e.g. tourism, energy, coastal and maritime areas), the draft ESDP
seems poorly equipped to provide support and orientations. This is an example of how
future work needs to better define such territorial concepts and objectives with a view to
assist Community policies' interventions.
Increasingly, within Community policies, steps are being taken in seeking links with other
disciplines or fields of action away from a pure sectoral approach. In certain cases, more or
less formalised multisectoral approaches have already emerged. Taking into account the
territorial dimension can provide a coherent and common base for such approaches. It is
moreover certain that "integrated policies" cannot exist without a territorial reference.
The existing processes of intersectoral co-operation appear nevertheless still too limited and
poorly suited to treat territorial issues.

119
3.2 Potential elements of a pro-active strategy aiming to bring closer Community policies and
the objectives of spatial planning
As a general conclusion, it can be said that the number and diversity of territorial categories
or concepts, used by the various Community policies, alone justify the definition of a
reference framework to ensure coherence and mutual reinforcement. Such a framework may
not only serve territorial objectives, but also possibilities for improving the overall
efficiency of Community interventions by avoiding overlaps and possible double
expenditures. Elements of this framework can be defined as follows.

• It is evident that there are policy areas where further analysis is required. The research on
the relation between spatial planning and sectoral policies being relatively recent, many
dynamics of Community policies and their actual impacts on the territorial distribution of
activities remain unclear. For example, the impact of increased economic integration on
the territorial distribution of economic activities may constitute an area for further
research, in particular at times when microeconomic instruments (such as strategic
spatial planning) are becoming increasingly important in dealing with the adjustment
pressures brought about by an open and competitive market.
The analysis presented in Part II shows that the alignment of Community sectoral policies
with the objectives of spatial planning requires, in several cases, the translation of the
ESDP policy options into concrete alternatives (optimally illustrated by cartographic
support), corresponding to defined geographical areas. Indeed, the ESDP is, by its
genesis, limited to policy objectives and options of a general nature which, for those
responsible and involved in Community policies, can appear too abstract. Nevertheless,
important elements of the Commission's Structural Funds guidelines for programme
priorities for the period 2000-2006 - which, among other things, will set the framework
for the evaluation of structural interventions - are already inspired by the policy options
of the draft ESDP.
Yet, the process, which accompanies and will extend the ESDP, needs to be
complemented by the development of more factual geographical options of spatial
development. Such concepts should.be based on the main ideas (nodality, polycentrism,
intermodality, accessibility, city networks, ecological networks etc.) contained in the
ESDP. Other inputs can be derived from spatial development's plans and programmes at
the national and regional level. In certain cases, these additional elements can help to fill
certain gaps of the ESDP. Those responsible for the various Community policies need to
be associated actively with the development of these concepts, together with those
responsible for spatial planning at national and regional level.
Possible future work to improve the territorial coherence of Community policies should
also benefit from the experience gained during the current period - as developed in the
context of Agenda 2000 - within the framework of both the structural funds' reform and
the seven transnational seminars on the ESDP. The ideas which are emerging have
outlined a number of new problems, opened new prospects and led to new priorities
which are - more than before - based upon territorial considerations.
For example, in the domain of rural policy, there is a growing interest and potential to
develop multifunctional agriculture (employment conservation through the development
of services not connected with agricultural products, such as those linked to landscape
management), new forms of pluri-activity as a means of employment creation, or
development of benchmarking for good environmental practices (starting with sensitive
areas, because of their sometimes critical situation, and then generalising the application

120
of these practices). Furthermore, cultural factors are emerging as a key element of
development policies, whether for the mise en valeur of cultural heritage or for the
development of specific functions and cultural infrastructures. Developing a synthesis of
these concepts and, accordingly, of policies and practices - on the basis of an
evolutionary understanding of socio-economic processes - could constitute an important
field for co-operation in the future.
Community policies also offer opportunities of improving their integration at the urban
level. Sustainable urban development is clearly emerging as an area of European
territorial relevance. It could be appropriate to foresee as one main field of activity,
during a first phase, work to achieve better territorial coherence of Community policies
at the urban level.
Within the framework of the enlargement preparation, the co-operation between the
various Community policies for better territorial coherence will have an important
educational function for applicant countries. They are asked to adopt and adapt a variety
of new policies for the preparation of their accession, which seldom regard territorial
coherence as a key criterion. A signal from the Community level may facilitate, in these
countries, the emergence of more integrated approaches, as well as a more effective
integration of regional planning in development policies. A similar dialogue needs to be
engaged with neighbouring non-member states, including those in the Mediterranean
basin.
Still with the aim of a greater concrétisation of the policy objectives and options of the
ESDP in relation to the expectations and potential of various Community policies, it
seems necessary to work out a joint vision for the development of the European territory.
This would make it possible in particular to enhance - in a more integrated approach -
the territorial elements pertaining to certain Community policies (in particular the trans-
European networks and the network Natura 2000). Such an approach would also make it
possible to aggregate the results of the various programmes INTERREG IIC, some of
which were given precisely the task of developing a territorial planning vision for their
respective area. The prospect of the next enlargement of the European Union further
strengthens the need for such a vision. The national and regional leaders responsible for
spatial planning should also be associated and/or be consulted within the framework of
such an exercise.
Finally, the development of this vision needs to be based on reliable, up to date and
harmonised information systems covering the territorial features of the European Union.
This is particularly important in the light of the size and diversity of the European
territory, which make any representation and analysis particularly complex. In this
context, the "territorialisation" of information and its representation by means of
geographical information seems particularly important. Yet, a huge amount of
information is already available, although often dispersed, not sufficiently harmonised
and difficult to access. It is therefore urgent to consolidate existing databases and
concepts not only for promoting territorial approaches in policy making, but also for
policy co-ordination in general.

121
 In conclusion, whereas the ESDP is about to be validated by the ministers responsible for
spatial planning, the moment appears convenient to begin - in the framework of the
discussion on spatial planning which accompanies the ESDP and extends it - a work and
medium-term co-operation process involving the various Community policies and the
Committee on Spatial Development. The objective of this work will consist in particular in
developing decentralised territorial concepts and to provide the foundations of a joint vision
for the development of the European territory.

122
European Commission

European Spatial Development Perspective

A strategy for balanced and sustainable development in Europe
European Issues in the Debate
A synthesis of the transnational seminars and the Commission Forum on the ESDP

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

1999—122 pp.— 21 χ 29.7 cm

ISBN 92-828-6551-7
 Venta · Salg · Verkauf · Πωλήσεις · Sales · Vente · Vendita · Verkoop · Venda · Myynti · Försäljning
BELGIQUE/BELGIE OSTERREICH HRVATSKA
Jean De Lannoy Manz'sche Verlags- und Mediatrade Ltd
Universitätsbuchhandlung GmbH Pavia Hatza 1 ROY International
Avenue du Roi 202/Koningslaan 202
B­1190 Bruxelles/Brussel Kohlmarkt 16 HR­10000 Zagreb 41, Mishmar Hayarden Street
Tel. (32­2) 538 43 08 A­1014Wien Tel. (385­1)481 94 11 PO Box 13056
Fax (32­2) 538 08 41 Tel. (43­1)53 16 11 00 Fax (385­1) 481 94 11 61130 Tel Aviv
E­mail: iean.de.lannoy@infoboard.be Fax (43­1) 53 16 11 67 Tel. (972-3) 649 94 69
URL: http://www.jean­de­lannoy.be E­Mail: bestellen@manz.co.at MAGYARORSZAG Fax (972­3) 648 60 39
URL: http://www.manz.at/index.htm E­mail: royil@netvision.net.il
La librairie européenne/ Euro Info Service URL: http://www.royint.co.il
De Europese Boekhandel PORTUGAL Europa Haz
Rue de la Loi 244/Wetstraat 244 Margitsziget Sub­agent for the Palestinian Authority:
B­1040 Bruxelles/Brussel Distribuidora de Livros Bertrand Ld.a PO Box 475
Tél. (32­2) 295 26 39 Grupo Bertrand. SA H-1396 Budapest 62 Index Information Services
Fax (32­2) 735 08 60 Rua das Terras dos Vales, 4­A Tel. (36-1)350 80 25
E­mail: mail@libeurop.be Apartado 60037 Fax (36-1) 350 90 32 PO Box 19502
URL: http://www.libeurop.be P­2700 Amadora E­mail: euroinfo@mail.matav.hu Jerusalem
Tel. (351­1)495 90 50 URL: http://www.euroinfo.hu/index.htm Tel. (972-2)627 16 34
Moniteur beige/Belgisch Staatsblad Fax (351­1) 496 02 55 Fax (972­2) 627 12 19
Rue de Louvain 40­42/Leuvenseweg 40­42 MALTA
Imprensa Nacional-Casa da Moeda, EP
B­1000 Bruxelles/Brussel Miller Distributors Ltd
Tél. (32­2) 552 22 11 Rua Marquês Sá da Bandeira. 16­A JAPAN
Fax (32­2) 511 01 84 P­1050 Lisboa Codex Malta International Airport
Tel. (351­1)353 03 99 PO Box 25 PSI-Japan
Fax (351­1) 353 02 94 Luqa LQA 05
DANMARK E­mail: del.incm@mail.telepac.pt Tel. (356) 66 44 88 Asahi Sanbancho Plaza »206
J. H. Schultz Information A/S URL: http://www.incm.pt Fax (356) 67 67 99 7­1 Sanbancho. Chiyoda­ku
E­mail: gwirth@usa.net Tokyo 102
Herstedvang 10­12 SUOMI/FINLAND Tel. (81­3)32 34 69 21
DK­2620 Albertslund POLSKA Fax (81­3) 32 34 69 15
Tit. (45) 43 63 23 00 Akateeminen Kirjakauppa/ E­mail: books@psi­japan.co.jp
Fax (45) 43 63 19 69 Akademiska Bokhandeln Ars Polona URL: http://www.psi­japan.com
E­mail: schult2@schultz.dk Keskuskatu 1/Centralgatan 1 Krakowskie Przedmiescie 7
URL: http://www.schultz.dk PL/PB 128 Skr. pocztowa 1001
FIN­00101 Helsinki/Helsingfors PL­00­950 Warszawa
DEUTSCHLAND P./ttn (358­9) 121 44 18 Tel. (48-22)826 12 01
F/tax (358­9) 121 44 35 Fax (48­22) 826 62 40
Bundesanzeiger Verlag GmbH E­mail: ars_pol@bevy.hsn.com.pl EBIC Malaysia
Sähköposti: akatilaus@akateeminen.com
Vertriebsabteilung URL: http://www.akateeminen.com Level 7, Wisma Hong Leong
Amsterdamer Straße 192 ROMANIA 18 Jalan Perak
D­50735 Köln SVERIGE 50450 Kuala Lumpur
Euromedia Tel. (60­3) 262 62 98
Tel. (49­221)97 66 80 BTJ AB
Fax (49­221) 97 66 82 78 Str. G­ral Berthelot Nr 41 Fax (60­3) 262 61 98
E­Mail: vertrieb@bundesanzeiger.de Traktorvägen 11 RO­70749 Bucuresti E­mail: ebic­kl@mol.net.my
URL: http://www.bundesanzeiger.de S­221 82 Lund Tel. (40­1)315 44 03
Tfn (46­46) 18 00 00 Fax (40­1) 314 22 86
Fax (46­46) 30 79 47
ΕΛΛΑΔΑ/GREECE E­post: btjeu­pub@btj.se ROSSIYA
G. C. Eleftheroudakls SA URL: http://www.btj.se CCEC Mundi Prensa Mexico, SA de CV
International Bookstore 60­leliya Oktyabrya Av. 9
Panepistimiou 17 UNITED KINGDOM 117312 Moscow Rio Panuco No 141
GR­10564 Athina Tel. (7­095) 135 52 27 Colonia Cuauhtemoc
The Stationery O ffice Ltd MX­06500 Mexico, DF
Tel. (30­1) 331 41 80/1/2/3/4/5 International Sales Agency Fax (7­095) 135 52 27
Fax (30­1) 323 98 21 Tel. (52-5) 533 56 58
51 Nine Elms Lane Fax (52­5) 514 67 99
E­mail: elebooks@netor.gr London SW8 5DR SLOVAKIA E­mail: 101545.2361 ©CompuServe.com
Tel. (44­171)873 90 90 Centrum VTI SR
ESPANA Fax (44­171) 873 84 63
E­mail: ipa.enquiries@theso.co.uk Nam. Slobody, 19
Boletín Oficial del Estado SK­81223 Bratislava PHILIPPINES
URL: http://www.the­stationery­office.co.uk
Trafalgar. 27 Tel. (421­7)54 41 83 64
E­28071 Madrid Fax (421­7) 54 41 83 64 EBIC Philippines
ISLAND E­mail: europ@tbb1.sltk.stuba.sk
Tel. (34)915 38 21 11 (Libros), 19th Floor, PS Bank Tower
913 84 17 15(Suscrip.) Bokabud Larusar Blonda! URL: http://www.sltk.stuba.sk
Sen. Gil J. Puyat Ave. cor. Tindalo St
Fax (34) 915 38 21 21 (Libros). Skólavördustig. 2 Makati City
913 84 17 14(Suscrip.) IS­101 Reykjavik SLOVENIJA Metro Manilla
E­mail: clientes@com.boe.es Tel. (354) 551 56 50 Gospodarski Vestnik Tel. (63­2) 759 66 80
URL: http://www.boe.es Fax(354) 552 55 60 Fax (63­2) 759 66 90
Dunajska cesta 5
Mundi Prensa Libros, SA SLO­1000 Ljubljana E­mail: eccpcom@globe.com.ph
NORGE Tel. (386)613 09 16 40 URL: http://www.eccp.com
Castellò. 37
E­28001 Madrid Swets Norge AS Fax (386) 613 09 16 45
Tel. (34)914 36 37 00 Ostenjoveien 18 E­mail: europ@gvestnik.si
URL: http://www.gvestnik.si SHI LANKA
Fax (34) 915 75 39 98 Boks 6512 Etterstad
E­mail: libreria@mundiprensa.es N­0606 Oslo
URL: http://www.mundiprensa.com Tel. (47­22) 97 45 00 TURKIYE EBIC Sri Lanka
Fax (47­22) 97 45 45 Dünya Infotel AS Trans Asia Hotel
FRANCE 100, Yil Mahallessi 34440 115 Sir chittampalam
SCHWEIZ/SUISSE/SVIZZERA TR­80050 Bagcilar­Istanbul A. Gardiner Mawatha
Journal officiel Tel. (90-212)629 46 89 Colombo 2
Euro Info Center Schweiz
Service des publications des CE Fax (90­212) 629 46 27 Tel. (94­1)074 71 50 78
26. rue Desaix c/o OSEC E­mail: infotel@dunya­gazete.com.tr Fax (94­1) 44 87 79
F­75727 Paris Cedex 15 Stamplenbachstraße 85 E­mail: ebicsl@itmin.com
Tel. (33) 140 58 77 31 PF 492
CH­8035 Zürich AUSTRALIA
Fax (33) 140 58 77 00
URL: http://www.journal­officiel.gouv.fr Tel. (41­1)365 53 15 Hunter Publications
Fax (41­1) 365 54 11 PO Box 404
E­mail: eics@osec.ch 3067 Abbotsford, Victoria
IRELAND URL: http://www.osec.ch/eics EBIC Thailand
Tel. (61­3)94 17 53 61
Government Supplies Agency Fax (61­3) 94 19 71 54 29 Vanissa Building, 8th Floor
BALGARIJA E­mail: jpdavies@ozemail.com.au Soi Chidlom
Publications Section
4­5 Harcourt Road Europress Euromedia Ltd Ploenchit
Dublin 2 CANADA 10330 Bangkok
59. blvd Vitosha Tel. (66­2) 655 06 27
Tel. (353­1)661 31 11 BG­1000 Sofia Les éditions La Liberté Inc.
Fax (353­1 ) 475 27 60 Tel. (359­2) 980 37 66 Fax (66­2) 655 06 28
3020, chemin Sainte­Foy E­mail: ebicbkk@ksc15.th.com
Fax (359­2) 980 42 30 G1X 3V Sainte­Foy, Québec
E­mail: Milena@mbox.cit.bg URL: http:/www.ebicbkk.org
ITALIA Tel. (1­418)658 37 63
Fax (1­800) 567 54 49
Licosa SpA CESKA REPUBLIKA E­mail: liberte@mediom.qc.ca UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Via Duca di Calabria. 1/1
Casella postale 552 USIS Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd
1­50125 Firenze NIS­prodejna 5369 Chemin Canotek Road Unit 1 Bernan Associates
Tel. (39) 055 64 83 1 Havelkova 22 K U 9J 3 Ottawa, Ontario
CZ­130 00Praha3 4611 ­F Assembly Drive
Fax (39) 055 64 12 57 Tel. (1-613)745 26 65 Lanham MD20706
E­mail: licosa@ftbcc.it Tel. (420­2)24 23 14 86 Fax (1­613) 745 76 60
Fax (420­2) 24 23 11 14 Tel. (1­800) 274 44 47 (toll free telephone)
URL: http://www.ttbcc.it/licosa E­mail: order.dept@renoufbooks.com Fax (1­800) 865 34 50 (toll Iree fax)
E­mail: nkposp@dec.nis.cz URL: http://www.renoulbooks.com
URL: http://usiscr.cz E­mail: query@bernan.com
LUXEMBOURG URL: http://www.bernan.com
EGYPT
Messageries du livre SARL CYPRUS
The Middle East O bserver
5. rue Raitfeisen Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry 41 Sherif Street ANDERE LANDER/OTHER COUNTRIES/
L­2411 Luxembourg PO Box 1455 Cairo AUTRES PAYS
Tél. (352)40 10 20 CY­1509 Nicosia Tel. (20­2) 392 69 19
Fax(352) 49 06 61 Tel. (357­2) 66 95 00
E­mail: mail@mdl.lu Fax (20­2) 393 97 32 Bitte wenden Sie sich an ein Büro Ihrer
Fax (357-2) 66 10 44 E­mail: mafouda@meobserver.com.eg Wahl/ Please contact the sales office
URL: http://www.mdl lu
E­mail: demetrap@ccci.org.cy URL: http://www meobserver.com.eg of your choice/ Veuillez vous adresser
au bureau de vente de votre choix
NEDERLAND EESTI INDIA
SDU Servicecentrum Uitgevers Eesti Kaubandus-Tööstuskoda (Estonian EBIC India Office for Officiai Publications
Christoffei Plantijnstraat 2 Chamber of Commerce and Industry) of the European Communities
3rd Floor, Y. B. Chavan Centre
Postbus 20014 Toom­Kooli 17 Gen. J. Bhosale Marg. 2, rue Mercier
2500 EA Den Haag EE­0001 Tallinn 400 021 Mumbai L­2985 Luxembourg
Tel. (31­70)378 98 80 Tel. (372) 646 02 44 Tel. (91-22)282 60 64 Tel. (352) 29 29­42455
Fax (31­70) 378 97 83 Fax (372)646 02 45 Fax (91-22) 285 45 64 Fax (352) 29 29­42758
E­mail: sdu@sdu.nl E­mail: einfo@koda.ee E­mail: ebic@giasbm01 .vsnl.net.in E­mail: info.info@opoce.cec.be
URL http://www sdu.nl URL: http://www.koda.ee URL: http://www.ebicindia.com URL: http://eur­op.eu.int
OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

L-2985 Luxembourg