From European Spatial Development to Territorial Cohesion Policy

Download 93.41 Kb.

Page	5/5
Date	20.10.2016
Size	93.41 Kb.
	#5888

1 2 3 4 5

Literature

Conclusions

If territorial cohesion were to become a shared competence under the Constitution, implementing measures relating to territorial cohesion could be adopted invoking the Community Method. It seems that this was what the Commission had in mind, but now OMC ones again comes into the picture. OMC seems ideally suited for giving shape to territorial cohesion policy (see FALUDI, 2004cd, 2005b; see also SCHÄFER, 2005) and well for two reasons. One is that the ESDP where it all started from has in fact been prepared by the use of OMC avant la lettre, in a complicated but ultimately effective process of mutual adjustment. The second reason is that it is difficult to conceive of territorial cohesion policy being prepared in any other way. Surely, the Commission is not contemplating forming an agency with the capacity to prepare, implement and monitor territorial cohesion policy on its own! Nor would it seem appropriate, as has been the case with for instance ‘Europe 2000’ (CEC, 1991), to commission consultants to do this type of work. To repeat (like in the ESDP process) Member State involvement seems essential, and OMC is a way of achieving this. After all, both the Lisbon Council and the Commission’s own White Paper on Governance (CEC, 2001b) have endorsed it.

It’s just that OMC has had a poor press from the Sapir Report (SAPIR et al., 2004) and the Kok Report (CEC, 2004g) both castigating its failure to deliver and both having been influential in shaping the Barroso Commission’s strategy. The strange thing is that the ‘Lisbon governance’ advocated by the Barroso Commission clearly reminds one of OMC. The difference is that Barroso is aiming at one cycle of Lisbon governance, rather than the multiple processes invoking OMC in the past. However, as the above has shown, DG Regio is now scrambling to relate cohesion policy to the Lisbon Strategy, so we may expect this, too, to be a multi-faceted process.

OMC works amongst others with indicators – which is, incidentally, also true for Lisbon governance. Territorial indicators, including an integrated ‘territorial cohesion indicator’ on which work is being done by French researchers (GRASLAND and HAMEZ, 2004), are amongst the themes ESPON works on. It is perhaps not too fanciful to view ESPON, and more in particular the work on territorial indicators, as a prelude to the application of OMC in the framework of territorial cohesion policy, and to see this as the follow-up of the ESDP process. (VAN GESTEL and FALUDI, 2005) Conceivably, the apparatus developed for ESPON – the secretariat and the national contact points and the networks around them – could form building blocks of the institutional infrastructure of future EU territorial cohesion policy. Seen in this light, it is gratifying to learn that an ‘ESPON II’ is under active consideration.

Other proposals for the delivery mechanisms of territorial cohesion policy are to be found in the Commission report on the ‘costs of non-coordination’. (ROBERT, STUMM, VET et al., 2001) There the consultants recommend forming an inter-institutional Co-ordination Committee responsible for the ‘spatial coherence’ of Community policies. Institutional bodies involved in the Community legislative process should be members of this committee. “This permanent structure would constitute the stable link between all actors concerned and could have (if necessary) as legal basis an inter-institutional agreement signed by the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.” (Op. cit, 160) Territorial cohesion policy seems set to have an interesting future but, as indicated, it will have to nail its colours to the mast of the Lisbon Strategy.

Literature:

ALVERGNE, C. and MUSSO, P. (Eds) (2003) Les grands textes de l'aménagement du territoire et de la décentralisation, La documentation Française, Paris.

BACHTLER, J. (2003) Politiques et stratégies pour le développement régional: transformations du paradigme, Territoires 2020: Revue d'études et de prospective No. 8, 81-87.

BACHTLER, J. and YUILL, D. (2001) Policies and Strategies for Regional Development: A Shift in Paradigm? (Regional and Industrial Policy Research Paper Nr. 46) European Policies Research Centre, Strathclyde.

BAILLY, A. (2001) Conclusions: Europe, today, tomorrow, in BAILLY A. and FREMONT, A. (Eds) Europe and its States: A Geography, pp. 195-197. La documentation Française, Paris.

BALME, R. and JOUVE, B. (1996) Building the regional state: Europe and territorial organization in France, in HOOGHE, L. (Ed) Cohesion Policy and European Integration: Building Multi-Level Governance, pp. 219-255. Oxford University Press, New York.

BARNIER, M. (2004) Preface, in Innovative City and Business Regions (Structural Change in Europe 3), p. 1. Hagbarth Publications, Bollschweil, Germany.

BAUDELLE, G., GUY, C. and OLLIVRO, J. (2003) Les scénarios de l'espace européen, in BAUDELLE G. and CASTAGNÈDE, B. (Eds) Le polycentrisme en europe, pp. 107-158. Datar/éditions de l’aube, Paris.

BAUDELLE, G. and GUY, C. (2004) Quel devenir pour l’Union européenne? Scénarios pour 2020, in BAUDELLE, G. and GUY, C. (Eds) Le Projet européen, Rennes, pp. 99-109. Presses Universitaires de Rennes, Rennes.

BERROD, F. (2003) Les services publiques à la europénnes: entre subsidiarité et politique de l’Union, Revue en linge: Etudes Européennes (http://www.etudes-europeennes.fr).

CEC - Commission of the European Communities (1991) Europe 2000: Outlook for the Development of the Community's Territory. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

CEC - Commission of the European Communities (1999) European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the EU. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

CEC - Commission of the European Communities (2001a) Unity, Solidarity, Diversity for Europe, its People and its Territory, Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion (Preliminary edition). European Commission, Brussels.

CEC - Commission of the European Communities (2001b) European Governance: A White Paper, Communication from the Commission, COM(2001) 428. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

CEC - Commission of the European Communities (2003) Structural Policies and European Territories: Competitiveness, Sustainable Development and Cohesion in Europe – From Lisbon to Gothenburg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

CEC - Commission of the European Communities (2004a) A New Partnership for Cohesion: Convergence, Competitiveness, Cooperation - Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion (Communication from the Commission COM/2004/107). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2004b) DG REGIO – Interim Territorial Cohesion Report (Preliminary Results of ESPON and EU Commission Studies). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

CEC - Commission of the European Communities (2004c), Building Our Common Future (COM/2004/101). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2004d) Directorate General Regional Policy – Working for the Regions. (http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docgener/presenta/working2004/working2004_en.pdf).

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2004e) Proposals for the New Structural Funds Regulations for the Period 2007-2013 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/regulation/pdf/com(2004)492final_en.pdf).

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2004f) Directorate General Regional Policy - Annual Management Plan 2004 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/regional_policy/document/amp_2004_en.pdf).

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2004g) Facing the Challenge: The Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Employment (Report From the High Level Group Chaired by Wim Kok). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2005) Working Together for Growth and Jobs: A New Start for the Lisbon Strategy (Communication to the Spring European Council). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

CONFERENCE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES (2004) Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. (http://ue.eu.int/igcpdf/en/04/cg00/cg00087-re02.en04.pdf).

CPMR (2002) Study on the Construction of a Polycentric and Balanced Development Model for the European Territory. Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions of Europe, Rennes.

DAMETTE, F. (1997) Wie steht es um das Europäische Raumentwicklungskonzept?, EUREG No. 6, 17-22.

DATAR (2003) Pour un rayonnement européen des métropoles françaises: Éléments de diagnostic et orientation. (http://www.datar.gouv.fr/datar_site/datar_framedef.nsf/webmaster/ciadt_framedef_vf?OpenDocument).

DIRECTORATE GENERAL REGIONAL POLICY AND COHESION (2005) Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013 (Non Paper). European Commission, Brussels.

DÜHR, S. and NADIN, V. (2005) The European agenda and spatial planning in the UK, Town & Country Planning 74(3), 82-85.

DUPUY, G. (2000) L'aménagement du territoire vu par un aménageur, Territoires 2020: Revue d'études et de prospective No.1, 11-13.

EISING, R. and KOHLER-KOCH, B. (1999) Governance in the European Union: A comparative assessment, in KOHLER-KOCH, B. and EISING, R. (Eds) The Transformation of Governance in the European Union (ECPR Studies inn European Policy Science 12), pp. 267-285. Routledge, London.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL (2005) Presidency Conclusions – Brussels European Council, 22 and 23 March (http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/84335.pdf).

FALUDI, A. (Ed) (2003) Special Issue on the Application of the European Spatial Development Perspective, Town Planning Review 74(1), 1-140.

FALUDI, A. (2004a) Territorial cohesion: Old (French) wine in new bottles, Urban Studies 41(7), 1349-1365.

FALUDI, A. (2004b) The European Spatial Development Perspective and North-west Europe: Application and future, European Planning Studies, 12(3) 391-408.

FALUDI, A. (2004c) The open method of co-ordination and post-regulatory territorial cohesion policy, European Planning Studies 12(7), 1019-1033.

FALUDI, A. (2004d) Spatial planning traditions in Europe: Their role in the ESDP Process, International Planning Studies 9(2-3), 155-172.

FALUDI, A. (2005a) Territorial cohesion: An unidentified political objective - Introduction to the special issue, in A. FALUDI (Ed) Territorial Cohesion: An Unidentified Political Objective (Special Issue), Town Planning Review 76(1), 1-13.

FALUDI, A. (2005b) Polycentric territorial cohesion policy, in A. FALUDI (Ed) Territorial Cohesion: An Unidentified Political Objective (Special Issue), Town Planning Review 76(1), 107-118.

FALUDI, A. and WATERHOUT, B. (2002) The Making of the European Spatial Development Perspective: No Masterplan (The RTPI Library Series), Routledge, London.

FALUDI, A. and WATERHOUT, B. (2005) The usual suspects: The Rotterdam informal ministerial meeting on territorial cohesion, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 96(3), 338-342.

FRENCH PRESIDENCY (2000) Spatial Development: Summary Report – Synthesis. Délegation à l’aménagement du territoire et à l’action régionale (Datar), Paris.

GESTEL, T. VAN, and FALUDI, A. (2005) Towards a European Territorial Cohesion Assessment Network: A bright future for ESPON?, in A. FALUDI (Ed) Territorial Cohesion: An Unidentified Political Objective (Special Issue), Town Planning Review 76(1), 69-80.

GRASLAND, C. and HAMEZ, G. (2004) Vers la construction d’un indicateur de cohésion territorial européen?, Xlème Colloque de l’Association de Science Régionale De Langue Française, Brussels, 1-3 September (http://www.ulb.ac.be/soco/asrdlf).

GUIGOU, J.L. (1995) Une ambition pour le territoire: Aménager l'espace et le temps, Éditions de l'Aube, La Tour d’Aigues.

GUIGOU, J.L. (2000) Ein ehrgeiziges Ziel für Frankreich: zur Gestaltung von Raum und Zeit, aus dem französischen übersetzt von Elke Nowak-Lehmann. Lang, Bern.

GUIGOU, J.-L. (2001) Europe and territorial planning, in A. Bailly, A.Fremont, (Eds) Europe and its States: A Geography, pp. 3-4. La documentation Française, Paris.

GUIGOU, J.-L. (2002) Aménager la France de 2020: Mettre les territoires en mouvement, Datar - La documentation Française, Paris

HOOGHE, L. (2001) The European Commission and the Integration of Europe: Images of Government, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

HUNTINGTON, S. P. (2005) (1st edition 2004) Who are We? - America's Great Debate, The Free Press, London.

JANIN RIVOLIN, U., and FALUDI, A. (Eds) (2005) Southern Perspectives on European Spatial Planning (Special Issue), European Planning Studies 13(2), 195-331.

LACOUR, C., and DELAMARE, A. (2003) 40 ans d’aménagement du territoire, La documentation Française, Datar, Paris.

LÉVY, J. (1997) L’Europe, une géographie, Hachette, Paris.

LUXEMBOURG PRESIDENCY (2005a) Conclusions of the Informal EU-Ministerial Meeting on Territorial Cohesion - 20 and 21 May 2005 in Luxembourg, (http://www.eu2005.lu/en/actualites/documents_travail/2005/05/20regio/Min_DOC_2_MinConcl_fin.pdf).

LUXEMBOURG PRESIDENCY (2005b) Scoping Document and Summary of Political Messages for an Assessment of the Territorial State and Perspectives of the European Union: Towards a stronger European territorial cohesion in the light of the Lisbon and Gothenburg ambitions, (http://www.eu2005.lu/en/actualites/documents_travail/2005/05/20regio/Min_DOC_1_fin.pdf).

MEIJERS, E., and ROMEIN, A. (2003) Realizing potential: Building regional organizing capacity in polycentric urban regions, European Urban and Regional Studies 10(2), 173-186.

PEYRONY, J. (2004) DATAR en de ruimtelijke toekomstverkenning: Welke toekomst voor het Europees grondgebied? Stedebouw & Ruimtelijke Ordening No. 5 (Supplement), 34-38.

PORTE, C. DE LA, and POCHET, P. (2002) Supple co-ordination at EU level and the key actors' involvement, in C. de la PORTE, and P. POCHET (Eds) Building Social Europe through the Open Method of Co-ordination, pp. 27-68. P.I.E.-Peter Lande, Brussels, Bern, Berlin, Frankfurt/M., New York, Oxford, Wien.

RAVESTEYN, N. VAN, and EVERS, D. (2004) What happened to European spatial planning?, Ruimte in Debat. No 4, 4-10.

ROBERT, J., STUMM, T, VET, J. M. et al. (2001) Spatial Impacts of Community Policies and the Costs of Non-coordination. European Commission, Brussels.

SAPIR, A., AGHION, P., BERTOLA, G., HELLWIG, M., PISANI-FERRY, J., ROSATI, D., VIÑALS, J., and WALLACE, H., with BUTTI, M., NAVA, M., SMITH, P.M. (2004) An Agenda for a Growing Europe: The Sapir Report. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

SCHÄFER, A. (2005) Co-ordination in European spatial development: Whose responsibility?, in A. FALUDI (Ed) Territorial Cohesion: An Unidentified political objective (Special Issue), Town Planning Review 76(1), 29-42.

SIEDENTOP, L. (2000) Democracy in Europe. Allen Lane, London.

WATERHOUT, B. (2002), Polycentric development: What is behind it?, in A. FALUDI (Ed) European Spatial Planning, pp. 83-103. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge MA.

WORKING GROUP 4c (2001) Multi-level Governance: Linking and Networking the Various Regional and Local Levels (Group 4c) (http://europa.eu.int/governance/arreas/group10/index_en.htm).

Download 93.41 Kb.

Share with your friends:

1 2 3 4 5