Part Two: Territorial Cohesion Thinking

Part Two: Territorial Cohesion Thinking

During Michel Barnier’s term as European Commissioner for regional policy the Commission invoked territorial cohesion as if it were already an area of EU policy. The second Cohesion Report (CEC, 2001a) devoted a whole chapter to it. Conceivably for tactical reasons, the third Cohesion Report (CEC, 2004a), coming out at a time when the Constitution was still under consideration and the present conflict over the Community budget about to break out, soft-pedalled on territorial cohesion. However, no sooner had the Constitution been agreed by the European Council of Heads of State and Government, and the Commission published the ‘Interim Territorial Cohesion Report’, based on the work of the European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON). (CEC, 2004b) This once again made it seem as if EU concern with territorial cohesion was a foregone conclusion.

There is no official definition of what territorial cohesion means. The message repeated over and over again is that it complements the economic and social cohesion goal and harmonious and balanced development of the Union as stated in the Treaty. Clearly, DG Regio wants to dispel the idea as if invoking territorial cohesion would mean a radical departure from existing policies. Rather, it is said to focus on development opportunities to encourage co-operation and networking and to pay attention also to strengths of areas and to the more effective targeting of policy instruments. This relates to the Lisbon Strategy of turning Europe into the most competitive area of sustainable growth in the world to which territorial cohesion policy should contribute.

The Lisbon Strategy comes through loud and clear in the third Cohesion Report. In addition to competitiveness, territorial cohesion relates to sustainability (including the prevention of natural risks). Lastly, it is about promoting greater coherence and co-ordination between regional policy and sectoral policies with a substantial territorial impact. In other words, principles of good governance as proposed in the Commission’s White Paper on this topic (CEC, 2001b) form part of the agenda, this being another theme consistently found in the Commission’s territorial cohesion thinking.

For a statement on territorial cohesion coming straight from the horse’s mouth the reader can turn to a paper by Commissioner Michel Barnier (BARNIER, 2004) published shortly before his unexpected departure to become French foreign minister. This paper, too, emphasises that EU policy already embraces aspects of territorial cohesion. It then outlines the new directions to this policy:

• 
  exploiting opportunities, and not just addressing problems;
  
• 
  encouraging co-operation and networking;
  
• 
  building on existing strengths so as to improve the targeting of cohesion policy;
  
• 
  ensuring the incorporation of the sustainability agenda, including addressing the issue of natural risks;
  
• 
  more coherence and co-ordination between regional and sectoral policies.
  

The third Cohesion Report plugs the same line. It starts by referring to the promotion of economic and social cohesion as a central aim of the EU. The idea of creating an area without internal frontiers and the establishment of economic and monetary union implies “…that people should not be disadvantaged by where they happen to live or work in the Union.” (CEC, 2004a, 27) This is why territorial cohesion is said to have been included in the Constitution. The third Cohesion Report adds though that the

“…concept of territorial cohesion extends beyond the notion of economic and social cohesion by both adding to this and reinforcing it. In policy terms, the objective is to help achieve a more balanced development by reducing existing disparities, preventing territorial imbalances and by making both sectoral policies which have a spatial impact and regional policy more coherent. The concern is also to improve territorial integration and encourage cooperation between regions.” (Op cit.)

Indeed, drawing on the ESDP, the third Cohesion Report re-iterates that “[t]o combat territorial disparities and achieve a spatially balanced pattern of economic development requires some coordination of development policies if they are to be coherent and consistent with each other.” (Op cit, 28) It goes on to discuss territorial imbalances in the EU threatening the harmonious development of the Union economy. The message is the same as before: rather than a departure from existing policies, territorial cohesion merely puts some aspects of cohesion policy into focus. Perhaps inevitably, what precisely this implies is left somewhat vague. Political agreement on cohesion policy still has some way to go.

To foster such an agreement, the Dutch organised an Informal Ministerial Meeting on Territorial Cohesion during their Presidency in late-2004. (FALUDI and WATERHOUT, 2005). This was a signal to the Commission that the Member States – at least the ‘usual suspects’ coming out of the ESDP-process involved also in drawing up the Rotterdam agenda – are willing to, indeed insist on, being part of territorial cohesion policy. It was the start of a political process that is still ongoing.

Thus, on 20/21 May 2005, another EU Informal Ministerial Meeting on Regional Policy and Territorial Cohesion took place in Luxembourg. (LUXEMBOURG PRESIDENCY, 2005a) It endorsed a scoping document on the 'Territorial State and Perspectives of the European Union - Towards a Stronger European Territorial Cohesion in the Light of the Lisbon and Gothenburg Ambitions'. (LUXEMBOURG PRESIDENCY, 2005b) The document is based on the outcomes of the previous ministerial meeting in Rotterdam and on analyses of the territorial development of the EU and the spatial impact of Community policies. As has been its mission, the European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) has provided a solid analytical base for this document regarding Europe’s geography and territorial development. The document approved by the ministers argues for territorial development policies to help areas to develop their territorial capital as part of the overall effort to increase Europe's competitiveness. The substantive priorities as laid down in the document are to strengthen polycentrism and urban-rural partnership, promote clusters of competitive and innovative activities, strengthen the trans-European networks, promote trans-European risk management and strengthen trans-European ecological structures and cultural resources. These priorities will be worked out in an 'Agenda 2007' process between now and the German Presidency during that year. Intervening Presidencies have agreed to support this agenda. With the ratification of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in the balance, the political agreement masterminded at Rotterdam and reaffirmed at Luxembourg may be the only way forward for territorial cohesion policy. In fact, although they confirmed that it would create a stronger mandate and responsibility for both the Union and member states, ministers did not seem to think that their Agenda 2007 hinged upon the Constitution being adopted. So the governance philosophy of the Member States based on mutual co-operation and learning about territorial cohesion and territorial development policy may be robust enough to withstand the winter storms ahead.

Whilst this is going on, the issue, mentioned above, of the EU budget (CEC, 2004c) looms large.

Amounts allocated to member states are the object of high-level bargains following an intergovernmental logic with its side payments and package deals. Once it is agreed though, the overall medium-term framework decided by the European Council leaves room for initiatives from below. An information brochure of DG Regio aptly summarises the philosophy in a manner designed to counter criticisms of regional policy as ineffective and unnecessarily bureaucratic of the type voiced in the Sapir Report (SAPIR et al., 2004):

“European regional policy … is necessary now more than ever. It is neither archaic nor outdated. It is not a charity policy. It does not consist solely of redistributing resources. Instead it seeks primarily to generate new ones. It is not a policy ‘from above’ but rather a decentralised policy based on partnerships in which the responsibilities are divided and concrete projects are administered on site. It is also a policy in which knowledge, technology and ‘good practices’ are exchanged, and cooperative networks are developed throughout Europe as a whole. It is a coordinated policy that leaves room for initiatives and, better yet, encourages and strengthens them. It cannot be replaced by a simple policy of calls for tender at European level. This emerges clearly from the debate on its future, launched throughout the entire Union in 2000.” (CEC, 2004d, 3)

What is evident is the emergence of a stable set of policies around territorial cohesion building on classic, distributive EU regional policy but adding the pursuit of competitiveness, endogenous development, sustainability and good governance into the bargain. The new objectives 2 and 3, ‘restructuring and job creation’ and in particular ‘promoting co-operation and networking’ as proposed in the third Cohesion Report bear this direction of territorial cohesion policy out. However, the future of cohesion policy, and in particular of these two objectives, hangs in the balance. The Barroso Commission’s strategy for reviving the Lisbon process (CEC, 2005) does not make much of it, and it makes no reference to territorial cohesion. However, the European Council of Heads of State and Government (European Council, 2005) of March 2005 drew attention to the role of cohesion policy in a revived Lisbon Strategy, and the DIRECTORATE GENERAL REGIONAL POLICY AND COHESION (2005) was quick on the mark presenting a ‘non-paper’ on the conduct of cohesion policy in the framework of ‘Lisbon governance’ – the process by which the Barroso Commission intends to achieve its aims, about which more below. First the roots of territorial cohesion in aménagement du territoire will be highlighted. (FALUDI, 2004a)