Introduction: The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP)
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Session:European Spatial Planning (March 11, 4:00pm)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Introduction: The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP)
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Session:European Spatial Planning (March 11, 4:00pm) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Abstract: A French/Dutch initiative to coax the Commission into a planning role ran into opposition from Germany. In the fullness of time, out of the interaction of these actors, the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) emerged. The paper discusses the concept of European spatial planning to which it relates and the content as well as the process of making the document. This forms the background to three subsequent papers about the roles of The Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom in bringing the ESDP about: Andreas Faludi: The German Role in the ESDP Process
This paper draws amongst others on a forthcoming book, co-authored with Bas Waterhout, ‘No Masterplan: The Making of the European Spatial Development Perspective.’
IntroductionThe proudest achievement of European spatial planning is the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). This is an overview, to be followed by accounts of the roles of The Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom. Together, they should provide a more rounded view of this complex undertaking involving all the fifteen Member States of the European Union (EU) alongside with the European Commission than any national impression could provide. The initiative has been French and Dutch, and the purpose to add a spatial dimension to European regional policy. For reasons to be explained, this ran into opposition from Germany, rallying other Member States behind it. Thus the ESDP became an intergovernmental rather than a European document, with the successive six-monthly Presidencies of the EU taking turns in managing the ESDP process. However, a North American audience has every right to wonder what European spatial planning means in the first instance. European spatial planningSpatial planning is ‘Euro-English,’ i.e. non-British, and for that matter of course non-American, concepts that emerge from ideas from various parts of Europe rubbing off on each other and then being expressed in English words. Indeed, the concept of spatial planning bears the marks of various European traditions. (European Commission 1997a) In particular, where spatial planning is seen to represent a form of land-use regulation, it becomes a contested field. To explain this, a closer look at European integration is in order. The process has started with the European Economic Community (EEC) established in 1958. The EEC has assumed new tasks, absorbed new members and restyled itself, first as the European Community (EC) and as the European Union (EU) of, as of now, fifteen Member States. Strictly speaking, the EU is the roof over three so-called pillars, of which the European Community is the only one with supra-national powers. The EC institution that is in the public eye is the European Commission, the ‘Eurocrats’ at Brussels. At the same time, ‘European Commission’ also refers to the College of Commissioners, the closest thing to a European government. However, beware of facile comparisons. The Commission is not elected by the European Parliament but rather appointed by Member State governments. Nor is Community law adopted by the European Parliament, but rather by the Council of Ministers representing the same governments (although under ‘co-decision making’ the European Parliament has some say in the matter). What makes this arrangement even more unusual is that the Commission has the exclusive right of initiative. Against this backdrop, what could European spatial planning mean? Conceivably, the Commission could prepare statements outlining the intended outcomes, in terms of spatial development, of various relevant Community policies. However, this is where problems arise. Regulating land use is a sovereign right of states. Now, whereas the EC exists by the grace of Member States surrendering some of their sovereign powers by means of concluding treaties, with regard to land use regulation they have never done so. Whether they should is governed by two principles: subsidiarity and proportionality. (Nadin, Shaw 1999) The first asserts that responsibilities should not reside higher than is necessary. The second says that the EC’s means and controls should fit their purpose. If these tests were applied, the outcome wold inevitably be a matter of political judgement. However, it is possible to view spatial planning not as land-use regulation but as formulating spatial strategy or a spatial perspective. Surely, any actor making spatial dispositions could, and indeed should do so within a certain perspective. So, without prejudice to Member States and their regional and local authorities regulating land-use, there could be European spatial planning in the sense of the Commission formulating a spatial perspective. This was indeed the view of the French and Dutch initiators, put the view of spatial planning as land-use regulation has interfered, turning the spatial planning competency of the EC into a contested issue. The ESDPBefore discussing the positions of The Netherlands, Germany and the UK, it is apposite to give a brief account of what the ESDP is and how it has come about. In May 1999 at Potsdam in Germany, the planning ministers of EU Member States gave their assent to the ESDP, the result of actors from Member States and the European Commission interacting over the best part of ten years. It is quite a readable document coming in two parts, Part A, ’Achieving the Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the EU: The Contribution of the Spatial Development Policy’, and the more analytical Part B, ’The Territory of the EU; Trends, Opportunities and Challenges.’ (See Table 1) Here the emphasis is on Part A, a bare 51 pages of text.
Chapter 1 identifies territory as a new dimension of European policy. With European Monetary Union (EMU) a fact, it is no longer possible to compensate for productivity disparities by adjusting exchange rates, so disparities may get worse. However, spatial balance can contribute to a more even geographic distribution of growth. In addition, ‘balanced and sustainable spatial development’ can reconcile social and economic claims on land with the area's ecological and cultural functions, with a balanced settlement structure the key. Chapter 2 deals with seven areas of Community policy, singling three out as being of particular importance. They are the Structural Funds (being the instruments of so-called ‘cohesion policy’ assisting less-favored regions within the EU with massive financial support), the trans-European networks (infrastructure designed to link national networks in various corners of Europe so that they form a coherent whole) and environmental policy. The chapter culminates in a section titled ‘For an improved spatial coherence of Community policies’ recommending searching for ‘functional synergies’ and an integrated and multisectoral spatial development approach in various Community programs. Chapter 3 presents policy options under three ‘spatial development guidelines’ as follows:
Each is broken down into topics and sixty policy options. Obviously, they defy summarizing. Policy option 1, "Strengthening of several larger zones of global economic integration in the EU, equipped with high-quality, global functions and service, including the peripheral areas, through transnational spatial development strategies," is the only one to be discussed. Whether the spatial structure of Europe reflects a one-dimensional center-periphery model or whether it is more diverse has been an important issue. The one-dimensional view supports redistribution to less-favored regions, mainly in the periphery. The view of a ‘diversified Europe’ pays more attention to the endogenous potential of regions and to spatial and environmental problems in the core. The ESDP identifies an area comprising 20 percent of the Community territory, with 40 percent of the inhabitants producing no less than 50 percent of the GDP, the so-called ‘pentagon’ with London, Paris, Milan, Munich and Hamburg as its corners, as the only ‘global economic integration zone’ in Europe. Thus, it seems to reflect a one-dimensional view of Europe. However, the answer is not to have more redistribution to the periphery. Rather, the ESDP says that as a global economic integration zone the pentagon is important for European competitiveness. In all this, both the ESDP (European Commission 1999, 20) and the more recent Second Cohesion Report of the European Commission draw a comparison with the US, where "…activity is more evenly distributed, despite its land area being twice as large as an enlarged EU and its population being much smaller (270 million inhabitants, 44% less than in the EU)." (European Commission 2001, 31) So the pentagon and the agglomeration diseconomies there draw attention, thus seemingly conflicting with cohesion policy. However, the ESDP seeks to marry the promotion of competitiveness with that of cohesion. Once again, the reasoning is also reflected in the Second Cohesion Report of the European Commission. It is that, while "…the concentration of economic activity in the stronger regions may lead to greater efficiency of production in the EU in the short-term, this may be at the expense of the longer-term competitiveness of the Union economy insofar as it damages their capacity to exploit comparative advantages. Moreover, the concentration of both businesses and people in particular regions conflicts with the objective of sustainable development." (European Commission 2001, 29) Of course, the jury is still out on whether this is realistic. (Krätke 2001, 112) However, with the ESDP being a political document, the ability to form the basis for consensus is important. This relates to the issue of the representation of this policy. The ESDP has no maps illustrating it, not any other of the spatial policies it expresses. To agree on maps appears more difficult than on verbal expressions of policy. Thus, easy though this would have been, the ESDP fails to depict the pentagon, but one of the German key-actors involved in making the document (Schön 2000, IV) illustrates it in a way that would have fitted the format of the ESDP. (Figure 1; see also Faludi 2000, 2001) The reason for the absence of maps in the ESDP seems that to represent areas as the 'core,' the 'periphery,' 'developed,' 'underdeveloped' and so forth is controversial. Also, the policy response to the concentration in the ‘pentagon’ does not lend itself easily for being represented diagrammatically. It starts from the claim that, having only one global economic integration zone, whereas the US for instance has several, Europe is dangerously exposed, the consequence being that there should be more such zones.
There is a hint in the ESDP of two areas, the Øresund region and the region of Barcelona, having the makings of a global economic integration zone. However, this is tentative, and to indicate only these zones on a map would have been controversial. In addition, the ESDP takes a novel approach. Classic regional policy is about inward investments in less-favored regions. The ESDP adopts an endogenous development agenda, although one flanked by classic transfers and by the policy concerning trans-European networks. Now, endogenous development policies do not lend themselves easily to being represented on maps, so this is why Chapter 3 does not contain policy maps. Chapter 4 is on the application of the ESDP and distinguishes between various levels, from the Community level to that of transnational and down to cross-border and interregional co-operation. Concerning arrangements for its further application, the ESDP says: "This requires new ways of co-operation, which according to the ESDP's principles should be on a voluntary basis." (European Commission 1999, 35) The intention for the work to continue is evident. The last chapter of Part A, and the least polished of them all, is about the enlargement of the EU, which is one of the reasons why at some future stage the ESDP will need to be revised. What remains is to report that the application of the ESDP is well on its way. What is particularly striking is that, in many of its statements of policy, the European Commission makes reference to the ESDP. At the same time, it seems bent on ending the dominance of Member States. A brief look at the ESDP process explains why. The ESDP processThe process has been one of players from the Member States interacting with the Directorate-General of the European Commission responsible for regional policy. Informal meetings (formal meetings being limited to areas for which there is a Community competency) of the planning ministers of the Member States have been the high points in the process. For reference purposes, Table 2 summarizes the venues and topics of these meetings. The process started with a meeting called by the French at Nantes in the presence of Commission President Jacques Delors, by now almost a legend. Spatial planning in the sense of formulating a spatial perspective complemented his ideas of turning the Commission into a strategic authority spearheading integration. Behind the scenes, Dutch planners had been involved. They shared the French aim of coaxing the Commission into assuming a planning role and thus to knock more sense into its policies by basing them on a spatial perspective. This reflected domestic concerns of the French planning agency DATAR and of the Dutch National Spatial Planning Agency.
Italian enthusiasm in organizing a follow-up at Turin enabled the Dutch to host the third meeting at The Hague in 1991. By that time, the Germans were alert to the possibility of the Commission entering spatial planning. In the German federal system, a ‘counter-current principle’ prevails under which policy is formulated bottom-up. So the German stance ever since has been for European spatial planning to be an intergovernmental responsibility. The outcome in terms of a European spatial vision or, as it was soon to be called, perspective, should guide the Community in the application of its policies. Member States rallied to the German position. In 1991 at The Hague, there was agreement on setting up the Committee on Spatial Development (CSD) eventually to become responsible for work on the ESDP. Other than with the untold number of such committees, the Commission is not in the chair. Rather, the Member State holding the rotating EU Presidency is in the chair. This reflects the idea of European spatial planning as an intergovernmental responsibility. Having said that, it is worth noting that the CSD meets in the facilities and makes use of the services for ordinary committees chaired by the Commission, with the Commission also footing the bill for the expenses of a two-member delegation per Member State. The Portuguese Presidency organized the fourth meeting focusing on trans-European networks. What followed were two Presidencies disinclined or unable to organize such meetings: the UK, where at the time planning counted for little and Europe even for less, and the Danish Presidency hampered by internal reorganizations. The turning point was Liège where ministers heeded the call of the Belgian Presidency for the formulation of a joint European Spatial Development Perspective. With their 1994 Presidency in mind, the Germans entertained hopes of seeing this project through. By that time, the European Commission had published a ‘communication’ called ‘Europe 2000’ (European Commission 1991) to be supplemented with ‘Europe 2000+.’ (European Commission 1994) However, the Germans got no further than getting the so-called Leipzig Principles, called after the venue of the meeting, accepted. (Meanwhile, there had been a further meeting under the Greeks at Corfu where the CSD had settled on a mode of operation.) These principles have been constitutive of the ESDP. Subsequently the ESDP process went into the doldrums. First of all, there was the French Presidency introducing so-called scenarios that seemed to fit the strategic nature of the exercise, but national elections stalled the effort. Perceiving a danger to its allocation out of the Structural Funds (of which Spain is the greatest beneficiary) the Spanish Presidency treaded water. Entrusting the Dutch with bringing the ship into port, at Venice, Member States took the ESDP again out of the doldrums. At Noordwijk in 1997, the Dutch gained approval for a ‘First Official Draft.’ (European Commission 1997b) By that time, methods of working in an intergovernmental context had been developed. The UK government under Labour was enthusiastically seeking to complete the ESDP in 1998. However, the results of consultations and of so-called transnational seminars organized to spread the ESDP message took time to digest. The UK achievement was the (unpublished) ‘First Full Draft’ presented at Glasgow in 1998. By that time it had become clear that completing the ESDP would be a task for the Germans, and this is how ministers came to give their blessing to the ESDP at Potsdam in 1999. It was left to the Finnish Presidency to finish the business by getting another ministerial meeting at Tampere to accede to a 12-point Action Program, now under way. ConclusionsAs emphasized, the process has been an intergovernmental one, with decisive inputs from successive EU Presidencies chairing the CSD and hosting meetings of ministers and more generally putting their stamps on the process and the document as it evolved. The three papers that follow give a more detailed account of the influence of The Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom. Throughout the process, the Commission has given logistical and secretarial assistance and fulfilled an important role behind the scenes. The signs are that the Commission will play a more outspoken role in future. What this will mean for the intergovernmental ESDP process with its reliance on successive Presidencies taking the initiative remains to be seen. ReferencesEuropean Commission (1991) Europe 2000: Outlook for the development of the Community’s territory, Office for official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. European Commission (1994) Europe 2000+. Cooperation for European territorial development, Office for official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. European Commission (1997a) The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies (Regional Development Studies 28), Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. European Commission (1997b) European Spatial Development Perspective (E.S.D.P.) - First Official Draft, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. European Commission (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. European Commission (2001) Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion 2001, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Faludi, A. (2000a) The European Spatial Development Perspective - What next?, European Planning Studies, 8(2), 237-250. Faludi, A. (2001) The European Spatial Development Perspective and the changing institutional landscape of planning, in: A. da Rosa Pires, L. Albrechts, J. Alden (eds.) The Changing Institutional Landscape of Planning, (Regional Policy and Development Series), Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London, Bristol, Pennsylvania, 35-55. Krätke, S. (2001) 'Strengthening the Polycentric Urban System in Europe: Conclusions from the ESDP', European Planning Studies, 9(1), 105-116. Nadin, V., Shaw, D. (1999) Subsidiarity and Proportionality in Spatial Planning Activities in the European Union - Final Report, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London. Schön, K.P. (2000) 'Einführung - Des Europäische Raumentwicklungskonzept und die Raumordnung in Deutschland', Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, nr.3/4, I – VII.
Author and Copyright InformationCopyright 2001 by Author Andreas Faludi, Dipl.-Ing. Dr.techn. E-mail: a.faludi@net.HCC.nl |
