1. ESPON Scientific Conference on European Territorial Research Territorial Cohesion and new Cohesion Policy: Challenges for old and new Member States Laura Polverari & Irene McMaster Luxembourg, 13-14 October 2005

2. Laura Polverari & Irene McMaster 2 Presentation Outline  New context for European Cohesion policy 2007-13 –New programming framework –New resources –A new European Union all imply new challenges for territorial cohesion  Analysis of past experience with two key areas of Structural Funds programming –Urban development –Territorial cooperation  Perspectives on urban development and territorial cooperation in 2007-13 Cohesion policy  Conclusions/Issues for discussion

3. Laura Polverari & Irene McMaster 3 Territorial Cohesion: an emerging goal in a fluid policy environment  Past Structural Funds programmes have been conducive to territorial cohesion  New ECP framework presents unprecedented opportunities for the integration of TC  TC is a new policy goal: –Constitutional Treaty –ESPON –COM proposals for 2007-13 Cohesion policy All support territorial cohesion  But there are also new challenges

4. Laura Polverari & Irene McMaster 4 2007-13 Programming framework Community Strategic Guidelines (Council) National Strategic Reference Frameworks Operational Programmes “Taking account of the territorial dimension of Cohesion policy” 1.Making Europe and its regions more attractive places 2.Knowledge and innovation for growth 3.More and better jobs Plus emphasis on: urban development, i.e. competitiveness of neighbouring cities territorial cooperation

5. Laura Polverari & Irene McMaster 5 New resources  Uncertain financial framework: –overall financial allocation to ECP to be decided (e.g. initial COM proposal of 1.24% of GNI vs. “group of six” 1%) –% allocation to the 3 Objectives tbc (e.g. Objective 3 from 4% to 2.42%)  2 considerations for territorial cohesion –significant reduction for non convergence: risk of lack of spatial focus (e.g. thematic concentration) –territorial cooperation supported in principle, but little financial resources

6. Laura Polverari & Irene McMaster 6 A new European Union EU Enlargement practical implications for TC  Increased territorial disparities, e.g. Latvia 37.3% of EU average GDP  New MS internal disparities significant or on the rise: city/hinterland divide, declining rural areas, East-West divide  New MS will receive substantial ECP resources but will they use them in line with TC? –Development path chosen for economic catching-up: with other EU countries or internal to each country? Support to lagging regions or growth poles? –Potential for coherence with CSG (e.g. innovation) –Strategic and implementation capacity lacking where it is more needed

7. Laura Polverari & Irene McMaster 7 Urban development and territorial cooperation in current programmes  Additionally to the new context for Cohesion policy, past experience and policy practice is also going to have an impact on how territorial cohesion will be reflected in future ECP  Two key themes for TC: –urban development –territorial cooperation

8. Laura Polverari & Irene McMaster 8 Urban development in EU15 High degree of variation territorial characteristics Often alignment with domestic policies ApproachRationaleProgrammes Reactive Problems and weaknesses of urban areas País Vasco o2 N.E. England O2 Western Scotland O2 Nordrhein-Westfalen O2 Sachsen Anhalt O1 Pro-active Urban areas as areas of potential Western Finland O2 Urban-Rural Partnership More balanced urban-rural interrelations Toscana O2 Niederösterreich O2 Norra O2 No Urban related measures No direct or indirect measures for towns and cities Norra Norrland O1 Lombardia O2 Nordjylland O2 Steiermark O2 Urban development is not polycentric development

9. Laura Polverari & Irene McMaster 9 Reactive Approaches Bilbao Glasgow Gateshead (NEE)

10. Laura Polverari & Irene McMaster 10 Proactive Approaches and Urban- Rural Partnership Oulu (West of Finland) Toscana

11. Laura Polverari & Irene McMaster 11 Urban development in the EU10  Different strategies than in the EU15  Urban advantage rather than disadvantage, e.g. Latvia 1996-2002 real pp income +32.4% in urban areas, only +7.5% in rest of the country  Urban advantage does not translate to balanced development  Both reactive and proactive approaches, but more emphasis on urban centres as engines for economic growth (proactive)

12. Laura Polverari & Irene McMaster 12 Territorial Cooperation in EU25  EU15: INTERREG CI (since the early nineties)  EU10: INTERREG CI and Phare programme  Several acknowledged benefits but also constraints Establishment of long-lasting networks Overcoming of borders and more visible European integration Additional EU Funding Exchange of experience and information Increased regional role in management and implementation Absorption difficulties (esp. in EU10) Diverging social, economic and administrative traditions in new MS lack of competences and of financial strengths at regional and sub-regional levels difficulties to cooperate in external borders

13. Laura Polverari & Irene McMaster 13 Urban development and Territorial Cooperation in 2007-13  Difficult to predict future weight of urban/polycentric development and territorial cooperation and, more generally, the impact of future programmes on territorial cohesion  MS and regional authorities are only starting their strategic reflections  Some early indications however emerge

14. Laura Polverari & Irene McMaster 14 Urban development in 2007-13 Structural Funds programmes  Unclear views over future strategies  EU15 - Shift towards innovation, proactive  EU10 – continued emphasis on areas of growth and potential (e.g. Poland, Slovak and Czech republics)  ≠ opinions on support to urban areas in future programmes but common themes: –Urban support should not = urban regeneration –Support not just for urban location, but strategic quality of projects –Definition of urban area should be flexible

15. Laura Polverari & Irene McMaster 15 Territorial Cooperation in 2007-13 Structural Funds programmes  General acknowledgement of value added but limits (not solved by proposed 2007-13 framework) –Outcomes hardly visible –Complexity, vagueness and lack of proportionality (especially for smaller organisations) –Lack of transparency –Communication –Physical limitations and costs –Domestic allocation of competences  Complex, multi-purpose, low budget: doubts over real impact on territorial cohesion

16. Laura Polverari & Irene McMaster 16 Conclusions/Issues for discussion  The reshaping of the EU, its goals and its Cohesion policy present an unprecedented opportunity for the pursuit of territorial cohesion  BUT there are challenges and practical constraints: –Leaving aside the policy rhetoric, are the necessary conditions in place to ensure the integration of TC in future national and regional strategies? Are the conditions in place to ensure that strategic statements will be followed-up? –Both old and new MS will face trade-offs in the allocation of resources: does the objective of TC risk being sidelined? At what levels will TC be pursued? –What weight will actually be attributed to urban/polycentric development and territorial cooperation in practice? How will the shortcomings of current policy practice be solved?