1. Reflections on a European Territorial Scenarios and Vision seen from a Member State perspective addressing a spatial vision process under the presidency Thiemo W. Eser ESPON Seminar “Territories Acting for Economic Growth: Using territorial evidence to meet challenges towards 2020” Inspire policy making by territorial evidence

2. Why do we need it? What comes after the TA 2020? Creating a common picture of Europe as a common reference for policy making. Where do we end up without a European spatial vision? Ad-hoc policy; Less territorial integrated policy making; Sectorally driven policies Are we ready for a European debate? The state of national debates Needs to be seen … Using the ET 2050 vision: Making Europe Open and Polycentric – why this central objective for the vision? See Report ESPON and MCRIT 2014: “Making Europe Open and Polycentric” The long way to political debate on a spatial vision

3. is the most coherent territorial strategy supporting the economic growth and competitiveness, social cohesion and sustainability goals promoted by the Europe 2020 and the Territorial Agenda 2020 for the coming decades. This strategy combines growth and cohesion, and it produces liveable places for people. The efficiency and quality of the European territory lies in networking cities of all sizes, from local to global level, as well as in empowering people and local activities to valorise their own assets at European and global scale. To improve its Territorial Cohesion Europe needs to become more open and polycentric, fulfilling the original aim of the Treaty of Rome (1956) saying that Europe has to become an open Community of equals with common strong institutions, and as well the aim of later Treaties to opt for a harmonious and balanced territory.”  The politicians interest need to be met – in the European AND national perspective “Making Europe Open and Polycentric …

4. to the rest of the world and to the Neighbouring countries is a necessary condition for all European cities and regions to take advantage of the development opportunities created by global growth and technologic progress. The long-term development of Europe depends on the global valorisation and exploitation of the more competitive assets of each city and region, in completing the Single Market and establishing effective co-development strategies with the Mediterranean and Eastern Neighbourhood. Making Europe more open requires connecting Europe globally and promoting co- development with neighbouring regions.” “Openness …

5. “Polycentricity … across cities and regional is necessary to spread development opportunities across European cities and regions, making development more resilient and diversified, further diminishing economic gaps, and differences of welfare conditions. On the other hand, increasing polycentricity will not necessarily reduce the overall long-term economic growth of Europe as a whole. Making Europe polycentric requires unleashing regional diversity and endogenous development as well as territorial cooperation as means to optimise the location of investments and reduce regional disparities, to support balanced and polycentric urban structures, favouring compact settlements and smart renewal of cities, as well as a sustainable management of natural and cultural resources.”

6. Five overarching policy aims: Connecting Europe globally Promoting co-development with Neighbourhood regions Unleashing regional diversity and endogenous development as a means to reduce regional disparities Supporting a balanced urban structure Sustainable management of resources Making Europe open and polycentric

7. Territorial Vision 2020-2030-2050

8. Why should a politician promote this spatial vision and not another one? Does he know anyhow what he wants in spatial terms? Is this what he wants? Does he know about the impact of nowadays policies in the future – (transmission mechanism)? Does he has the resources available to make a vision a reality? Where can he make the choice and what impact results from his choices?  High level of complexity of questions lead to high level of complexity in the answer ;  Key is the use of scenarios to understand the causes and impacts of a vision  what can be drawn for the ESPON ET 2050 reports? Entering the debate of the ET 2050 Spatial vision of making Europe open and polycentric what’s the rational behind?

9. Market-based growth favouring large metropolises (Scenario A) Promotion of secondary-city networks (Scenario B) More social and regional distribution at European level (Scenario C) Now digging further into the ET 2050 scenario to understand alternative futures (which in the case of the ET 2050 are not directly linked with the vision) (All material taken from the ESPON ET 2050 final report and its annexes). ET2050 towards 2030: Baseline and Alternative Scenarios

10. Europe towards 2030: Baseline Scenario

11. Impact of measures related to Territorial Scenario A Promotion and networking of European metropolises towards 2050: Based on Europe 2020 strategy (2010) in relation to global competitiveness. Promotion of the largest metropolitan regions of global importance in Europe. Taking advantage of the connectivity to international networks and the agglomeration economies of larger European metropolises. Investments in 76 Metropolitan European Growth Areas (MEGAs): High-level R&D; transport infrastructure (long-distance networks and global gateways); integrated transnational zones.

12. Promotion and networking of cities towards 2050: Integrate Europe 2020 strategy (2010) with ESDP (1999) as well as TA (2007) and TA 2020 (2011). Promotion of national and major regional capitals. Favouring balanced polycentric urban systems at the macro- regional or national scale. Investments in 261 cities of European or national significance: Cohesion and Structural funds mostly targeting cities, with investments in urban renewal/re-urbanisation, R&D, and regional/inter-regional transport networks. Impact of measures related Territorial Scenario B

13. Promotion of small cities and less developed regions towards 2050: Based on Europe 2020 strategy (2010) and TA 2020 (2011). Promotion of small- and medium-sized cities as centres of self-contained and economically resilient regions. Reinforcing the social and economic balance of Europe at the regional level in a strong place-based approach. Investments: Cohesion and Structural funds mostly targeting rural less developed areas; local/regional transport networks; decentralisation at local/regional level. Impact of measures related Territorial Scenario C

14. Results and Impacts of the Alternative Scenarios Towards 2030, Alternative Scenario B is the most expansionary in terms of GDP.  Baseline:+ 1,9%  Scenario A:+ 2,2%  Scenario B:+ 2,3%  Scenario C:+ 1,8% Higher levels of growth under Scenario B are explained by a more efficient utilisation of territorial capital elements and local specificities. However, this presupposes the existence of an integrated and equilibrated urban system. Scenario B also leads to the highest levels of cohesion and competitiveness. Regional divergence is marginally reduced in the three scenarios in relation to the baseline trend for 2030.

15. The Territorial Scenarios (A, B, C) were disaggregated into three scenario-variants covering extreme socioeconomic (1), technological (2), and environmental (3) conditions for 2050. Extreme Framework Conditions Spatial orientations of Scenarios Framework conditions Baseline 1 Economic decline 2 Technological advances 3 Energy/climate impacts Promotion of metropolitan areas AA1A2A3 Promotion of secondary cities BB1B2B3 Promotion of small cities and less developed regions CC1C2C3

16. PoliciesBaselineScenario AScenario BScenario C Demographic policies Continuation of actual trends. Lowered support to natality and families. Continuation of actual trends, as in Baseline. Public support to natality and families. Migration policies Continuation of actual trends. Openness to migrants from outside Europe. Relative openness.More strict immigration policies. Monetary policies In Western European countries, stability of interest rates, ULC, exchange rates, inflation; Progressive convergence of Eastern EU towards Western European Countries values; Decrease of interest on bonds: end of speculation periods. Fiscal policies Increase of tax rates in the Western and Eastern Countries. Debt/GDP remains constant. Slow tendency towards stability pact: 60% of Debt/GDP. Decrease of public expenditure growth rate. Debt/GDP remains constant. Slow divergence from stability pact. Slight increase of public expenditure growth rate. Transport Policies 0,8% of European GDP invested in transport infrastructure by 2030, mostly in long distance infrastructure (€1.970Bn 2013‐2030). Slightly reduced modal allocation of investments to rail, and slightly increased to airports and ports. Single European Transport area fully developed for intra‐Europe transport. 0,6% of European GDP invested in transport infrastructure by 2030, mostly in long‐distance infrastructure (€1.630Bn 2013‐2030). Modal allocation increasing in air and maritime, and decreasing in rail. European transport area opened to global competition. ITS deployment in road mode reduces costs by 5%. Reduced subsidies to rail. 1,0% of European GDP invested in transport infrastructure by 2030, mostly in medium distance infrastructure (€2.320Bn 2013‐2030) Modal Allocation increasingly rail based. Single European Transport area fully developed for intra-Europe transport Pricing and taxation as in Baseline. 0,7% of European GDP invested in transport infrastructure by 2030, mostly in short distance infrastructure (€1.980Bn 2013‐2030). Modal allocation focussed on collective modes and urban public transport. Slow liberalisation and integration of the European transport market. Road and air taxation causes 5% cost increases. Rail and public transport subsidies. Energy policies Fossil fuels remain important. Emissions reduced but targets are not met. Increased efficiency of fossil fuels, some RES, emergence of CCS. Targets partially met. High development of centralised RES and nuclear. Targets partially met. Decentralised RES. Lower energy consumption. Targets met. Assumptions on Exogenous Conditions/Policies

17. Environmental policies Continuation of existing environmental management trends. Euro‐standards regulation drops vehicle emissions to 100gr/km by 2030, (140gr/km in 2009). Environmental protection focussed on keeping standards of environmental quality for air and water. Technologic optimism. Euro‐standards drop vehicle emissions a 10% respect to Baseline. Protection and management of rural areas as open spaces for leisure and environmental safety. Strong mitigation. Strict public regulations. Euro‐standards drop vehicle emissions by 5% respect to Baseline. Limits in both use intensity and quality standards and land occupation. Mixed Focus on adaptation. Euro‐standards drop vehicle emissions by 20% respect to Baseline. Cohesion policies Budget kept constant. Allocation among regions in 2007‐2013 as 2000‐2007. Limited and gradual reforms favouring efficiency with no major political change. Half of the present budget. Allocation among regions in 2007‐2013 as 2000‐2007. Territorial cross‐border cooperation reinforced as well as with neighbouring countries and the rest of the World. Productive investments in neighbouring countries. Budget kept constant. Allocation among regions in 2007‐2013 as 2000‐2007. Thematic objectives redefined favouring urban-oriented policies and innovative urban actions. Strict‐land use instruments in vulnerable areas. Budget doubled. Regions type C get 2/3 of the budget, Type B 1/3. Integrated territorial investments and community-led local development reinforced. Place‐based focus promoting endogenous development. Agricultural policy Limited reform of the CAP. Budget reduced and focussed on subsidies to increase the sector productivity. Limited reform of the CAP. Higher emphasis on landscape management. Full integration of agricultural and environmental policies in their territorial dimension through cohesion policy. Spatial distribution of population and economic growth, (and territorial governance) No relevant modification on actual spatial patterns. Relative accessibility and connectivity to international transport networks and agglomeration economies attract growth, following spontaneous market tendencies. Global cities, mostly MEGAS grow bigger. Large cities attract both more people and activities because effective public policies promoting them at national scale. Internal migrations from sparsely populated areas to urban centres. Medium‐size cities and towns attract people based on their cultural and environmental quality, and strong public policies and incentives. Change in consumer behaviour favouring proximity and self‐sufficiency. Intense decentralisation at local and regional level. Limited external migrations. Assumptions on Exogenous Conditions/Policies

18. Trends and Policies2010 2050 Reference Scenario Scenarios A1, B1, C1 Scenarios A2, B2, C2 Scenarios A3, B3, C3 Extra-EU annual net migration (immigrants-emigrants in millions) 0,180,20 Total population (inhabitants in millions) 514542 GDP growth, without generative effects (% annual average growth) -1,50%0,62%1,50% GDP per worker, without generative effects (in € per worker, 2010 level) 69˙70099˙400 145˙50099˙400 Fuel price (in € per litre, 2010 level) 1,703,00 10,20 Structural Funds (% of EU GDP) 0,4% Assumptions on Exogenous Conditions/Policies

19. GDP per capita (€1˙000 of 2010) as an EU aggregate or...

20. Or GDP per capita (€1˙000 of 2010) in a territorial perspective

21. Gini coefficient of GDP per capita or...

22. ... Scenarios of population density in a territorial perspective

23. Presentation of CO2 Emission by Transport per capita per year (t) as acumlulated result of Europe or....

24. ... CO2 Emission by Transport per capita per year (t) in a territorial perspetive

25. Accessibility Road/Rail Travel as an aggregate...

26. Or Accessibility Road/Rail Travel in a territorial perspective

27. 27 Indicators 2050 ReferenceABCA1B1C1A2B2C2A3B3C3 GDP per capita 205042˙89743˙98843˙46343˙07831˙63631˙25430˙97853˙54652˙92252˙43641˙19040˙81040˙571 GDP growth (% annual change in GDP per capita) 1,43%1,50%1,47%1,45%0,63%0,59%0,57%2,03%2,00%1,97%1,33%1,30%1,29% Regional divergence (coefficient of variation of GDP per capita) 50,354,450,750,154,650,850,250,747,246,556,552,551,8 National Polycentricity (ESPON 1.1.1 polycentricity index) 65,162,165,265,762,165,265,762,165,365,863,265,665,8 Energy use of transport (MJ/capita/year) 32,236,033,935,333,231,632,820,628,729,922,1 23,1 CO2 emissions from transport (tones/capita/year) 1,311,461,381,441,351,281,341,241,161,220,860,850,89 Scenario under changing conditions - Results for Main Indicators

28. Territorial Vision 2020-2030-2050

29. To see the added value of having an territorial vision; To see a vision evolving as the best one out of alternative futures; To make the link to national visions; To understand, share and own the rational of the vision; To see and understand the trigger for achieving such a vision; To indicate the resources to make a vision a reality; To allow making a political choice. The ET 2050 offers important access points to these important issues but it may not work as a - ready to implement - vision.  It might be necessary to, in a way, de- or re-construct it in a political process which may end in a vision of similar form. What is in the end important for a policy maker?

30. A set of questions for guiding a politically oriented visioning process How can we pick policy makers up where they stand (on their national territory)? How can we be transparent enough by showing facts and scenarios on maps? How can we promote a discussion, by asking questions in the first place then giving already answers? Is an instantly applicable vision supportive or threatening? What does create the appropriate level of ownership amongst national policy makers? How does an efficient process towards a vision looks like? When is the right moment to start the process? What are the milestones and an appropriate timing? How should the end product look like? What in the end are the success criteria of a successful visioning process? Instead of conclusions

31. Thank you for your attention