Territorial cohesion: the messages from the debate

1. Territorial cohesion: the messages from the debate 18.05.2009. Prague, DG meeting Władysław Piskorz, DG REGIO, Unit C2 (Urban development, territorial cohesion)

2. The debate • Intensive debate (conferences, seminars, workshops); • More than 390 official contributions; • CoR European Summit of Regions - Prague 5-6.03.2009. • Informal ministerial in April – Marianske Lazne 22-24.04. 2009. • Summary as part of 6th Progress Report in June.

3. Definition needed? • Some – yes, a clear-cut definition is needed that is shared across Europe; • Others: impossible – contrary to the diversity of the contexts and would risk the early blockage of the debate; • Compromise - at least a common understanding of its basic principles and key elements is needed.

4. Territorial cohesion … • …is about • ensuring the harmonious, sustainable and polycentric development of different territories; • enabling citizens and enterprises • to make the most of the inherent features of these territories, • to benefit from and contribute to European integration and the functioning of the Single Market wherever they happen to live or operate; • …complements and reinforces economic and social cohesion; • …does not change the fundaments of Cohesion Policy: • CP remains a development policy, • emphasis is on enabling and not on compensating.

5. Specific territories Territorial cohesion • certainly does not mean automatic compensation based on certain geographic features, • does imply public policies that are better responding to different needs and potentials of all kinds of territories across Europe, • can only be firmly based on better territorial knowledge!

6. Reinforced territorial dimension… … in the design and implementation of public policies at all levels Diverse proposals but consensus in 6 areas: • Coordinated public policies at different levels • Better account of territorial impacts • Improved multilevel governance • Need for functional approaches • Territorial cooperation as a clear EU asset • Reinforced evidence base

7. 1. Improved coordination… • … to avoid contradictory effects of upper level policies on the ground and to create synergies • At each level bringing together interests of different sectors, of public and private actors, in coordination with neighbouring territories. • Clear demand for more consistency between EU policies with territorial impacts: cohesion, transport, agriculture, environment, maritime; competition, research. • Some call for improved integration of funds: more simplified procedures and more synergies e.g. urban and rural development.

8. 2. Territorial impacts • Territorially consistent public policies pre-suppose a better account of territorial impacts; • Reinforced and shared evidence base is needed; • No new territorial impact assessment instrument, rather fine-tuning of existing tools (general impact assessment guidelines);

9. 3. Multilevel governance • Increasing interdependencies and new challenges require good coordination between levels; • Cohesion Policy - multi level governance and programming is the best vehicle to deliver coherent answers to the needs of territories! • Increased role for regional and local actors; • Cities: focal points to effectively address opportunities and challenges; • EU is requested to facilitate territorial governance! No success in isolation…!!

10. 4. Functional approaches… • …since today's challenges cross more and more administrative boundaries… • …flexibility is thus needed regarding the territorial levels at which we address these challenges! • The regional level remains the central element in the implementation of our interventions! • BUT depending on the issues addressed, the most appropriate territorial level may vary : • river basins, sea areas, • mountain areas, • networks of small and medium sized cities, • urban-rural cooperation areas, • metropolitan areas, • deprived urban neighbourhoods

11. 5. Territorial cooperation • A key instrument in fostering territorial cohesion - Clear European added value; • Need of a more strategic but at same time a more flexible co-operation approach; • Laboratories of European integration: • Cross-border regions - to test integrated development plans and service delivery. • Macro-regions - the integrated strategy for the Baltic Sea as a testing ground for a new approach to territorial co-operation, involving also our neighbours. • Interregional cooperation - exchange of experience, best practice and know-how - a key role for the EU. • EGTC welcomed as a relevant tool for multilevel governance. Its potential should be fully utilised. • External relations – border regions, EGTC, Neighbourhood Policy.

12. 6. Evidence from the ground… • … to reinforce our place based policies. • Ability to measure diverse assets as well as constraints of our territories; • Upcoming DG Regio report on Territories with specific geographic features; • ESPON projects and Territorial Agenda actions. • Need to go • below NUTS 2 : microview to fight social exclusion in urban and rural areas, • above NUTS 2 : macroview to predict migration or climate change trends.

13. Rural areas • Need to better understand the processes: update of the OECD urban-rural classification; • CZ Presidency conference + DG Regio Seminars

14. A quest for data and indicators • It is not only ESPON! • National statistical offices hold the key: Basic data is needed; • Indicators to better reflect situations and processes on the ground: • human development, sustainability, accessibility indexes; • New indicators for allocation purposes? • GDP is a robust and accepted indicator difficult to substitute.

15. Possible policy implications • Territorial cooperation • Cooperation Strategic Reference Frameworks for cooperation areas; • Fostering pan-European networking programs on territorial issues (Regions for Economic Change); • Encouraging the use of EGTC. • Functional cooperation • From cooperation to shared solutions: the example of the Baltic Sea Strategy and its transferability; • Metropolitan areas with strong links between urban and rural zones.

16. Possible policy implications • Integrated local development • To give local ownership of policy actions to citizens on their territory; • Positive results of URBAN, LEADER, but also EQUAL and innovative actions; • More space for experimentation for local stakeholders; Workshops on integrated local development after the summer; Latest publication: Brochure on “Promoting sustainable urban development in Europe”.

17. Possible policy implications • More coherent policies with territorial impact • Strengthening the territorial dimension of the existing EU strategic impact assessment; • Stronger coherence between EU funds and different tools through harmonisation of rules and approaches in programming and implementation. • Territorial analysis • ESPON, Urban Audit, Urban Atlas; • BUT A highly competent observatory of European territorial development is also needed.

18. Follow up • Summary of the debate: 6th Progress Report (end of June); • Communication on policy options (Open Days 2009); • Seminars to discuss key issues from the debate (1st in September on territorial cooperation); • 5th Cohesion Report in 2010.

19. Thank you for your attention!