European Integration:
Download
1 / 18

European Integration: Past , Present and Future Innovative Spatial Planning Instruments and their Contribution to - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 116 Views
  • Uploaded on

European Integration: Past , Present and Future Innovative Spatial Planning Instruments and their Contribution to European Integration A Case Study of a Border Region in Northern Bavaria Michael Seidel Waterloo, Ontario, May 1, 2010. Need for new spatial planning instruments.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' European Integration: Past , Present and Future Innovative Spatial Planning Instruments and their Contribution to' - nat


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

European Integration: Past, Presentand Future

Innovative SpatialPlanning Instruments andtheirContributionto European Integration

A Case Study ofa Border Region in Northern Bavaria

Michael Seidel

Waterloo, Ontario, May 1, 2010


  • Need fornewspatialplanninginstruments

  • The fall of the iron curtain and the need for rapid change of border regions (1989),

  • The Single European Market (1993),

  • The opening of the European Union for countries of central and eastern Europe (2004),

  • Serious challenges caused by structural change, mainly internationalization and globalization,

  • Rising regional disparities,

  • Budget constraints called for an effective use of increasingly scarce resources in all member states.


  • Euroregionsascross-bordercooperations

  • Permanent structuresintendedto promote integration on bothsidesoftheborder

  • Supportedby European Parliamentsincemorethan 30 years

  • In thefocusofthenewobjective 3 (former INTERREG community initiative)


    • Borderregions in thefocusofthe European Union


    • Towards a multi-levelarchitectureofspatialplanning

    • Central planningunabletoprevent regional disparities

    • Towards a multi-levelarchitectureofspatialplanning

    • From top-down tobottom-up philosophy


    Figure 1: Breakdown of finances by priority axis

    New instrumentsincluded in EU support

    Operational Czech Republic Cross borderprogramme (INTERREG IV)


    Case study High Franconia: a region in a blind spot


    • Bad image („bavarianSiberia“, „poorhouseof Bavaria“, borderregion, „no-man‘s –land“), nobranding

    • „Regional mind-set“: passive and defensive

    • Lack ofcooperationbetweenfirms, countiesandtowns

    • Monostructure: „oldfashioned“ industry-portfolio

    • Highestunemployment-rate in Bavaria

    • Brain drain: lossofyoung, qualifiedpeople

    • Demographicsituation: lossofpopulation


    Implicationsofthedivision: lossofpopulation


    • Defining a regional platform: thecityof Hof togetherwiththecountiesof Hof and Wunsiedel

    • Choosing a functionalregion, not an administrative one

    • Re-designing a region: High Franconiainsteadof „North-East-Upper-Franconia“

    • SWOT-analysis

    • Branding strategy, financialsupportby EU-EFRE-funds


    Comparativecostadvantages



    • From 2007 – 2013 supportby INTERREG IV: € 4 million

    • Successfulprojects:

      • Education:languagecourses, pupilsexchangeprogramme,

      • Thematicevents: cross-bordergardenshow,

      • Project „Goodneighbourhood“: informationcampaigns, interculturalworkshops

    • Effects:

      • Success in seeking, establishingandstabilizingcontacts

      • Cultural awareness on bothsidesoftheborder

      • Committmentaboveaveragetoachievecommonlyestablishedgoals


    • Developingtheeast-western businesscompetencecenter

    • One-stop-competenceforbusiness in Central Europe

    • ReinforcestheattractivenessoftheBavarian-Czech borderzone

    • Increasedeconomicalcross-bordercooperation


    • Conclusions and clusters I: Added value of innovative instrumentsfor European Integration

    • European andpolitical added value

    • Institutional added value

    • Socio-economic added value:

      • Synergies, e.g. in researchanddevelopment

      • Economiesofscale via newmarkets

      • Exchange ofbestpracticesandexperiences

      • Cross-borderspin-offs

    • Socio-cultural added value


    • Bottom-up-basednewinstrumentscanhelp rural regionstokeeppacewiththemetropolitanareas

    • The innovative, bottom-up-basedapproachcontributestomakingregionsmore intelligent and flexible

    • New instrumentsrecommendedforimplementation all overthestatebyBavarianGovernment

    • Multi-level-architecturegivesregionsandmunicipalitiesmorebargainig power vis-à-vis thecentralstate


    • Conclusions and clusters III: requirementsforsuccessfulimplementation

    • Using EU- orgovernmentgrantsisonly a startingpointand not sufficientforsuccess

    • Need of professional andconsistentstrategyandmarketing-mix

    • Functionalregions fit betterthan administrative ones

    • Need ofcommitment: regional politicians must beorbecometeam-players

    • Need ofpatience: changing regional mindsetsmaytakemore time thanchanginginfrastructureandeconomy


    • Regional initiatives underpublicor private law?

    • Inflationaryfoundingofnewinstruments in a regionmaycause:

      • Overlap

      • Double expenditures

      • Over-complexity

      • Fragmentation

      • Problems ofintegration

    • Desireforevaluation: Ifyoucan‘tmeasureit, youcan‘t manage it“.


    ad