The ESPON project, "Application and effects of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) in the Member States" 2004-2006, assesses the implementation of the ESDP at the EU level and in the Member States. In particular, policy-making, planning legislation and documents, institutional changes and planning discourses are scrutinized.
The main finding is that the ESDP has had only a limited impact on the EU and the Member State level and few direct references to the document are found at the local and regional levels.
The Tampere ESDP Action Programme (TEAP) dating form 1999 was established to promote the application of the ESDP. It included 12 implementation actions. The aim here was to translate the policy aims into examples of good practice. The Member States and the Commission were assigned different tasks.
The TEAP was however soon forgotten and many tasks were never completely fulfilled, particularly relating to questions over the spatial impacts of enlargement on the EU for example, due to the emergence of new political agendas (i.e. Lisbon and Gothenburg) and other new European policy concepts with spatial relevance.
Though a number of clearly defined tasks were subsequently carried out – in addition to those that did not require significant transnational cooperation - the major endowment of this period was the ESPON
programme itself.
With the exception of the Strategic guidelines for the structural funds 2000-2006 including the Interreg III B Initiative, the ESDP has had a limited impact on EU sectoral policies and programmes. (Interreg III B = trans-national cooperation, while Interreg IIIA=two-countries cooperation)
The main priorities found in the Interreg III B programmes are coherent with the ESDP policy guidelines. In this context, a geographical difference can be observed. In Southern Europe, sustainable development, prudent management and the protection of nature and cultural heritage have been highlighted. In Northern
Europe on the other hand, parity of access to infrastructure and knowledge and the concept of polycentricity have been stressed.
The direct impact, i.e. formal and institutional changes, of the ESDP is very limited in most Member States. Many of the Member States involved in the preparation of the ESDP however had planning policies and practices that already conformed to the ESDP's objectives.
In general, the three main ESDP policy guidelines are present in national planning discourses, however often without specific reference to the ESDP. To some extent then the ESDP has ensured, that European issues are now more fully addressed in a national planning context.
The project also reveals a number of knowledge gaps in need of addressing if more knowledge about ESDP application is to be secured. Practitioners and planners at the local and regional level in most Member States are not aware of the ESPD-policy guidelines. There is then a need to perform a more systematic investigation of planning practices.
Despite the rather limited effects of the ESDP document it can be concluded that the 10-year process of intergovernmental cooperation, did make a difference in European spatial planning and policy making.
The enlargement of 2004 from EU 15 to EU 25 moreover produced an ever greater level of diversity between regions within the EU, creating in the process a new spatial reality.
In this new context future European-wide cooperation on spatial development is now imperative.
In its origin the ESDP was not pan-European. As such new themes, like climate-change and migration, have to be considered. Alternative approaches aiming to balance horizontal and vertical integration are also needed.
In addition, practical advice and examples which can be understood and used by regional and local planners in their daily work are also needed. Additionally, a greater sense of process ownership at the local and regional levels would undoubtedly help.
However, due to the low level of recognition at the EU-level of the ESDP-document, it is unlikely that the ESPD itself will feature in future EU-policies. Instead, territorial cohesion, which emerged in 2001, has gained ground and is now a central term in the development of key spatial EU-documents. Examples include the "Territorial State and Perspective of the European Union" and "Strategic guidelines for the Structural Funds for the period 2007-13".
By Sigrid Hedinand and Michael Viehhauser
For more information on the Draft Final Report can be - downloaded at www.espon.eu