Strengthening the Polycentric Urban System in Europe: Conclusions from the ESDP

The first European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) document agreed in May 1999 calls for closer cooperation at the EU level in response to the challenges posed by globalization and the increasingly transnational impact of spatial development in Europe. The ESDP maps out a common approach to spatial development in the EU member states and supports an integrated perspective for European spatial development which goes beyond specialist viewpoints. This article focuses on the relationship between key statements on the European urban system contained in the ESDP and the 'real' structures and changes within this urban system. It also examines possible conclusions from the ESDP for urban policy in Europe in the light of the activities already launched to translate the ESDP into practice in the urban dimension of European spatial development.     

Illustrating spatial policies in Europe

The visualisation of spatial policy options through maps and other cartographic illustrations can be very powerful both in the planning process and in communicating the key messages of planning strategies. However, experience from the ‘European Spatial Development Perspective’ (ESDP) shows that visualisation can also be the most difficult aspect in transnational spatial planning processes. This paper explores the potential role of policy maps in communicating spatial policy, and the progress made so far in visualising spatial policies in European spatial planning. It suggests possible reasons for the difficulties on reaching agreement on the form and content of planning policy maps at EU and transnational levels. The paper goes on to discuss theories that might assist in improving performance in the use of cartographic visualisations in European spatial planning. The article concludes by highlighting the need for further research on the communicative potential of cartographic visualisations in European spatial planning.     

Positioning European Spatial Planning

The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) is being described as 'inter-governmental'. The original initiative was for a Community spatial strategy for the delivery of the Structural Funds. Coming from France, it met with opposition. So it was that the successive six-monthly Presidencies of the EU took turns in managing the process. In truth, however, without Commission support the ESDP would not have come about. Now that the ESDP is on the books, the Commission is claiming a leadership role. Taking a position on this, one needs to view spatial planning against the backdrop of general thinking about European integration. Positions in the literature are often presented as polar opposites, like that of 'neo-functionalists' putting faith in integration on the one hand and that of 'realists' emphasizing the continuing dominance of nation states on the other hand. However, a growing body of literature is not about these 'grand theories', but about the actual workings of European institutions. It takes a middle ground and invokes concepts which planning writers are accustomed to, like networks, discourses and governance. From this literature it appears that mutual learning, a feature also of the ESDP process, is common in European integration. European spatial planning must be seen as part and parcel of an emergent system of European multi-level governance. In it, power is exerted at multiple levels of government. Denying the Community a spatial planning role is not realistic, therefore.     

Strategic spatial planning and contested ruralities: Insights from the republic of Ireland

Since the publication of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), a growing body of literature has emerged related to European spatial planning. Much of this literature is focused on the influence of the ESDP on city regions and urban policy in individual member states. Much less attention has been paid thus far to the influence of the ESDP on the formulation of spatial strategies and plans for rural areas. Within this context, this paper aims to explore the formulation of a national framework for spatial development in the Republic of Ireland, and in particular to examine the expression given to rural development and planning issues. This paper reviews the extent that the Irish National Spatial Strategy can provide a basis for a spatially defined (rather than sectoral based) rural policy by examining the policy construction of rurality and how this will impact on three aspects of rural planning policy: the conceptualization of the urban–rural relationship; managing rural settlements; and rural development. The paper concludes by developing wider lessons from the Irish example in the application of the European Union discourse of spatial planning to rural regions, and the difficulties associated with developing and implementing spatial policies in a deeply contested rural arena.     

The European spatial development perspective and North‐West Europe: application and the future1

The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) is the product of a north‐west European planning tradition. This article discusses the role of north‐west European concerns, in particular the use of the concept of polycentricity, in the making of the ESDP, and the application of the ESDP in the North‐west European Metropolitan Area (NWMA), more in particular in Germany, the UK, The Netherlands and Belgium. The article also explores the future of spatial planning as regards north‐west Europe. Much will depend on how Community policy will adapt to the enlargement of the European Union. However, it seems certain that existing member states, in particular those in north‐west Europe will see their share in the structural funds evaporate. This may give added significance to INTERREG IIIB respectively to the successor of this Community Initiative. In addition, concepts like territorial cohesion and territorial management may become functional equivalents to that of spatial planning, for which the Community is said to have no competence.     

Empowering paradise? The ESDP at ten

Since its formal launch in June 1999, the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) has developed at a remarkable rate. In the subsequent decade, the EU has carried out 22 ESDP military and civilian operations and become an important element of Europe's ability to respond to international crises. For all this, however, there remain grounds for concern. These relate in part to the fact that, for all the early activism of ESDP, those military missions undertaken to date have been relatively limited in size and scope. The EU has also strikingly failed to intervene in certain crises that once seemed ideally suited to an ESDP deployment. The ESDP has also to a degree failed to bring about the enhancement to European military capabilities that some had hoped would be its major achievement. More generally, there is a danger that an exclusive focus on EU security policies will serve merely to distract member states from the broader international strategic environment, with ESDP serving as an alibi for their continued failure to live up to their international security responsibilities.     

EUROPEAN BRIEFING: Polycentricity in European spatial planning: from an analytical tool to a normative agenda

The notion of polycentricity is gaining widespread currency in both academic and professional debates. It has opened its way in the spatial policy documents of the European Union and member states alike, and has become one of the key components of the integrated spatial development strategy promoted by the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). Whilst polycentricity is increasingly shaping the spatial policy discourses both in the Commission and in member states, the precise meaning of the term has remained elusive. The first two sections of this article aim to unpack the concept of polycentricity, trace its origin and its development and clarify the confusion over its multiple interpretations at various spatial scales. The third section of the article explains how the concept of polycentricity which has traditionally been used as an analytical tool to explain an existing or emerging reality is now increasingly being used to determine that reality. This is based on the analyses of the use of polycentricity within the European spatial planning framework and in particular the ESDP. Here, the article raises a number of questions regarding the promotion of the polycentric urban regions as one of the ESDP's key policy options for a balanced territorial development across Europe.     

The European Spatial Development Perspective - What Next?

In May 1999, ministers of the Member States of the European Union responsible for spatial planning approved the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). The document is the product of Member States and the European Commission co-operating on the Committee on Spatial Development (CSD). The ESDP is the work of a small band of European planners. Between them they have succeeded in putting European spatial development on the agenda. This is no mean achievement. However, the visualization of spatial policies in the ESDP is weak. The problem has not been lack of imagination but divergences between European planning traditions. Also, attitudes towards European planning cannot be divorced from those towards European integration. And, even if there was consensus on the 'high politics' involved, planning in the European system of 'multi-level governance' raises difficult issues. The paper proposes strategies, not for 'solving' problems, the solution of which eludes us at present, but for sustaining the momentum. The first evolves around INTERREG II C (soon: INTERREG III B). There should be provisions for teasing out the implications for a future ESDP. Attention should focus on the 'spatial visions' that some programmes include. A Northwest European cluster seems a good point to start with. Another strategy is for the European Commission to make explicit its own views, if necessary specifying where the Commission differs from the Member States. These strategies should provide the impetus for a sustained commitment to the ESDP process.     

Discourses of Mobility and Polycentric Development: A Contested View of European Spatial Planning

This article carries out an analysis of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), a policy document which represents a critical moment in the emergence of a new discourse of European spatial development. The analytical approach probes at the power relations which have shaped the ESDP framework and its contents, focusing on the twin core themes of spatial mobility and polycentricity. The analysis concludes that in the contested policy process a new spatial discourse of economic competitiveness is emerging at the expense of social and environmental interests. This new discourse will be further contested as implementation takes place in an uncertain policy environment.     

A common European foreign policy after Iraq?

Taking as read the wide range of other instruments that the EU has for international influence (enlargement, aid, trade, association and other arrangements, etc.), the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), under pressure from the Kosovo conflict, has been shaped by two important decisions in 1999: the creation of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) to give the EU a military capability when NATO as a whole is not engaged, and the appointment as the new High Representative for the CFSP of a high-profile international statesman rather than a senior civil servant.
A major European effort will still be needed if Europe is to be effective militarily, whether in the EU/ESDP or NATO framework. The management of the CFSP has been held back by the doctrine of the equality of all member states regardless of their actual contribution. This in turn leads to a disconnect between theory (policy run by committee in Brussels) and practice (policy run by the High Representative working with particular member states and other actors, notably the US). It has been difficult for Javier Solana to develop the authority to do this, not in competition with the Commission as so widely and mistakenly believed, as with member states themselves, and particularly successive rotating presidencies. It is important that misdiagnosis does not lead to politically correct solutions that end up with the cure worse than the disease. Ways need to be found to assure to the High Representative the authority to work with third countries and with the member states making the real contribution, while retaining the support of all. Then, with its own military capability, the EU can have a CFSP that is the highest common factor rather than the lowest common denominator, with member states ready to attach enough priority to the need for common policies to give Europeans a strong influence in the big foreign policy issues of the day.     

Expansive spatial planning: the new European transnational spatial visions

Spatial planning in Europe has reached new frontiers. The European Spatial Development Perspective covers the entire European Union and, in spite of having an informal, non-binding status, it is creeping into the regulatory frameworks of the European Union. To stimulate cooperation between the Member States of the European Union, including the accession countries, the map of Europe has been divided into a jigsaw puzzle formed by large transnational areas. In three of these areas, spatial visions have been developed. Bearing in mind the enormous spatial diversity in these new European ‘super-regions’ and the great variety in planning systems, it is astonishing that these visions came about in the first place. In this respect they should be welcomed. On the other hand, the way in which they have been prepared could be questioned. Although they contain policy frameworks with an intended impact stretching far beyond the domain of spatial planning, they have basically been written by spatial planners acting alone. And although the mere idea of transnational areas was to a large extent to stimulate novel conceptualizations of the spatial position of countries and regions, the development of spatial concepts has proved to be extremely problematic. This paper looks at spatial visions for three transnational areas: 1) the Central European, Adriatic, Danubian and South Eastern European Space, or CADSES (VISION PLANET); 2) the North Sea Region (NorVision); 3) North-West Europe (NWE Spatial Vision). The analysis of these visions, following a common format, leads to some fundamental conclusions about the various principles on which such visions can be grounded and the architecture of the processes to be followed. The paper aims to contribute to research as well as to policymaking.     

Constructing the European Spatial Development Perspective—For Whom?

This article discusses the provenance and potential significance of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), considering questions of whose policy is it, who had an input into its preparation, who is the client and/or audience, and the significance of its preparation by the Committee on Spatial Development (CSD). The preparation phase from 1993, and the more public phase from the Noordwijk draft of 1997 to completion of the Potsdam text in 1999 are reviewed in order to consider whether the overall time-scale is reasonable and whether the transnational seminars can be regarded as a form of public participation. The paper goes on to discuss what follows after adoption, threats to its role in EU policy-making, and concludes that there are some benefits from the process of preparation by the CSD, and from the form of élite participation that took place, but that the ESDP must become a Commission policy if it is to play a significance role in achieving territorial and social cohesion at the EU level.     

Rhetoric from Brussels and reality on the ground: the EU and security in Africa

This article overviews the development of African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) to date and examines EU involvement in this. The European Union is the major financial partner in both military and non‐military assistance to the African Union (AU). Europe has shifted from being a major UN troop contributor towards the funding of African‐led peace operations, as well as the emergence of time‐limited, high‐impact, missions. With the exception of Somalia, these ESDP operations have provided little direct security benefit to Europe and their success has been limited. They have provided experimentation opportunities of ESDP capabilities in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad and Guinea Bissau. Events in the eastern Congo in late 2008 demonstrate that the EU needs to consider carefully when it intervenes militarily in Africa: non‐intervention and coordinated bilateral diplomatic efforts by EU member states can be more effective.     

The Application of the European Spatial Development Perspective: Evidence from the North-West Metropolitan Area

As a strategic document, the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) wants to be 'applied' rather than 'implemented'. Rather than giving shape to spatial development, application is the shaping of the minds of the actors in spatial development. The latter are not passive recipients of messages. They actively explore options, reinterpreting messages on the way. Conformance of outcomes to intentions cannot be assumed. Application is not a separate phase either. Application includes making new working arrangements and elaborating planning documents to make them fit emergent situations. Judging from the ESDP and from how its ideas are being pursued, its makers are well aware of this. Research into the application of the ESDP in the north-west metropolitan area (NWMA) Interreg IIc programme confirms this. So the ESDP may be anything but a paper tiger.     

European spatial planning reloaded: Considering EU enlargement in theory and practice

The territorial expansion of the European Union (EU) to the new central and eastern European member states raises difficult challenges for European spatial planning. In almost the same manner as structural policy, the conceptual side of European spatial planning has to acknowledge that with enlargement a quantum leap regarding its politics and policy is about to occur. While reflecting on discussions about EU's regional policy and spatial planning on the European level, and sketching a theoretical background, this paper proposes a new way of conceptualizing European spatial planning, taking central and eastern European spatial planning—perhaps as a new epistemic community—into consideration.     

From crisis to catharsis: ESDP after Iraq

For many observers, the Iraq crisis spelled the end for EU ambitions in the defence sphere. The profound public and bitter divisions that emerged were seen as illustrative of the insuperable problems confronting ESDP. This article argues, however, that the reverse is in fact the case. Far from sounding the death knell for ESDP, the crisis has had a cathartic effect in compelling the member states to face up to and resolve the major ambiguities that had always threatened to undermine EU defence policies. Consequently, these member states have, in the months following the war, laid the basis not only for a more modest but also for a more effective ESDP.     

So far,so good? Russia and the ESDP

The progression from a European Security and Defence Initiative to a European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) has not left Russian policy–makers indifferent. The Yeltsin administration greeted the emergence of the European Union as a new player in European security, seeing it as a potential challenge to NATO and American influence. President Putin's emphasis on developing trust and cooperation with the West has changed the Russian perspective on the ESDP. Russian interest in dialogue and functional cooperation with the ESDP now stems primarily from a wish to add substance to the still nascent EU–Russia partnership, which Putin has chosen as Russia's foremost external priority. In view of the imbalance between EU and Russian economic capacities, the security sphere appears as the most promising area of cooperation on which to found a meaningful long–term partnership. This article traces the evolution of Russian perceptions of the ESDP since it was first launched in June 1999 and outlines the development of EU–Russia relations in this field, which has given Russia the most advanced mechanism for interaction with the ESDP available to a non–EU country. It explores prospective areas of cooperation, as they are viewed by each side, and looks into issues of potential discord. Finally, the article considers the future of Russia–ESDP cooperation in the light of Russia's revitalized partnership with NATO.     

National Planning Systems Between Convergence and Incongruity: Implications for Cross-Border Cooperation from the German–Polish Perspective

Convergence of national planning systems in Europe has become an important issue in the context of transnational and cross-border planning, which in turn plays a key role in the policy of creating a cohesive European space. Converging trends concerning planning styles and structures may undoubtedly be detected and also include new European Union (EU) member countries. Yet, by a minute's inspection of the (long-established) German and of the (created in the run-up to EU membership) Polish planning system from a cross-border planning perspective, it becomes obvious that similar structures may not coincide with a similar idea of what spatial planning is about. As highlighted by two chosen examples—cross-border twin-city and metropolitan planning—this results in significant hindrances for planning cooperation in its own right. The article concludes that any convergence of planning systems—if it was to have a constructive impact on cross-border planning—needs to be based on the acceptance of joint planning standards, objectives and values.     

European integration through ‘soft conditionality’. The contribution of culture to EU enlargement in Southeast Europe

Abstract

This article discusses how the European Commission employs cultural policy to facilitate EU enlargement processes. Since 1989 the European Commission has funded cultural programs in accession states as a ‘soft’ complement to its ‘hard’ conditionality. It reflects a more general trend in which the EU employs alternative modes of governance to deal with resistance against EU interference in national affairs. By investing in culture, the EU hopes to stimulate transnational cooperation, economic growth, social cohesion and identification with the EU. However, the outcomes of these investments cannot be predicted. Characteristic for soft policy programs is that participating states are responsible for their eventual interpretation and implementation. By comparing the policies and practices of EU cultural investments in accession states Southeast Europe, and particularly in Serbia, this paper discusses the limits and possibilities of EU funded initiatives to enlargement revealing an increasing governing through soft conditionality.     

The European Union as an Ethical Community and What This Means for Spatial Planning

The European Union has adopted in its official publications a number of ethical values which can be identified and made explicit: they are values which concern the material content of policies and values of human rights. Although the relationship between those values and practice is not always direct, it can legitimately be expected that the values influence the content of the EU's spatial policy. With the extension of the EU policy to include territorial cohesion, the core values have been given an explicitly spatial dimension. Nor can the member states ignore those values, because formal legislation of the EU works through into the practice of those states: that increases the significance of EU values for the spatial planning of the member states. For those reasons, planners should know what those values are and how they can influence spatial planning.