Download
1 / 31
310 likes | 330 Views
Explore the importance of a European spatial vision in guiding policy-making for economic growth and competitiveness, social cohesion, and sustainability. Discover the benefits of making Europe open and polycentric, connecting cities globally and promoting co-development with neighboring regions. Delve into the various scenarios and alternative futures presented by the ESPON ET 2050 report to gain insights into the potential impacts of different policy choices.
E N D
Inspire policy making by territorial evidence ESPON Seminar “Territories Acting for Economic Growth: Using territorial evidence to meet challenges towards 2020” 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
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
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 …
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 …
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.” “Polycentricity …
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
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?
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
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. Impact of measures related to Territorial Scenario A
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
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
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.
Extreme FrameworkConditions • The Territorial Scenarios (A, B, C) were disaggregated into three scenario-variants covering extreme socioeconomic (1), technological (2), and environmental (3) conditions for 2050.
Or GDP per capita(€1˙000 of 2010) in a territorial perspective
... Scenarios of populationdensity in a territorial perspective
Presentation of CO2 Emissionby Transport per capita per year (t) asacumlulatedresult of Europeor ....
... CO2 Emissionby Transport per capita per year (t) in a territorial perspetive
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?
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
