First steps towards the r evis ed Territorial Agenda

1. First steps towards the revised Territorial Agenda Géza SALAMIN head of department Judit RICZ, Ádám RADVÁNSZKI senior planers TA-TSP Drafting Team Váti Nonprofit Ltd. ESPON Seminar Alcala, 9-10. June 2010

2. Territorial Agenda - Revision 2011 Bacground: • Agreed at the Informal ministerial meeting in Leipzig, May 2007 • Territorial State and Perspectives of the EU (TSP) – evidence base for policy making, relied dominantly on the available ESPON results • Revision was explicitly stated in TA, • Responsible: Hungarian Presidency • Hungary has underataken the coordination of update of the TSP too The approach:Evidence-based (update of the TSP) • Evaluation of experiences and changing context • Wide professional partnership

3. TA-TSP Working Group Members delegated from: Lead byHungarian Ministry for National Development

4. The Drafting Team Co-ordinated byVáti -Hungary

5. Components of TA revision beyond the TSP update Evaluation of the challenges and priorities: • Relevance of the content of TA2007 to the current situations (based on TSP results) • External coherence of the document with the changing policy context • TA assessment exercise by DT and WG experts Experiences with the implementation of TA: • review of existing reports, documents • member state questionnaire survey • review of implementation actions explicitly named in Ch. IV. of the TA

6. 3rd quarter 4th quarter 1st quarter 2nd quarter 3rd quarter 4th quarter 1st quarter TSP DRAFTING TA EVALUATION TA WORDING 2010 Mid 2009 2011 TSP BACKGROUND ANALYSIS DTM2 DTM2 WG1 WG2 DTM3 DTM4 WG3 Draftint team meetings DTM5 Working group meetings PARTNERSHIP – DISCUSSION DISCUSSION, DIALOGUE DTM6 DTM6 WG4 WG4 WG4 2010 2009 2011

7. Milestones

8. Motivations of revision: New challenges Recent trends with significant influence on the EU territory in line with results of TSP update • Economic and financial crisis • Growing complexity of demographic and social issues, including cultural aspects • Increasing attention and changing approach to climate change • Higher volatility of food and energy prices and challenges of energy security • Aspects of an enlarged EU territory • Major global and local-regionalresponses

9. Motivations of revision: Changing policy context Most important milestones: • Lisbon Treaty: territorial cohesion as third objective of EU • Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion: ‘Turning territorial diversity into strength’ and following discussion on TC (Kiruna conference) • Discussions on the future of Cohesion Policy (Barca Report, etc.) • EU 2020 and recovery packages of the EU • Revised EU Sustainable Development Strategy • Permanent strategic watch of policy developments is needed • ESPON Synthesis Report is coming in autumn 2010

10. EU 2020 – A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth The three priorities of EU2020 are as follows: “– Smart growth: developing an economy based on knowledge and innovation. – Sustainable growth: promoting a more resource efficient, greener and more competitive economy. – Inclusive growth: fostering a high-employment economy delivering social and territorial cohesion.” • EU2020 Strategy does NOT include any section specifically dedicated to territorial issues • BUT it has a few (rather randomly placed) territorial references, e.g.: • urban and rural development, • cross-border cooperation, • EU in the world, etc. • AND it definitively will have considerable implications for European territorial development. • EU 2020 and the TA could (should) cross-fertilise.

11. Barca report (2009): AN AGENDA FOR A REFORMED COHESION POLICY • The Barca Report on future cohesion policy emphasizes the need for a place-based approach in a reformed cohesion policy. • Its keywords are: multi-level governance, concentration of priorities and resources, accountability, orientating grants to results, etc. • The following priorities are explicitly mentioned in the Barca report:

12. Review of EU Sustainable Development Strategy • Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy (2006) is an important policy framework document covering mutually supportive thematic objectives: • environmental protection, economic prosperity, social cohesion and global responsibility. • Mainstreaming of sustainable development, an overarching and long-term goal of the EU into EU policies (COM, 2009): Review of the EU SDS • responding to new challenges like financial and economic crisis • The EU SDS does NOT include any section espec. dedicated to territorial issues • BUT some territorial indications are explicitly mentioned, e.g.: • urban transport, employment opportunities in rural areas, etc. • 7 cross-cutting challenges in EU SDS: • Climate change and clean energy • Sustainable transport • Sustainable consumption and production • Management of natural resources • Public health • Social inclusion, demography and migration • Global poverty • The EU SDS includes three further horizontal policy issues: • Education and training • Research and development • Financing and economic instruments • The EU SDS being as holistic as it is, has implications basicly to all TA challenges and priorities

13. Main findings of the report of the Swedish presidency on the realization of the First Action Programme • need for strengthening coordination • greater emphasis on delivery mechanisms and governance aspects • more visibility and awareness raising • better communication towards the wider public including all stakeholders • permanent strategic dialogue on EU, national and subnational level cross-cutting all sectors for a successful territorialisation of EU policy making. • more focused approach in revised TA • main target groups have to be clearly addressed

14. TAassessment – expert exercise • most challenges and priorities defined in the TA2007 are still valid • however their content needs slight modification, more focusing IMPLEMENTATION • determination of main addressees • clear messages for sectoral policies • increased role for territorial coordination • New CHALLENGES (e.g.) • effects of global economic and financial crisis; • vulnerable local economies and communities; • growing peripherality and discrepancies within EU; • rural and depopulating areas • Ideas for new PRIORITIES(e.g.) • shrinking regions and unbalanced demography; • diversity and utilization of rural territories • local responses and local, regional systems

15. Member state exampleHungarian Efforts Efforts towardshorizontal aspects of territorial cohesion: Policy: National concept in line with territorial cohesion Knowledge creation: territorial monitoring, evaluation system Programmes: horizontal objective in the NSRF 2013 Projects: criteria of selection of projects to be supported Methodology, awareness raising: http://www.rtop.hu/handbook_on_territorial_cohesion_mnde_vati_2009_.pdf http://www.terport.hu/static/Kezikonyv_a_Teruleti_Agenda_hazai_vegrehajtasara_NFGM_VATI_2010.pdf

16. Evidences: Using ESPON projects to the revision of the TSP

17. Contacting lead partners of most relevant projects + ESPON database, maps + Synthesis Report 2010 Autumn

18. Scoping towards TA 2011 • Compass function: • Orienting cohesion policy2014+ • Orinentation and co-ordination for member states • Recommendations for EU policies • Clear understanding of territorial matters • Actors, competences, resources: • Extended ownership (role of EC, European institutions, governments of member states, etc.) • Partnership with „non-territorial” actors • Strengthening role of MS-s and regions in strengthening territorial cohesion - legitimate actors • Encourage own activities of the member states • Character: • Conceptual vs. more tangible ? • More on HOW to put into practice (principles, mechanisms, defining further tasks to develop methodologies, etc.) • More systematic activities to propose • Follow up, monitoring

19. Understanding the notion of territorial cohesion • Included in the Lisbon treaty • New paradigm, replacing convergence oriented approach of territorial policy in many countries • Hard tounderstand, (regional disparities vs. entire territoriality as such) • Risk of loosing focus – no common understanding • Need for clear common territorial priorites

20. Levels of understanding and implementation • EU • Member states • Regions – local authorities If it is about better territorial state: Who has more competence to support territorial cohesion?

21. Understanding of territorial cohesionTwo sides of the coin • Horizontal understanding: Territoriality should be taken into account in every situation • Territorial capital • Territorial co-ordination • Mechanisms • Understanding the space: Identifying and forming territorial structures • Territorial structure of sectors/themes • Territorial structure of development, potentials of development – sysnthetic types • Institutional territorial structures „Territorial cohesion/planning is not about money”

22. Territories • Quantitative term:Giving priority, more resoruces to certain territories Key question: – Who gets support (money), How much? • Qualitative term: differences of spaces, specific solutions. • Every place is part of one or more type • There are no more and less important types of territories Key question: How and what to do in a certain spaces!

23. Good progress in horizontal realization of territorial cohesion • Creation of territorial knowledge:- ESPON, Cohesion reports, etc. • Mechanism: Territorial Impact Assesment • Coordination, dialogues: • NTCCP, • TCUM and its WGs • Green Paper discussion • COM Interservice group • Activities of the 1st Action Programme of the TA • Efforts of presidencies so far (DE, PO, SLO, FR, CZ, SE, ES) • Instruments: European Terrotorial Cooperation Notions: • Territorial capital (TA, Green Paper on TC) • Place based approach (Barca report)

24. Theoretical models?

25. Regions with special geographic characteristics • sparsely populated territories – northernmost areas • cross-border areas • mountains, • coastal zones • islands • river basins, lakesides, • protected areas (ecologically, culturally, tourism or recreation areas) • Etc. Lisbon treaty (Article 174): .. particular attention shall be paid to rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition, and regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps such as: - northernmost, very low population density - island - cross-border - and mountain regions. .. • Unbalanced: • coastal regions –landlocked regions • mountain regions –plain regions • Other handicaps? – e.g. territorrially determined segregation

26. Regional synthesis: Main geographical regions • West: • Core: concentration of functions of global/European importance • developed transport networks, multimodal accessibility • high level of GDP/capita and household incomes • highly urbanized area; high pop. density, related environmental problems (urban sprawl) • positive population changes (immigrants) • North: • cold climate and post-glacial landscape • rich in natural resources (water energy, forests, ores, fishery, etc.), clear environment • knowledge economy, solid human capital, competitive and innovative • ahead in R&D intensity & information society • Plenty of space: remote sparsely populated areas • Climate change brings more precipitation • South: • climate change makes more vulnerable: growing water scarcity, agriculture, potential desertification, • economy suffers from the large share of low added value activities • net migration has changed to positive • weaknesses in labour force qualifications • low employment rates • East: • capital regions: driving forces but development is spreading slowly & unequally • Smaller ecological footprint of the society • unfavourable demographic changes • remains handicapped regarding transport and ICT infrastructure • delayed suburbanization, a boom of urban sprawl • several vulnerable rural peripheries in crisis • Socialist heritage

27. Northern Periphery Baltic Sea North West Europe Spaces of transnational cooperation Transnational programmes under the European Territorial Cooperation Objective North Sea Atlantic Coast Alpine Space - Political character - Spaces of cooperation with specific profiles Mediterranean Central Europe South West Europe • + European Danube Strategy • + Baltic Sea Strategy Acores-Madeira-Canarias (Macaronesia) South East Europe Caribbean Area Indian Ocean Area

28. Partnership • Drafting team: delegated from 10 member states • Working group: 16 member states +ESPON, +EC • Network of Territorial Cohesion related Contact Points (NTCCP) • Director General meetings • Dialogue with professionals • Co-operation with ESPON CU and TPG-s • Consultation from the autumn of 2010

29. PartnershipUpcoming and recent events

30. Thank you for attention! gsalamin@vati.hu