ET2050Can Territorial Governance help delivering the vision?

Alexandre DuboisNordregio

TPG meeting, Brussels, 18th of December, 2014

Governance in the Vision

Main principles that will guide the governance of the EU policy system by2050

-> Europe as a global actor: how the EU interacts with global and neighboring actors is central

-> Reduce inefficiency in policy implementation-> Institutional relations between MS: enhanced formalization of

territorial arrangements-> Clarified relations (i.e. contracts) between the European and

local/regional levels on specific tasks: improving the capacity of this level (i.e. places) to deliver the 2050 targets

-> better exploitation of territorial diversity in policy framework-> Institutional/administrative changes in relation to

functional/territorial challenges

Important pointTrade off between EU-wide relevance and place-basedness

Stakeholder comments related to TG

- Focus on functional areas and how to manage them- Include ways to achieve goals- Relate the visions to existing policy orientations EU2020-CSF-

TA2020- Community-Led Dev. = Mobilization of local and regional

stakeholders- Bottom-up vision = collage of multiple territorial visions; brick-by-

brick process- Ex: Natura 2000 areas overlap countries = need for specific tools

for strategic domains- Reducing cross-border gaps- SGI (e.g. health care) across borders = reducing fragmentation- Diversity a keyword = Capitalizing on Territorial Capital- What units fit policy intervention?- Governance is too administrative in the draft- Empowerment of European territories = a grassroots vision?

Territorial Governance in ESPON - TANGO

Dimensions 1-2-3: MLG Capacity to develop institutional, formal/informal arrangements

Dimensions 4-5: territoryCapacity to use local knowledge to secure institutional learning (and change)

Territorial Governance in ESPON – TANGO (2)

Europeanization of territorial governance approaches:

Dialogic mode -> from EU discourse to national discourses to domestic practices

Operational mode -> from EU discourse to EU tools influencing various domestic practices

Institutional mode -> EU discourse codified in the EU structure inducing changes in the domestic structure and thus practices, or into EU tools (see operational mode)

How to integrate TG in the Vision?

-> develop the argumentation about how the targets and objectives on specific issues are actually delivered through cooperation at sub-national level ?

-> based on a clear understanding of the challenges and opportunities of different types of territories (e.g. FUAs, Global Integration Zones, Geospecs areas, Cross-Border, Macro-Regions) that constitute the ‘bricks’ for the Territorial Vision because they have an underlying European added-value

-> Vision works as a umbrella for the elaboration of multiple territorial visions at different levels according to the specific issues developed (e.g. quality of life, energy efficiency, mobility…)

Main Value -> Europeanization of planning practices is desirable

How to integrate TG in the Vision? (cont.)

Linked with the issue of territorialization-> How can different types of territories can contribute to the

achievement of the Vision?-> for different types of territories and for different issues,

delivering the vision means that different strategies need to be elaborated and implemented

Focus on the functional dimension, not the institutional one

How to make the implementation of policies more efficient, by optimizing the resources available and by achieving larger leverage effect?

Proposal – Three ‘avenues’ to follow

Dealing with all aspects of institutional and geographical fragmentation in European policymaking

Address the key bottlenecks preventing from achieving the overarching EU goals by reducing the friction inherent to their achievement due to the fragmented institutional landscape within Europe

AVENUE KEY GOVERNANCE

IMPROVEMENT

CONTRIBUTION TO THE POLICY CYCLE

ASSOCIATED LOGIC (TANGO)

Issue-driven rather than sector-driven EU policymaking

Cross-sectoral Programmatic Institutional

Managing policy interventions through functional territories

Functional Implementation

Monitoring

Dialogic

Operationalizing Territorial Diversity Coalitions

Place-basedness Strategic Operational

Avenue 1 – Issue-driven EU policymaking

Rationale• Contemporary challenges cannot be tackled through purely sectoral

responses• EU and MS institutional structures (i.e. DGs, ministeries, agencies…)

largely unchanged• Coordination of sectoral policies at the programmatic phase reduces

potential inter-sectoral counter-effects• Issue-driven packages are more easily operationalized ‘on the ground’ as

they relate more closely (1) to the local prerogatives and tools and (2) to the specific scope and scale of the local challenges

• Key multi-level governance principles for operationalizing this ‘avenue’ are thematic concentration and conditionality.

Avenue 1 – Issue-driven EU policymaking (2)

Key points of our narrative• sectoral programmes and incentives are negotiated collectively among

sectoral policies by the using an improved OMC (ex: social inclusion)• framing policy actions in areas for which the competence are split among

several policy actors• to support sectoral DGs in federating their views and coordinating their

regional incentives on regional programmes, • to provide territorial evidence that enable to identify regions and

territories that have specific bottlenecks and/or potentials on the identified issues using territorial benchmarking.

• Changing ‘Community method’ from formal govern-by-authority, inter-governmental mode of governance, which tends to decommit key stakeholders from being accountable and engaging themselves in resolving these issues durably, to a more flexible, consensus-based and issue-driven mode of governance

Avenue 1 – Issue-driven EU policymaking (3)

Example – Energy Efficiency

Programmatic Coordination (sectoral policies)• Energy • Transport• Climate• Research & Technology

Regulatory Consistency (local prerogatives)• Green public procurement• Social housing• Building regulations• Public Transportation • Land-use management & Zoning

Territorial Target(s) Associated• Clear Energy• Compact settlements

Avenue 2 – Managing territorial dynamics

Rationale• focusing on jurisdictional territories for policy interventions is obsolete• elaborating and operationalizing policy interventions for functional

territories -> new way to balance solidarity and subsidiarity• Some challenges affect particularly distinct types of territories ->

interventions intending to tackle such challenges should focus first and foremost these territories

• territorial solidarity • regional and local authorities belonging to the same functional

governance arrangements are committed to joint targets in order to use more efficiently the policy leverages at their disposal.

• functional territories that have the potential to deliver more than the EU targets should be encouraged to do this

• Key governance principle: asymmetric co-financing.

Avenue 2 – Managing territorial dynamics (2)

Key points of our narrative• develop interventions that are better able to frame the process of

‘managing territorial dynamics’ which is related to the capacity to geographically delineate the boundaries of the functional territories that are the most appropriate for tackling a specific issue (Stead, 2013).

• these functional territories should be cross-border or trans-national (i.e. European added-value)

• Higher commitment on delivering targets -> higher financial commitment from EU (linked to avenue 1)

• Higher level of local investments -> higher proportion of EU funding• fair policy monitoring of EU interventions, i.e. a system that takes into

consideration ex ante the potential for each region to deliver on the overarching EU targets

Avenue 2 – Managing territorial dynamics (3)

Example – Water management• Functional territory -> river basin• Relates to local prerogatives such as coastal management, zoning/land-

use, waste management…

Example – Services and Jobs provision• Functional territory -> FUA/PUSH• Relates to local prerogatives such as health care, employment, social

welfare…

Avenue 3 – Strategic Diversity Coalitions

Rationale• Key territorial building blocks of the vision (so far) are urbanized areas

(of different size and scale) -> Our vision needs to envision the future of all European territories

• Some territories have been identified in EU documents as being especially important for the long-term development of the continent, due to strategic resources or potentials, but some because they are essential for the (cultural) cohesiveness of the European territory

• Areas with Geographic Specificity (See Geospecs projects)• (Cross-border) Mountain Massifs: e.g. Pyrenees, Alps…• (Cross-border) Sparsely Populated Areas: e.g. Northern and

Eastern Nordic countries + North West Russia, • (Cross-border) Coastal Areas: ex: Channel England-France,

Denmark-South Sweden, Adriatic area…• Cost of non-intervention higher than cost of intervention (even if relatively

inefficient)• Areas with geographic specificity are prime victims of institutional

fragmentation

Avenue 3 – Strategic Diversity Coalitions

Key points of our narrative• Encourage the develop of ETGC for empowering cross-border and trans-

national entities on the basis of common geographic specificity• assemble coalition of the wills consisting of peer-territories for which a

coherent set of common objectives may be developed, supported and even monitored.

Avenue 3 – Strategic Diversity Coalitions

Example – Sparsely Populated Areas

Aggregation of Sparse LAU2 units instead of NUTS 2 or 3 units

Pertinent units for regional spatial analysis

Coherent functional territories for elaborating local development strategies

Sparsity does not stop at administrative borders

Sparsity necessitates new territorial governance approaches

Fragmented governance for SPA

Some tracks forward

Focus on European added-value of planning practices; -> not about reforming the institutions in every single Member

States (unlikely) -> national and sub-national administrative borders still matter-> this is why TG is needed in order to reduce the negative

impact of this institutional fragmentation

TG arrangements are very diverse in form and nature, and difficult, if possible, to quantify and model

-> difficult to systematize the discussion through narratives