The territorial dimension of European integration

Der Verfasser zeigt, dass die mit der territorialen Dimension der Europäischen Integration verbundenen Schwierigkeiten vor allem auf die nationale Souveränität der Mitgliedstaten zurückzuführen ist. Es werden zwei Muster der Planung auf der Europäischen Ebene und die entsprechenden Debatten dargestellt. In diesem Kontext werden die konzeptionellen Entwicklungen in Frankreich seit dem Ende der 1960er Jahre und deren Beitrag zur europäischen Integration analysiert. Es wird begründet, warum die Europäische Kommission die territoriale Agenda der Europäischen Union umsetzt, ohne auf die Ratifizierung der Europäischen Verfassung zu warten. (ICG

Faludi Blogging

“Chasing Territorialism” gathers short texts by Emeritus Professor Andreas Faludi, originally written as blog posts over a period of two years. In Andreas’ words: “Stimulated by an, albeit brief, encounter with Albania celebrating Europe Day, I began blogging about the continuing relevance of criticising territorialism, as I’d done in The Poverty of Territorialism (Faludi 2018; Edgar Elgar), in particular - but not exclusively - in relation to European integration.” Here, territorialism stands for states claiming a monopoly on controlling their territories much as they try to control the loyalty of their citizens. As such, territorialism is a fundamental principle of political organisation. Continued reflection on the poverty of this principle has acquired urgent overtones with the resurgence of armed conflict in Europe and elsewhere. If anything, the general reaction to this and other continental and even global crises seems to be to further enforce territorialism. But, what if territorialism is the cause of, rather than the solution to our problems? If so, would heeding the call for determined state action not become a case of: ‘Out of the frying pan and into the fire’? This book does not give an answer. What it hopefully does is stimulate debate about what the answer should be

European spatial planning: past, present and future

Wie die EU selbst kann die europäische Raumplanung auf drei Entwicklungsphasen zurückschauen: eine Phase der Neueinführung; eine Flautephase; und eine Phase des Aufschwunges. Während der Einführungsphase wurde mehrfach erfolglos versucht, die europäische Raumplanung zu einem Bestandteil des europäischen Projektes zu erheben. Während der Flautephase liefen entsprechende Initiativen über den Europarat, was schließlich zur Beschließung der Europäischen Raumordnungscharta ("Torremolinos Charta") führte. Seit dem Anfang der Aufschwungsphase galt die Raumplanung als (zwar nicht unumstrittener) Bestandteil der noch entstehenden Kohäsionspolitik der EU. Schließlich räumten die bestehenden Verträge keine Zuständigkeit an die EU für dieses Aufgabenfeld ein. Mit dem Vertrag von Lissabon wird der Stellenwert der Raumplanung nun anscheinend formal geregelt, doch besteht weiterhin Unsicherheit bezüglich der Form einer EU-Politik des territorialen Zusammenhaltes. Die Debatte um die Zukunft der EU-Kohäsionspolitik stellt den Kontext dar. Wird sie beibehalten? Wenn ja – welche Rolle spielt dann die territoriale Kohäsionspolitik? Wird sie gerade noch toleriert, oder wird sie – ebenfalls möglich – zur Hauptstütze einer Kohäsionspolitik? Das hängt nicht zuletzt von dem Standpunkt des für Regionalpolitik zuständigen Kommissionsmitgliedes ab. Entscheidend ist aber auch, ob es gelingt, einige grundlegenden Fragen zu lösen, bei denen es um eine Reflektion um das Selbstverständnis der EU geht, sowie um das Verhältnis zu den Mitgliedsstaaten und zu dem Aufgabenfeld Raum bzw. zur Rolle der Raumplanung.Like the EU, European spatial planning has gone through a launch era, a doldrums era and a boom era. During the launch era there were unsuccessful attempts to make it part of the European project. During the doldrums era, initiatives were channelled through the Council of Europe, leading to the adoption of the Torremolinos Charter. Since the start of the boom era, spatial planning was an albeit controversial part of the emergent EU cohesion policy. After all, the existing treaties failed to give the EU a competence in the matter. With the Lisbon Treaty though, the formal issue appears to be set, but uncertainty concerning the form of EU territorial cohesion policy continues. The context is the debate on the future of cohesion policy. Will it be retained, and if so, what will the role of territorial cohesion policy be? Will it be barely tolerated, or will it be, as it could, a mainstay of cohesion policy? The answer depends amongst others on the Commissioner for Regional Policy, but also on whether fundamental issues can be tackled, requiring reflection on the nature of the EU in relation to the nation-states and on space/territory and the role of spatial planning

Close encounters of the third kind: Lessons from Dutch planning

When asked to talk to this disting­uished audience, I decided to talk about my exposure to Dutch planning. In this respect, I am reminded of the characters in the Spielberg science fiction movie to which the title of this paper alludes and who have physically encountered extra-terrestrials. I reflect on my experience by describing my encounters, over more than twenty-one years, as a planning academic and educator, with Dutch planning

Territory: An Unknown Quantity in Debates on Territorial Cohesion

There are complaints about territorial cohesion being a vague concept, but in relevant debates territory, too, figures as an unknown quantity. Thus, is it the fixed property of any state, region or local administrative unit, or is it a malleable social construct; rather than being filled with bounded territories, does space overall contain a dynamic network with fuzzy internal, as well as external boundaries, with implications for territorial cohesion? After all, if the former were to be true, territorial cohesion would refer to qualities of what is inside bounded territories. If it were to be the latter, then the meaning of territorial cohesion would include qualities of the relations within a complex network of socially constructed, sometimes ephemeral constructs. There are implications for the ways subsidiarity and multi-level governance are invoked in EU discourse where there is a similar failure to question the underlying notion of territory. What is relevant here is the distinction between a ‘territorial’ and ‘relational’ geography. Considered opinion suggests that these alternatives can and, in view of the persistence of the principle of territorial representation, must be reconciled. However, though firmly entrenched, some constitutional theorists question the very principle. The debate is far from conclusive but at least it shows that discussion, even of this apparently fundamental principle is possible

Making Sense of the ‘Territorial Agenda of the European Union

European planning has gone through a number of metamorphoses from the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) to an, albeit tentative, policy to achieve territorial cohesion. The first section of this paper discusses developments since the turn of the century. The second section focuses on the renewed Member State initiative to produce an ‘evidence-based’ document, ‘The Territorial State and Perspectives of the European Union’, leading to the ‘Territorial Agenda of the European Union’ presented in May 2007 under the German Presidency. The third section discusses the substantive policies as proposed in the Territorial Agenda. The forth section focuses on institutional developments, including acceptance on the part of the Member States of the need for an EU territorial cohesion policy, and with it of the role of the Commission in the taking of important initiatives. The conclusions seek to make sense of these developments in the evolving context of European integration. A postscript discusses the prospects for territorial cohesion policy under the ‘Reform Treaty’

The Third Cohesion Report and the European Spatial Development Perspective

The third Cohesion Report has been keenly awaited. Does it open up new perspectives on the continuation, albeit under the flag of territorial cohesion policy, of the ESDP process, important also for the future of ESPON, in which so many researchers on European spatial development are presently engaged? After all, ESPON was set up to prepare us for the next ESDP

The Process Architecture of EU Territorial Cohesion Policy

When preparing the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), Member States were supported by the European Commission but denied the EU a competence in the matter. Currently, the Treaty of Lisbon identifies territorial cohesion as a competence shared between the Union and the Member States. This paper is about the process architecture of territorial cohesion policy. In the past, this architecture resembled the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) which the White Paper on European Governance praised, but only in areas where there was no EU competence. This reflected zero-sum thinking which may continue even under the Lisbon Treaty. After all, for as long as territorial cohesion was not a competence, voluntary cooperation as practiced in the ESDP process was pursued in this way. However, the practice of EU policies, even in areas where there is an EU competence, often exhibits features of the OMC. Surprisingly effective innovations hold the promise of rendering institutions of decision making comprehensible and democratically accountable. In the EU as a functioning polity decision making is thus at least part deliberative so that actors’ preferences are transformed by the force of the better argument. This brings into focus the socialisation of the deliberators into epistemic communities. Largely an informal process, this is reminiscent of European spatial planning having been characterised as a learning process

The European Spatial Development Perspective

The fact that they have created the European Union (EU) notwithstanding, Member States are suspicious of, and even hostile to it. This creates a dynamic that is often puzzling, and this is also true for spatial planning. The latter is not a competence of the European Community, but there is the inter-governmental European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) and INTERREG. Also, in this framework, the European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) has been set up with the purpose of providing an analytical base for following through on the ESDP agenda. Meanwhile, the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe has identified territorial cohesion as an objective of the Union and a competence shared with the Member States. While waiting for its ratification, the European Commission formulated its proposals for cohesion policy for 2007-2013. Against this backdrop, Member States resumed their initiative to give them a presence in a future territorial cohesion policy led by the Commission. In the changed circumstances after the French and Dutch ‘no’ to the Constitution, their ‘Territorial Agenda for the European Union’, due to be adopted in May 2007, will be even more significant. The Slovenian Presidency of 2008 may put this document before the European Council, which would be the first time that territorial issues had been discussed at this level