Εδαφική συνοχή, εδαφική διακυβέρνηση και εδαφικό κεφάλαιο
Authors: Ζαχαρή Βασιλική 
Published: August 2021

In this dissertation the new characteristics of spatial planning are being exploredas they emerge through the relevant activity of the EU and of the countries of theBaltic sea region. A methodological assumption is that the supranational and thetransnational dimension of spatial planning is an additional aspect of a newperspective of planning which emanates from broader processes that affect planningand the management of public policies. More specifically, it is argued that the newperspective for the role and the functioning of spatial planning is due to the tendencyof governance instead of government, as far as policy management is concerned, andthe recognition of the importance of the territorial dimension of development whichdirects national systems of spatial planning in the same way, irrespectively of thespatial scale. The relevant EU activity is being considered to essentially contributeand highlight the new aspects of spatial planning. A point of the dissertation’soriginality is found to the hypothesis that the new perspective of the characteristics ofspatial planning is not a result of the europeanization process, as many scholarsindicate, but that spatial planning in a supranational and transnational scale is affectedby the broader tendencies of governance and of the territorial perspective of development which it highlights, enhancing its contemporary aspects.In order to investigate the hypothesis the interest has been focused to the study ofthe concept of governance and more specifically to that of territorial governancewhich is more connected to spatial planning and to the designation of the tendency ofa new model of development, at a global scale, that takes, to an extended degree, thespatial dimension into consideration. In the first chapter the above phenomena, whichare relevant with the basic methodological assumptions, are analyzed. The concept ofgovernance is being contradicted with that of government in which state is regardedas one of a set of actors who work together for the management of policies whichaffect the wellbeing of the people who might live in a country, a prefecture or a regionthat might surpass national or administrative borders. State’s hierarchical organizationtends to be replaced by a more network organization that integrates administrativelevels, spatial scales and policy sectors. Especially, in the case of territorialgovernance, spatial factors determine governance configurations and specific policyareas regarding different spatial entities, demarcated on the basis of common spatial issues. The need of territorial governance is raised by the acknowledgement of theimportance of the territorial dimension for the development of the different regions.There is a discourse for endogenous development, for the recognition of the territorialdiversification and for the recognition of the unique territorial resources, or of theterritorial capital which characterizes uniquely the different regions.In the second chapter, the basic theoretical approaches for spatial planning arebeing examined, and are being differentiated to the degree that they reflect the newtendencies of governance and of the territorial perspective of development. Planning,as it has evolved, was integrated to the logic of government and has been to a greatdegree developed according to the dominant theoretical approach of rational andcomprehensive planning. According to that approach, planning is a state responsibilityand is accomplished by experts who are regarded to acquire the scientific capabilityfor this activity. Planning as a governmental function has been to a great extentdifferentiated according to the individual systems that was formed at a national basis.Nevertheless, the prime goal of that governmental activity was – and to a great extentis– the regulation of spatial development, mainly through the formation of plans thatset rules regarding land uses. Through that function the objective was the control of the development process, accordingly to each national priority.As it is ascertained to the following sections of the second chapter, not only thetheoretical perspectives for spatial planning, but also the different national practices,showed gradually elements from the approach of governance. Thus, from a theoreticalpoint of view, the interest shifted from the rational perspective, to the communicativeand collaborative approach of planning. What is more, in the last years “spatialplanning” is being contradicted with the traditional concept of “planning” in order tohighlight its new interpretation. Spatial planning currently is strategic andencompasses all policy sectors, it is action oriented and is realized in multiple spatialscales which can surpass national borders and due to all of the above characteristics,is perceived as territorial governance. Accordingly, its importance as a facilitator ofthe development process is acknowledged, as the contemporary role of spatialplanning is connected with the ability to make the best of the territorial dynamic of different regions. The activity that was developed in the EU context regarding spatial planningreflects -to a great extent- the contemporary view of spatial planning, which is moreenhanced since 2000 and onwards, due to the emergence of the territorial cohesionapproach. In the second part of this dissertation, the justification of the above thesis ispursued through concrete methodological decisions. Three axes of research areexamined: the institutional environment, the spatial concepts that produce andreproduce the EU spatial planning discourse and additionally the manner and theextent of its implementation. The axes are explored to both chronological periods thatare separated on the basis of the kind of activity that has been developed in the EUand that has been connected with spatial planning. Almost in the whole of the decadeof ’90, EU spatial planning was connected to the European Spatial DevelopmentPerspective (ESDP), whereas from the beginning of 2000 until today, the concept ofterritorial cohesion is the one that is related with the various developments in thespecific field.At an institutional level, in the first period of the analysis, EU spatial planningwas unfolded in the context of the intergovernmental arena among member states,whereas the European Commission (Commission) sustained an almost equal role with the member states. The view of governance is reflected to the degree that spatialplanning became an object of cooperation between the different member states andthe various actors who took part in the evolved process (ministers of the memberstates, specialized experts, the Commission’s executives), in an informal institutionalcontext, due to the absence of a formal EU recognition of a relevant responsibility forspatial planning issues. A process of mutual learning had been gradually developedamong the stakeholders that permitted the formation of a spatial planning frameworkfor the development of the common EU space (ESDP) which was based on a commonapproach of planning at that level. The process was mainly based on the consensus ofthe stakeholders, rather than on the existence of scientific evidence that would justifya specific role for EU spatial planning. Nevertheless, each country based its positionon studies that were conducted at a national level. As for the issue of participation inthe process, it is important that sub-national bodies or institutional EU bodies (such asthe European Parliament) performed a minor role, whereas sector bodies, at a nationalor European level, were, to a great extent, absent. The fourth chapter indicates the dynamics that were developed regarding therepresentation of the different countries and additionally reveals the influence of thenational approaches, mainly as far as concerns the French and the Germans, regardingthe formation of the basic concepts that have in turn determined the character ofEuropean spatial planning. A central spatial concept of the first period of EU spatialplanning is that of “polycentric development”. This concept poses a specific spatialview for the development of the EU space. Firstly it highlights the importance ofglobal integration economic zones for the development of the EU. It is believed thatthe pentagon of development2 is one such zone, but it is argued that the developmentof additional zones is desirable for the dispersal of development. Furthermore, greatimportance for the development, according to the approach of polycentricdevelopment, is appointed to urban centers and the creation of urban networks for abalanced spatial development is promoted. Polycentric development proposes thestrengthening of the urban (central) functions at every spatial level, in order tostrengthen the accessibility of people in the EU, irrespectively of wherever theyhappen to live. Thus, the perspective of polycentric development reflects aproblematic that is connected not only to the EU spatial competitiveness, but also to spatial equity.The interest in the perspective of polycentric development is mainly focused tothe hypothesis that it incorporates, regarding the endogenous development of thedifferent regions. This approach is contradicted to the “center-periphery” modelaccording to which the development of the periphery and the decrease in thedevelopment gap is promoted through governmental redistributive policies. A relevantpolicy in the case of the EU is cohesion policy, which aims to reduce regionalinequalities in income terms. Notwithstanding, the polycentric development approachacknowledges a number of factors for spatial development beyond income, accordingto the view of the territorial approach of development and better supports endogenousdevelopment policies, according to which the different regions should developcapabilities of exploiting their territorial resources by themselves, throughmobilization and networking of the various actors that contribute to the process ofdevelopment.The application of the ESDP was mainly connected with the first problematic ofthe polycentric development approach, that of the development of transnational zonesof integration. A planning tool that was mainly connected with its application was thatof “spatial visions” that was realized to various transnational areas of the EU, throughthe INTERREG initiative. Spatial visions are strategic planning frameworks that havebeen implemented to various transnational regions reflecting more or less theobjectives of the ESDP. The third part of this dissertation examines especially thespatial visions that were developed for the Baltic sea region (BSR).In addition, the extent of the ESDP implementation is based to the degree that thedifferent EU countries have embedded its guidelines into their planning systems. As itis ascertained, the member states, to a great extent, have incorporated the polycentricdevelopment perspective, whereas the effect of ESDP to each national planningsystem is considered to be limited due to an enhanced level of abstraction thatcharacterizes it, contributing to multiple interpretations of the development options.Moreover, an important aspect of its implementation is found to its ability to affectthe decisions of the sectoral institutions, especially in the context of the EUgovernance system. This would strengthen the role of spatial planning in the EU, as a form of territorial governance. Nevertheless, the ability of the ESDP to guidelineother sectoral policies in the EU level, according to its priorities for spatialdevelopment, is considered to be particularly limited. A development of this specificissue was the ESDP’s reference to the White Paper of European Governance (2001)that gives the guideline to take into account the spatial consequences of EU sectorpolicies. Finally, on the basis of the ESDP, the role of the European Spatial PlanningObservatory Network (ESPON) that promotes scientific evidence for spatialdevelopment of the EU, was enhanced.The next period of EU spatial planning is characterized by the effort to reinforcethe aspects that reflect the phenomena of territorial governance and of territorialapproach of development. At an institutional level, the integration of the territorialcohesion concept to the discourse of EU spatial planning through various institutionaldocuments since 2000 and afterwards, and the following integration of the conceptinto the Lisbon Treaty, has determined a more formal role for the Commissionconcerning the formation of the relevant developments. A result of the institutional establishment of the concept of territorial cohesion was the formation of two –eventhough complementary- institutional fields for the elaboration of the concept and of itslinkage with concrete practices. On the one hand, the intergovernmental process,which was developed in the context of ESDP, has been continued and has beencharacterized by a dominant role of the member states regarding decision making forthe delimitation of the concept. In this case, the Commission has a minor rolecompared to the respective process that had been developed for the elaboration of theESDP. Nevertheless, the Commission is now the basic actor in the effort to form a“territorial cohesion policy”, according to the provisions of the relevant objective thathad been incorporated to the dismissed European Constitution (2005) at first, and laterto the Lisbon Treaty (2007). Thus, the dominant actors of EU spatial planning by theterritorial cohesion perspective continue to be the EU member state representativesand the European Commission – which has now the responsibility to make concreteactions, connected with that objective – in addition to the executives, forming the“experts” of the field.As the institutional analysis indicates in the fifth chapter of the second part, astrengthening of the governance elements of the EU spatial planning is observed, meaning that it is found, although to a limit, a tendency to a better integration ofadditional actors, such as the European Parliament, regional and local authorities, theEuropean Central Bank etc to the relevant processes. Nevertheless, in this casebroader bodies of the civil society are also absent, whereas their presence wouldjustify a better implementation of the governance principles in the field of EU spatialplanning, though it would importantly increase the level of complexity.An additional development at the institutional level is the strengthening of theimportance attributed to the scientific justification of the decisions that are connectedwith territorial cohesion. This development is due to the strengthening of the role ofESPON in relation to the provision of indicators and studies for the understanding ofthe territorial state in Europe and the elaboration of spatial policies. A characteristic ofthe second period of EU spatial planning is the presence of studies that were the basisof the realization of planning documents that were signed by the EU member states,following ESDP, meaning the Territorial Agenda (2007) and the Territorial Agenda2020 (2011). In that case, the need for scientific justification of the political choices for spatial development in the EU level is mainly connected to the understanding andthe enhancement of the importance of EU territorial capital. However, the greatdependence on the objectivity that scientific evidence can guarantee brings to mindthe positivist view of the rational approach of planning, although in that case theinterest moves from the “experts” to the object of spatial planning that is based on theconcept of territorial capital. Beyond the analysis of whatever spatial data, spatialplanning as a form of territorial governance should highlight and integrate the viewsof all the stakeholders who take part in the process for the production of the planningmeans, and also of whom might concern, justifying thus its political nature.At a conceptual level, territorial cohesion is more intensely connected with theneed of a territorial approach of development. The focus of interest on the territorialcapital of the EU or on its so-called territorial diversity reveals exactly theacknowledgment of the importance of the territorial dimension during thedevelopment process. The focus on the importance of the exploitation of the territorialresources for the development of a region, irrespectively of its spatial scale bringsagain to the spotlight the endogenous development perspective, echoing thepolycentric development perspective, but to a more focused context. Specifically, the Commission displayed the place-based perspective, according to which thedevelopment of the different regions should be pursued with the effective utilizationof their territorial resources, so as to reinforce their spatial competitiveness and also toexhibit the social exclusion of territories and regions. The focus on the territorialcharacteristics connects to a functional perspective of space, by which administrativeand national borders diminish of importance when managing spatial development.What is more, the connection of territorial cohesion with a developmentperspective is indicated to the reinforced effort of connecting cohesion policy -on thebasis of the territorial cohesion conception- with broader development strategies, suchas the Lisbon Strategy (that was agreed in 2000 and revised in 2005) and the “Europe2020” Strategy that was signed in 2010 by the member states. In the context of thateffort, territorial cohesion is more connected to spatial competitiveness that isexpected to come through the exploitation of the territorial characteristics of thedifferent regions, so as to strengthen altogether the development of the EU. Theemphasis on the factor of spatial competitiveness and of spatial integration is also observed in the context of intergovernmental cooperation of the member states(Territorial Agenda and Territorial Agenda 2020). Thus, a rather weakening of thesocial dimension of territorial cohesion is realized, regarding spatial equity and so adifficulty to connect the concept with the so-called European Social Model, as it islargely alleged.Since 2000, in the context of the new period of intergovernmental cooperationbetween member states, the concept of territorial cohesion (as that of polycentricdevelopment) continued, to a great extent, to reflect concerns according to thenational planning traditions, mainly the French, but also the German and the Dutch,highlighting however their evolution, affected not only by the relevant developmentsat the EU level, but also by broader, that are connected with the tendencies ofgovernance and of territorial approach of development. The focus on the territorialdimension of cohesion policy and its connection with criteria beyond the incomedifferences through the creation of strategic frameworks reflects mainly the Frenchperspective, whereas the connection of territorial cohesion with coordination and theintegration of sector policies that are implemented at every spatial level refers mainlyto the German perspective.The coordination of sector policies at the EU level was a Commission’s desidesirethat had been indicated since the first efforts of spatial planning, whereas ESDP wasconsidered to be ineffective regarding this issue. On the other hand, a betterconnection of the territorial cohesion approach with the co-ordination of the sectoralpolicies, at least at the EU level is achieved. Thus, in the context of theimplementation of the territorial cohesion approach a better focus to the logic ofterritorial cohesion is inferred. EU has proceeded to the formation of territorialcohesion groups and committees that consist of responsible members for varioussectoral policies, promoting -at an institutional level- the integrated approach that theapproach of territorial cohesion denotes. Additionally, for the new programmaticperiod of cohesion policy (2014-2020) the promotion of new policy instruments isbeing projected, such as the “integrated territorial investment” and the “communityled local development” that are comprised on the basis of an integrated territorialperspective.Concerning the level of implementation of the territorial cohesion approach, tothe degree that the last is connected with the exploitation of the territorial resources ofthe different EU regions, a stronger developmental dimension for cohesion policy isemerged, that commands the departure from the logic of redistribution that, to a greatextent, characterizes it. Thus, in the new programming period for EU cohesion policythere is an effort for the incorporation of more criteria for the distribution of structuralfunds, beyond that of income (for example geographical of demographical criteria,such as mountainous regions, islands, demographic density etc.). Moreover, aparticular importance is attributed to the urban dimension. As it is provided for the upcoming programmatic period, the support of innovative actions is promoted, in thecontext of sustainable urban development. Of great importance is the fact that theeconomic support is regarded to be more effective in areas that acquire exploitableresources, irrespectively from their level of development. The attention turns to thesupport and the facilitation of the different regions so as to utilize the resources thatthey acquire, through the mobilization of a sum of actors who can be part in theprocess of development. According to the recent announcements of the Commission,the bulk of the financial resources is expected to be channeled once more to theweaker areas from a development perspective, but at the same time the potential tofinance stronger areas has been expanded.The policy tool that since 2009 has been clearly connected with a “territorialcohesion policy” is that of macro-regional strategies. A macro-regional strategy is ananswer to the need of the spatial integration of extensive transnational regions and asit seems, it tends to substitute the tool of spatial visions that had been developed in thecontext of the INTERREG initiative, according to the ESDP directions. In the currentprogrammatic period (2007-2013) two relevant strategies have been developed, thefirst for the region of the countries around the Baltic sea and the second for theDanube region, which were included to the objective of European territorialcooperation. A macro-regional strategy is a planning tool for the spatial developmentof functional transnational spatial entities that to a great degree draws in the territorialgovernance approach. An objective is the mobilization of a sum of actors who takeaction in the relevant macro-region, with the aim to pursue concrete targets, set by thestrategy, through the implementation of concrete actions and projects. Thus, an additional important element of the macro-regional strategy is “action orientation”, anelement also in accordance with the contemporary perception of spatial planning.The example of the countries of the Baltic sea gives the potential of a betterexamination of the tools that have been developed in the EU level for the spatialplanning of transnational spatial entities, that of spatial visions which is moreconnected with the ESDP guidelines and that of macro-regional strategy that betterreflects the territorial cohesion approach. However, it is important to stress that thecooperation of these countries in spatial planning occurred “bottom up” and is basedon their own initiative that led to the establishment of the VASAB organization,responsible for spatial planning issues in the region, though also the EU supported thedevelopment of spatial visions in the region since 1997 and afterwards. Thus, it isrealized that the recent spatial vision of the area, the “Long term Perspective” (2010),as well as the first (1994) were the result of the countries’ desire. More specific, thefirst spatial vision for the transnational region of the Baltic Sea was a pioneer tool thataffected not only the ESDP formation, but also the spatial visions that were developed in other transnational entities.For the making of the spatial visions in the Baltic sea region and also of themacro-regional strategy was realized an analysis, based on the three axis of research(institutional, conceptual and on the level of implementation). The countries’cooperation for the development of spatial visions shows many of the characteristicsthat have been found in the context of the ESDP processing. In that case theprocessing of the spatial vision also takes place mainly in the context of a committee(Committee of Spatial Planning and Development), that is a communication channelbetween the responsible actors for spatial planning issues in the relevant countries.The responsible ministers of the countries provide the political justification of eachplanning choice, through meetings. Spatial planning in that level shows again theimportance of the political stakeholders for the delimitation of the relevantdevelopments but also the group of the “experts” who are based on scientific evidencefor the production of planning documents, that in a following stage are beingpolitically entrenched. During the processing of the recent spatial vision there was alarger step towards the direction of territorial government, as the participation ofactors engaged in various sectors in the region had been pursued (such as the Helsinki Commission that is activated in environmental issues). On the other hand, the macroregionalstrategy for BSR is navigated from the EU as a governance tool and theinstitutional environment is determined by the decisive role of the Commission and ofthe member-states, regarding policy making and the coordination of the strategy.VASAB uses spatial concepts which are not substantially different from theconcept of polycentric development and most recently from the concept of territorialcohesion. The approach of “decentralized concentration” proposed in the first spatialvision reveals to a great extent the objectives of polycentric development. Among thethree spatial vision that have been undertaken and especially in the last one (LongtermPerspective) a more intense shift on the interest of spatial integration and that ofspatial competition is realized. Moreover, the Long-term Perspective was significantlybased on studies for the understanding and the designation of the region’s territorialcapital, a fact that reveals the importance attributed to the territorial dimension ofdevelopment.The EU Macro-regional Strategy for the BSR correspondingly is connected withthe concept of macro-region itself. This particular approach reveals the objectives ofterritorial cohesion as the importance of the territorial and the functional perspective for the territorial development of a macro-region is highlighted. The geographicaldelimitation of the Strategy’s implementation is related to the thematic content of thedifferent actions that are projected into the Strategy and are formed on the basis of thespecific territorial capital. Accordingly, the Strategy is addressed to functional regionswhich are not distinguished by administrative of national limits. Nevertheless, theStrategy itself is not connected –at least clearly– to a spatial approach with a futureorientation. The objectives that were set, as referred to the revised document of theStrategy, concern prosperity, accessibility and the protection of the marineenvironment of the BSS and are not concretely translated into spatial ones. Anadditional point of difference with the spatial vision for the BSR, the Long-termPerspective, is that the Strategy does not incorporate maps. Thus, serious doubts inrelation to the functioning of the macro-regional strategy as a framework of spatialdevelopment are raised.The additional value of the macro-regional strategy is detected in itsimplementation and is related with its functioning as a territorial governance tool in the region, able to integrate strategies and actions of a sum of actors that are broadlyactive in the BSR (at a transnational, national and local level) and to contribute to itsnetworking and cooperation. It is this role that makes it compatible with thecontemporary function of spatial planning, as territorial governance. It is true that theinterest was mainly focused to the coordination of the different activities that areimplemented in the area. Particular importance was attributed to theintercomplementarity of the existing financial means and to the avoidance of creatingadditional institutional means, irrespectively of the implied increased level ofcomplexity concerning the governance of the strategy. The incorporation in theStrategy of already existing actions in the area is promoted in order to achieve bettercoherence and horizontal coordination, at least to the level of the multiple actors thathave a point of reference in the BSR.Regarding the above function, the Long-term Perspective of VASAB does notseem equal effective, although this recent spatial visions is focused on itsimplementation to a greater extent than the previous ones, through less but morefocused actions which are expected to be implemented by the various actors in theBSR, as it is projected. Nevertheless, the Long-term Perspective is a strategic framework that matches with the new approach of spatial planning and could directthe EU Strategy for the BSR. What is more, macro-regional strategy’s bettereffectiveness is mainly due to its institutional framing by the EU, a fact that betterguarantees its implementation in contrast to the Long-term Perspective, theimplementation of which rests in the will of other actors (transnational, national ofsub-national) in an informal institutional environment.Concluding, spatial planning at supranational and transnational level is an aspectof the contemporary perspective of planning and in its turn reflects many of itselements that are connected with the phenomena of governance –and especiallyterritorial governance- and of the territorial approach of development. The issues thathave been raised, such as the polycentric development and the territorial cohesionapproach and the emphasis on the concept of territorial capital, as well as theemergence of new policy tools, such as that of macro-regional strategy denote aadjustment of planning at the level of the EU and of the BSR to the tendencies ofterritorial governance and the territorial approach of development. In parallel, it is realized that this trend is more enhanced since 2000 and afterwards through theemergence of the concept of territorial cohesion, without reversing though the basicplanning choices that had been posed by the ESDP.