Opinion on Europe 2000+ - Cooperation for European territorial development

(95/C 133/03)

At its 324th Plenary Session (meeting of 29 March 1995), the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third paragraph of Rule 23 of its Rules of Procedure, adopted, by a large majority with two abstentions, the following Opinion on Europe 2000+ - Cooperation for European territorial development.

The Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning adopted its Opinion unanimously on 10 March 1995. The Rapporteur was Mr E. Muller.

1. General comments

1.1. The Committee notes with satisfaction that some of the recommendations made in its Opinions on the earlier Communication 'Europe 2000 - Outlook for the Development of the Community's Territory' () are now reflected in the Community's approach to spatial planning and more particularly in the new Communication.

1.2. The Committee is pleased to have the opportunity to give its views on the new Communication, which was welcomed by the informal Council in Leipzig in September 1994. The Communication lays the foundations for the framing of a 'European Spatial Development Perspective' and for research work, pilot projects, and the establishment of a European network of research institutes ('European observatory').

1.3. The present Opinion represents an initial stance on the part of the Committee and is designed to aid the work of the informal Council in Strasbourg. It focuses on those aspects of the Communication which the Committee feels can be rapidly translated into cooperation-based spatial planning initiatives in tune with the new approach set out in the Communication, which the Committee broadly endorses.

1.4. This new approach reflects a growing public awareness of the need for a spatial planning policy drawn up in consultation with all the parties concerned - and, in particular, local and regional authorities and the socio-economic partners.

1.5. Hence the new cooperation-based policy must fit in with the wider objectives of economic and social cohesion and enhancement of the quality of life. Due account must also be taken of differing local circumstances, and of the need to work in partnership with the different players concerned. The Committee means to play its full advisory role in this.

2. Specific comments and recommendations

Pending more detailed examination of the Communication, the Committee wishes as of now to make a positive contribution to the informal Council in Strasbourg, and has decided to concentrate on the following aspects:

2.1. The Communication demonstrates the need for cooperation at various levels and in a number of spatial planning spheres, and sketches out broad lines for such cooperation. It shows that an EU spatial planning policy is urgently needed.

Such an objective is also supported by various Articles of the Treaty (Article 130 on cohesion, Article 129b on trans-European networks, and Article 130s on the environment) and by several chapters of the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment.

In the Committee's view, Article 129d of the Treaty (trans-European networks) can provide further justification for a spatial planning policy. The Council could usefully draw on this Article when drawing up the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP).

Further justification for the establishment of a European spatial planning policy is provided above all by the fact that spatial planning decisions are inextricably bound up with the implementation of other Community policies, because of the intermeshing and impact on spatial planning of the EU's mandatory policies.

2.1.1. The Committee considers that a European spatial planning policy must respect Member States' differing systems for allocating powers.

2.1.2. As a spatial planning policy can be put into effect in various ways, the Committee calls for explicit enshrinement of this policy in the revised Treaty to be drawn up at the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. The Committee asks the Member States and Community authorities to begin work on this forthwith and to foster awareness of the justification of such a policy, while taking account of the subsidiarity principle, the overall reinforcement of competitiveness, and the specific features of each Member State.

2.2. The Committee views the function of the Committee on Spatial Development, and more especially the ESDP, as being to provide a practical analysis of developments since 1989, reflecting the changes which have occurred in a number of spheres. In this way it can help to meet the concerns of the public and the socio-occupational organizations, notably as regards quality of life.

The ESDP should be viewed as a first step towards translating the principles and guidelines set out in Europe 2000+ into concrete policy.

2.2.1. At all events, the Committee thinks that the ESDP should do more than sketch out new general concepts and guidelines based on broad principles such as promotion of economic and social cohesion, balanced and sustainable development, and respect for the subsidiarity principle and the cultural heritage.

The ESDP should also detail the fields to be covered, and should propose a mechanism for guaranteeing that projects are consistent with it and that proper cooperation arrangements are put in place, backed by a coordination instrument.

The document which has already been issued does not appear to provide a good starting point in this respect.

2.2.2. It will be up to the Strasbourg Council to identify possible action fields at EU level, within the context of the guidelines laid down in the ESDP. The legal status of the ESDP, and its effects on a European spatial planning policy, will also need clarification.

2.3. While welcoming the setting-up of the Committee on Spatial Development (CSD) which is drawing up the ESDP, the Committee considers that its role within the Community's advisory machinery needs to be more clearly defined, as do its tasks, objectives, membership and operating rules.

2.3.1. The Committee considers that, in the interests of effectiveness and openness, the CSD should closely involve representatives of the local and regional authorities and the relevant socioeconomic partners in its work.

2.3.2. The Committee considers that the present CSD - which remains an instrument for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States - should aim to adopt an ESDP which sets out priorities and objectives, which is accepted by all the parties concerned, and which can provide a basis for all cooperation-based schemes at Community, national, regional or local level.

2.3.3. Thought must also be given to the status of the CSD, with a view to extending it beyond the 'intergovernmental' stage. The Committee feels that with the enshrinement of spatial planning policy in the new Treaty, the CSD could be made an advisory committee.

Similarly, the Council of Spatial Planning Ministers should cease to be an informal Council.

2.4. The Committee welcomes the setting-up of the European observatory advocated in its earlier Opinion (). The Opinion specified that the Observatory should enjoy 'a certain independence vis-à-vis the national and Community authorities' and should be 'backed up by a network of research institutes and bodies in all the Member States'. The Committee calls on the Strasbourg Council to define the duties and operating rules of this network.

2.5. The Committee will consider priority fields and actions at a later date, but feels that certain comments must be made as of now with a view to safeguarding and improving the quality of life.

It is clear that all future EU policy action - whether it concerns the internal market, EMU, competitiveness, employment, or internal and external security - will only succeed if special attention is paid to the quality of life in the Community.

2.5.1. Accordingly, spatial planning policy must be treated as a key factor in improving quality of life and must be equipped with the requisite practical means. By the same token, to mention only one example, a concrete link must be established between spatial planning and environment policy, and between spatial planning and regional policy.

2.5.2. Europe 2000+ and the ESDP identify certain transnational cooperation areas. An appropriate financial instrument must therefore be devised for implementing this cooperation, within the framework of an appropriate coordination mechanism. This could take the form of a specific Community initiative programme, since existing instruments (such as Interreg) do not meet the objectives of this policy, unless it proves possible to adapt and harness these instruments to the 'cooperation for territorial development' scheme.

2.5.3. The Committee asks the informal Council to look into the scope for coordinating existing regional development instruments (Structural Funds, European Investment Fund, EIB) with those to be set up for spatial planning.

2.5.4. The Committee asks the Council to draw up forthwith a provisional schedule for the implementation of the ESDP and for the setting-up of the European observatory.

Done at Brussels, 29 March 1995.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No C 287, 4. 11. 1992 and OJ No C 339, 31. 12. 1991.

() Europe 2000 - Outlook for the Development of the Community's territory (OJ No C 339, 31. 12. 1991, point 4.6).