OWN-INITIATIVE OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on Europe 2000+ Cooperation for European territorial development
Date: 1995-03-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU regional policy, economic and social cohesion, quality of life, town and country planning













EUR-Lex - 51995IE0313 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51995IE0313

OWN-INITIATIVE OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on Europe 2000+ Cooperation for European territorial development  


Official Journal C 133 , 31/05/1995 P. 0004 





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 Presidentof the Economic and Social CommitteeCarlos 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).