Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'European Spatial Development Perspective'
Date: 1999-01-14
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: area management, energy policy, environmental policy, regional policy, town and country planning, town planning

C 93/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.1999

lower the cost of public services. It is particularly
important from the regional point of view that resources
available under the Fifth Framework Programme and
other resources available to the Commission are used to

increase awareness of the practical opportunities offered
by electronic signatures and to support implementation
of European applications and services that will boost
the use of electronic signatures.

Brussels, 14 January 1999.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Manfred DAMMEYER

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘European Spatial Development Perspective’

(1999/C 93/07)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP);

having regard to the decision taken by the European Commission on 8 June 1998, under the
first paragraph of Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult
the Committee of the Regions on the matter;

having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 15 July 1998 to direct Commission 4 for
Spatial Planning, Urban Issues, Energy and Environment to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to the draft Opinion (CdR 266/98 rev. 2) adopted by Commission 4 on
11 December 1998 (rapporteur: Ms Claude de Granrut, co-rapporteur: Mr Anders Knape),

adopted the following opinion at its plenary session of 13 and 14 January 1999 (meeting of
14 January) by a majority vote.

1. General comments

1.1. The ESDP’s objectives and approach

The decision to frame the ESDP reflects the
1.1.1.
EU’s determination to meet world economic challenges
at a time when it is boosting its economic integration,
recognizes the growing role of local and regional
authorities in spatial development, and is preparing for
the accession of the central and eastern European
countries. This determination goes hand in hand with
the three fundamental goals set by the Leipzig informal
council of spatial planning ministers, namely economic
and social cohesion, sustainable development, and com-
petitive but mutually supportive regions.

To this end, the ESDP proposes a comprehensive concept
of spatial development that has integrated, relevant
scope and facilitates more balanced, effective and
responsible land-use and better management of the EU’s
natural, human and technological resources.

In order to cater for regional differences and the
complexity of the socio-economic challenges to be faced,
this concept postulates a decision-making process which
involves the various tiers of authority and which helps
to ensure that Member States’ spatial development
measures are mutually consistent and complementary.

The ESDP also proposes effective integration
1.1.2.
impact of Community policies, thus
of the spatial
securing added value and drawing maximum benefit

6.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93/37

from EU measures. Implementation of the ESDP will
therefore require horizontal and vertical coordination
of the Community’s sectoral policies, together with
action by the various geographical tiers of authority
involved in spatial planning.

On the whole, the COR considers that the spatial
development concept proposed by the ESDP provides
an important contribution to EU integration; European
integration will not be complete without spatial inte-
gration.

In offering an overview of the EU area, the ESDP invites
Member States and regional and local authorities to
identify and take account of spatial problems which
transcend their own borders. Although the ESDP is
presented as a reference document which is non-binding,
it lends legitimacy to the proposed concept of spatial
planning and to the consultation process which this
concept will trigger, and to the need to view any spatial
planning measures in the wider European context.

To reinforce this last point, the ESDP proposes four
rapidly evolving areas of spatial planning which are
relevant to the EU as a whole. The document also
analyses the impact of Community policies on EU spatial
development.

The four areas are:

— implementation of a new urban policy;

— partnership between towns and countryside, and the

role of rural areas;

— measures concerning transport, communications and

access to knowledge;

— safeguarding of Europe’s cultural and natural heri-

tage.

The ESDP considers that the spatial impact of Com-
munity policies (the CAP, Structural Funds, environ-
ment, competition, transport and communications infra-
structure) is not neutral, and must be analysed; the aim
should be to increase synergies between these policies
and to optimize their economic and social effects.

1.2. General comments and critical analysis

1.2.1.
The COR recognizes the careful analysis and
consideration which has gone into the ESDP, and the
illustrative value of the tables and maps, although the
latter could be further improved (1).

(1) The reference here is to the draft distributed at the Glasgow

informal council in June 1998.

For the moment, the ESDP is to form a reference
document
for national, regional and local players
involved in spatial planning. The practices of these
players — and the institutions to which they belong —
vary greatly, but the ESDP must nevertheless offer firm,
innovative benchmarks that represent an advance on
existing practices and tools, institutional or otherwise.
In other words, the ESDP must not become a new
planning tier which can encroach on national, regional
or local spheres of responsibility; instead, the ESDP
must convince these authorities that it offers a valuable
stimulus to their policies and can help to make their
action more effective. However, there are certain areas
where the ESDP’s analysis could be improved.

1.2.2.
The ESDP could usefully have highlighted the
spatial aspects of economic globalization, and their
medium and long-term impact on trade flows, business
location,
financial markets, relations between the
world’s main cities, the activities of EU gateway-cities
and ports, and energy supply conditions. Such an
analysis would have made it possible to more effectively
gauge the risks of increasing regional imbalances as
outlined in the cohesion report and, therefore, to
emphasize the priority policy objectives to be pursued
in the coming years to combat such risks as effectively
as possible and prepare post-2006 policies accordingly.

The same is true of EU enlargement. The candidate
countries are more than just additions to EU territory;
they are countries with a past, a heritage and resources,
as well as economic weaknesses which will impact on
EU spatial organization. Substantial forward analysis
needs to be carried out in the near future on the direct
and indirect spatial impact of enlargement on both
current and future Member States.

The ESDP should give more consideration to the strategic
role of the EU’s southern regions as a natural interface
between the European continent and the countries on
the southern side of the Mediterranean, and as an
area which could make a greater contribution to
Euro-Mediterranean cooperation policy. The ESDP
should also put forward guidelines for addressing the
specific problems of upland areas.

C 93/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.1999

1.2.3.
The ESDP could also have scrutinized the
spatial impact of the growing interdependence between
Member States, the single market, the free movement of
people and capital, the spread of new technologies and
the introduction of the euro, considering their possible
impact on the attractiveness of certain areas and the
establishment of new development corridors.

These considerations could have led on to a comparative
study of the spatial organization of Europe’s traditional
development axes, and their weaknesses in terms of
the new concept of spatial development put forward
in the ESDP. This would have given an idea of the
role played by a particular city or city network in
providing a ‘centre of gravity’; the impact of the
establishment of appropriate transport infrastructure;
and the contribution of research centres to boosting
the economy and enhancing employment potential in
lagging regions.

The ESDP cites the Interreg IIC pilot schemes
1.2.4.
as an example of
transnational
the benefits of
cooperation and as proof that it helps make optimum
use of investment. The ESDP could usefully have
included some more closely targeted regional partner-
ship activities which, while involving smaller geographi-
cal areas or areas suffering permanent geographical
handicaps,
insular
climate,
situation, altitude or relief, would have produced more
immediately apparent spatial and economic results.
This would also address the limitations presented by
the lack of spatial coherence in some of the existing
Interreg IIC programmes.

isolated or

such as

The ESDP fails to draw the requisite conclusions from
its recognition that the EU’s diversity is one of its
strengths and that this diversity must not be jeopardized.
In order to retain diversity, one must recognize the
existence of spatial policies at the regional and local
level and their irreplaceable role in improving living and
working conditions and in the exercise of democracy.
The ESDP should have laid greater stress on the
application of the subsidiarity principle to spatial plan-
ning. Incorporation of the regions’ spatial planning
policies is the keystone of the ESDP’s approach to spatial
development.

The COR believes that regional and local players are
fundamental to any European approach to spatial
development, as they are able to reconcile the aspirations

of their fellow citizens with the need for EU solidarity,
inter alia by involving the socio-economic players who
contribute to local development.

The COR feels that the ESDP should have called
unambiguously for a systematic analysis of the spatial
impact of the Community’s sectoral policies and for the
requisite coordination between them. Public funds must
be used effectively and wisely, and the European
Commission should set an example here.

1.3. The functions of the ESDP

Concluding these general comments, the COR would
like to see the ESDP fulfil information, proposal and
policy functions.

1.3.1. T h e i n f o r m a t i o n f u n c t i o n

The ESDP itself acknowledges that this function needs
to be improved. The workshops organized by the
European Commission and Member States and attended
by COR members seek to address the problem (1). Each
topic is first presented by experts and then discussed by
representatives of the various geographical tiers of
authority, using Interreg IIC schemes as examples.

The COR recommends that the lessons learned from
these workshops — which enable provisional finaliza-
tion of the ESDP — should be borne in mind when
deciding the tasks of the European Spatial Planning
Observatory Network (ESPON). The COR suggests
that special attention be paid as of now to exchanges,
studies and research with the central and eastern
European countries.

1.3.2. T h e p r o p o s a l

f u n c t i o n

The COR recommends two courses of action in the
short term. The first is experimental, the other is
institutional.

On the basis of the ESDP work, a few EU spatial action
areas should be selected in addition to the Interreg IIC
regions. These would provide a testbed for the ESDP

(1) Berlin, 27 and 28 April: presentation of the ESDP; Naples,
25 and 26 May: transport; Lille, 22 and 23 June: urban
policy; Thessaloniki, 1 and 2 July: water management;
Manchester, 17 and 18 September: access to innovation;
Gothenburg, 26 and 27 October: environment; Salamanca,
15 and 16 October: rural areas; Vienna, 25 and 26 Novem-
ber: enlargement.

6.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93/39

approach, to coordinating spatial development pro-
grammes and injecting a spatial dimension in other
Community policies. One of the action areas should
include a town-country partnership.

2.1.1. R e g a r d i n g t h e d i a g n o s i s

In addition to geographical coordination instruments,
the ESDP should propose legal and financial instruments
for putting the various forms of transnational cooper-
ation on a more structured footing.

1.3.3. T h e p o l i c y f u n c t i o n

For the moment, the policy function of the ESDP will
be limited to gaining the support of policy makers, at
all geographical levels, for its rationale and approach.
The credibility of the ESDP depends on the added value
of its analyses and proposals. This credibility will be
enhanced by the use of the ESDP approach in pilot
action areas, by the involvement of the different tiers of
geographical authority — notably regional — in all
spatial planning, and by consensual decision-taking.

The ESDP must not overlook a further factor which
influences policy options, namely the Community’s
sectoral policies and, in particular, the CAP and the
Structural Funds. The Member States will recognize the
ESDP as a useful policy tool once they realize that the
ESDP approach helps to prevent programmes overlap-
ping, and helps to gain a better return on investments
(even over the longer term). The ESDP does not seek to
amend the distribution of powers among the various
tiers of geographical authority, but to show them how
to follow a spatially-oriented path. Each physical area
is a resource that is deployed in order to secure a more
rational and more integrated use of its facilities and of
its development potential.

2. Specific comments

2.1. Regarding the proposal for a more balanced and

polycentric urban pattern

The COR considers that the ESDP has enumerated the
problems which handicap the development of the EU’s
towns and which in some cases are causing their decline.
Nevertheless, each town has its own combination of
problems and potential. In analysing these, the ESDP
could have pointed out that the policy pursued by local
authorities is vital, and must be accepted and coordinated
with all other national or European measures.

The ESDP notes that relevant, comparable information
on Europe’s towns is a prerequisite for their proper
administration. Here the COR recalls the European
Commission’s decision to conduct an urban audit of
quality of life in 58 cities, eight conurbations and 21
metropolitan regions. The COR also reiterates its call
for an evaluation of the applicability, validity and
viability of certain yardsticks for living conditions in
urban areas of all sizes.

The European urban forum which was held in Vienna
in November 1998 scrutinized these surveys and this
approach, and recognized the irreplaceable role of local
authorities in the framing of an integrated urban policy.
If a group of urban development experts is set up and
given permanent status, it is important that such a group
should include representatives of local authorities.

2.1.1.1.
There are a few points to which the authors
of the ESDP could have given closer attention. One is
the continuing expansion of urban areas, and the other
is the changing factors that affect business location and
that encourage the emergence of new growth points.
Broadly speaking, the ESDP seems to provide a snapshot
of the present situation, rather than looking ahead to
the next 10 or 20 years:

— What is the role of the gateway cities? Should we try
to create more of them, and to protect them against
their weaknesses?

— Has the creation of urban clusters and networks
helped to determine the optimum population density
for development? Is there a structural link between
urban network and corridor? In what ways do they
complement each other?

The COR is pleased that the ESDP considers towns as
vital to the dynamism of regional economies and to the
EU’s global competitiveness, and as an active custodian
of European culture and civilization in all their manifold
forms.

— Does the financial cost of the growth of cities and
the development of suburbs hide the real cost of the
transport system and other infrastructure?

C 93/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.1999

2.1.1.2.
The COR has identified a serious short-
coming in the whole development rationale: 80 % of the
EU population live in urban areas, but the ESDP does
not take any stance vis-à-vis ordinary people; while it
rightly denounces social exclusion and its damaging
effects, it does not envisage giving a role to those who
live among or alongside the victims of exclusion.

2.1.2. R e g a r d i n g s t r a t e g y

The ESDP puts forward the concept of polycentric cities
and of decentralized concentration. It rightly considers
that as urban development has a significant impact on
the geographical balance of the EU, each development
must be planned in coordination with other cities/and
or with their catchment areas. Furthermore, any
measures to help cities will necessarily involve trans-
sectoral spatial planning strategies. All this should lead
to a more balanced, polycentric urban system. This
system would have the added benefit of encouraging
cooperation between cities, rethinking the interface
between a city and its hinterland, curbing the unnecessary
spread of conurbations, and forging a new relationship
between cities and countryside.

2.1.2.1. The polycentric urban system and the func-

tional urban region

The polycentric urban system proposed by the ESDP
can provide a spatial action framework within which
cities and neighbouring areas can voice their needs and
establish appropriate responses to them.

The COR acknowledges that EU cities face similar
problems, and that a more systematic, coordinated
approach is desirable. However, their diverse nature
means that it is not possible to impose a one-size-fits-all
system. The COR calls for a flexible application of the
three main strands of urban policy, namely:

— strengthening the urban structure and economic

competitiveness;

— improving access and transport flow, with priority

for public transport;

— highlighting cultural
forms of exclusion.

identity and combating all

have used the concept of ‘functional urban regions’ (1);
this means a network of cities and surrounding areas
that are closely interrelated in terms of local and regional
economy and the daily mobility of their citizens.

This concept makes it easier to conduct a multisectoral
policy and to adopt decisions in consultation with all
the tiers of geographical players. It also helps to target
action on key issues which will vary from one area to
another (economic development, transport, rundown
neighbourhoods, pollution, the quality of the landscape,
support for cultural activities). The concept of a func-
tional urban region is also relevant for deciding the
optimum scale and targeting of measures.

Lastly, the COR points out that in order to enhance the
impact of the work of local and national players, the
EU must adapt those of its sectoral policies which affect
urban areas; new Community measures may also be
needed. This is a moral commitment without which an
EU urban policy is not feasible.

2.1.2.2. Sustainable development of cities

To safeguard the future of urban areas, the ESDP puts
forward a series of policy options designed to keep up
their economic and service functions, curb urban sprawl,
promote prudent management of their eco-systems, and
improve the mobility of their inhabitants.

The COR would like to flesh out these theoretical
options by proposing some concrete measures; such
measures, which are a regular feature in some of
Europe’s cities, seek to bring out the interplay between
the different policy aspects of spatial planning, notably
as regards the physical urban area.

For instance, urban sprawl increases transport costs,
land-use and energy consumption. Cities may seek to
forestall this by planning growth so that it occurs
alongside ‘established’ neighbourhoods, thereby ensur-
ing that new housing has access to good public transport
facilities.

Quality of life has become an important factor in
company location. Alongside the availability of land,
companies and their employees are increasingly paying
attention to the presence of transport and R&D facilities
and other services. Accordingly, the creation of stable,
high quality jobs and a reduction in unemployment must

In its concern to reduce urban sprawl and anchor cities
more firmly to their catchment areas, the ESDP could

(1) CdR 316/97 fin — OJ C 251, 10.8.1998, p. 11.

6.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93/41

be the overriding objective of all policies to promote
productive activity and of spatial planning policies
geared to this end. Regional planning must stimulate
regional productive activity.

Transport is a crucial part of city life. The COR calls
for an intermodal transport system with single pricing
for journeys within a defined area, dovetailing with a
common transport system for small and medium sized
towns within the same development area, so as to create
complementary cultural and economic links.

For conurbations in industrial regions undergoing
change, the main aim of sustainable development should
be to devise new urban activities on and around derelict
industrial sites.

Lastly, special attention should be paid to historic city
centres. Most of Europe’s major cities have a historic
core which should be renovated and revitalized, so that
it is on a par with other parts of the city. World heritage
cities such as Florence, Weimar or — a few years from
now — Prague and Krakow should not be museums,
but cultural centres that are open to all forms of
contemporary art.

2.1.2.3. The organization of partnerships

regional authorities have focused on urban areas and
transport. In the former case, the aim has been to boost
the competitiveness of border towns and give stronger
support to town networks. In the transport sector, the
focus has been on improving the accessibility of urban
transport, limiting road traffic, and developing intermo-
dal systems.

If all Europe’s towns are to be able to take part in
partnership schemes, they must be helped along the
way by learning from existing partnerships. This is
particularly important in the case of the partnerships to
be forged with the cities of central and eastern Europe.
The relevant COR liaison group could help consider the
adjustments that will be needed here.

The COR would have liked the ESDP to give more
details about the aims and practical procedures of such
partnerships, as they could inject new vigour into
existing economic activities or help to foster future
development. This last point is particularly important
for regions at risk of ‘desertification’, certain outlying
regions and, above all, for the outermost regions. The
ESDP should have given more consideration to the
special problems of these regions; it should have suggest-
ed spatial measures for making the most of their
potential, and instilled confidence in the worth of the
proposed action.

In order to improve urban balance and thus the spatial
balance of the EU as a whole, the ESDP advocates
partnerships between towns and considers that these
will inject added value into local and/or national activity.

2.1.3.

I m p l e m e n t a t i o n

The COR points out that such partnerships already
exist, and that lessons can be drawn from them.
Partnerships between medium sized towns generally
embrace several fields; they should have a high profile,
and should produce swift, tangible results. This is vital
if they are to win the support of local residents and get
them to work together.

Partnerships between the largest conurbations (gateway
cities, capitals, ports and airport cities) generally cover
just one or two main activities and are based on
experience-swapping and on the prospect of a satisfac-
tory solution to a major problem in a reasonable
timeframe.

Interreg IIC seeks to encourage such partnerships and
to apply the guidelines laid down in the ESDP. In the
north western metropolitan area, the national and

On the subject of the ESDP’s urban policy proposals,
the COR reiterates the regrets it has repeatedly expressed
about the failure of the new Objective 2 to take sufficient
account of urban measures and to draw the appropriate
conclusions from the Urban initiative. The same is true
as regards rural areas; the ESDP should have provided
ideas on the use of the Structural Funds in these areas.

2.1.3.1.
The COR asks that the eligibility criteria for
Objective 2 authorize operations (including ad hoc ones)
that fit into the wider planning of cities and functional
urban regions. The COR considers that Objective 3
should promote the economic growth of cities and
functional urban regions, and help them to fight
exclusion. Lastly, it suggests that measures to help
cities and functional urban regions be encouraged and
extended within Objective 1.

C 93/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.1999

The COR reiterates its call for Community sectoral
policies to cater for programmes for cities and functional
urban regions. Community aid should also be available
for facilitating programmes which are coordinated
among the different tiers of geographical authority.

As was noted in the COR opinion on urban
2.1.3.2.
issues (1), the implementation of an EU urban policy also
requires some changes at institutional level. Progress
has been made regarding the establishment of an
interdisciplinary team, assisted by a group of experts,
within the European Commission. The COR points out
that local authority representatives should also take
part. Their involvement will not only bring the benefit
of their expertise, it will also enable local authorities in
general to give new thought to urban issues.

Action to help cities and functional urban regions
generally calls for long-term, costly programmes. Sup-
port should be enlisted from private and sometimes
foreign investors; the globalization of the economy can
and should be exploited in order to inject new vitality
into EU towns and functional urban regions.

2.1.3.3.
The COR stresses the need to involve the
local authorities because it is through them that the
public can play a part in boosting social cohesion and
economic development. At present, the public is largely
unfamiliar with the ESDP; yet the ESDP could provide
a useful opportunity for them to reconsider their role in
the planning and development of their region.

People are becoming increasingly demanding about the
size and cost of accommodation and quality of the
environment. All too often, these aspirations can only
be met outside city centres. This also leads to social
segregation. Companies which are no longer obliged to
set up inside cities seek larger, cheaper sites near road
and motorway networks, where they can operate and
expand more easily.

Cities are obliged to maintain their infrastructure,
especially social and cultural facilities, despite falling
revenue. They also have to extend the public transport
network to surrounding areas, and this is very expensive.
Commuter journeys become longer and longer, causing
rush-hour congestion on the main access roads.

City development has to involve the suburbs too, as in
conurbations administrative responsibilities give way to
political imperatives. In order to overcome the ensuing
administrative constraints and financial problems, the
COR considers that there is an urgent need to improve
joint city/hinterland planning and regional cooperation
by providing for forms of spatial planning coordination
between local and regional authorities.

The EU population will continue to live mainly in the
large urban regions which are the motor of Europe’s
economic development. In order to achieve the ESDP’s
prime aim of sustainable, balanced development, it is
vital to establish special policy strategies for these
regions.

2.2. A new form of relations between urban and rural

areas

Finally, the COR would stress two points:

2.2.1. P a r t n e r s h i p b e t w e e n

t o w n s

a n d

c o u n t r y s i d e

— the problems faced by major conurbations and by
smaller towns in relation to their catchment areas
differ, and call for different solutions;

The COR feels that metropolitan rather than rural
regions pose the main problems in this context, and that
their problems often upset the balance of rural areas.
For instance, some big cities ‘encroach’ on rural areas
to meet their need for land on which to build transport
infrastructure and housing. At the same time, certain
factors complicate relations between the big cities and
their catchment areas.

Despite steady urbanization, businesses and people
continue to relocate from city centres to the suburbs.

(1) CdR 316/97 fin — OJ C 251, 10.8.1998, p. 11.

— the ESDP should limit itself to offering guidelines
which best respect the activity of local operators.

2.2.2. D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n
r u r a l a r e a s

o f

a c t i v i t y

i n

The ESDP makes a short but discerning analysis of the
development of the role of rural areas. However, the
policy options which it proposes for rural areas suggest
that their main purpose is to safeguard the viability of
that energy
conurbations. For

instance,

states

it

6.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93/43

production close to large cities, from biomass and urban
waste, could help economic diversification in rural areas.
Under no circumstances is this the right path for
sustainable rural development.

In peripheral, thinly populated rural areas, small towns
act as important economic and cultural centres. The
ESDP’s policy objectives should therefore include sus-
tainable growth of such towns, for example upgrading
their roads, public transport networks, and linkages
with their catchment areas.

Similarly, the COR cannot endorse the unqualified
statement that intensive farming does not aggravate
matters. Intensive farming could eliminate the attrac-
tions of the countryside as a place for tourism and
relaxation; it also poses a threat to ground water and
may speed up soil erosion. Neither can traditional
agriculture be left to meet the challenges of international
competition unaided; this type of farming is much better
geared to sustainability and helps to preserve man-made
landscapes.

The Nature 2000 programme of protected regions will
be applied almost exclusively in the EU’s rural areas.
While the programme may affect the potential for
it will
developing economic activity in some areas,
nevertheless offer opportunities for diversification. The
COR calls for local populations to be involved in the
implementation of Nature 2000. The economic, social
and cultural function of these areas should be preserved,
so that they do not become ‘nature museums’.

Rural areas account for almost 80 % of the EU. They
play a key role in the production of foodstuffs and in
wider ecological terms, but these are not their only
functions. Rural areas must not be considered as a
repository of biodiversity, natural assets, landscapes and
environment solely at the service of city dwellers. The
importance of rural areas as independent areas of
habitation and economic activity is beyond dispute. The
COR thinks that the ESDP guidelines and considerations
should pay them greater attention.

Each rural area should be considered in terms of its
structural strengths and weaknesses. After obtaining a
snapshot of the different areas and pinpointing the
disparities between them, guidelines should be drawn
up for securing autonomous development while also
ensuring an equal quality of life. Rural areas should not
be viewed as ‘poor relations’ of urban areas, but as
equal partners who can be involved in joint projects.

The Council of Europe’s European convention on rural
areas (1998) stresses the need to treat urban and rural
areas equally, and to tailor rural development first
and foremost to the interests and needs of the rural
population. The COR supports the Council of Europe’s
recommendations on the development of rural areas,
and proposes that
the ESDP take account of the
abovementioned European convention.

The often high levels of unemployment in rural areas
near large towns reflect the economic difficulties of
these areas. Inadequate education and training facilities
in rural areas force young people to move away, as well
as creating social disparities and aggravating the ageing
of the population.

Eastward enlargement of the EU will also increase the
need to strengthen rural areas, as most of EU’s internal
border regions are rural. The COR considers that the
development of these regions should also be promoted
by cross-border cooperation between national, regional
and local authorities.

2.3. Access to communications infrastructure

EU infrastructure and transport policies should aim for
a more coherent and environment-friendly transport and
communications system. Advances in communications
technologies will also bring major changes in the siting
and nature of economic activity.

2.3.1.
The COR suggests the following ways of
improving access to transport and communications
infrastructure:

— improve infrastructure, including ground and air
transport services and shipping services, in land-
locked, peripheral, ultraperipheral and other remote
regions;

— promote more balanced intercontinental mobility to

and from the major ports and airports;

— improve accessibility in areas without direct access
to the main networks, by means of regional public
transport;

— improve access to telecom facilities and adjust tariffs
to make them compatible with the provision of
‘universal services’ in sparsely populated areas and
in economically less favoured regions.

C 93/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.1999

2.3.1.1. With a view to more effective, sustainable use
of infrastructure, the COR recommends the following:

areas, must therefore receive priority attention. The
development of public transport
fits in with this
approach and must be supported.

— encourage location policies which reduce dependence
on private cars and encourage multi-modal trans-
port;

— contain road transport on congested axes,

for
instance by road pricing and inclusion of environ-
mental costs in transport and by encouraging a shift
in freight transport from road to rail.

— promote multi-modal and combined transport on
Euro-corridors,
including exploitation of oppor-
tunities offered by European ports for coastal and
short sea shipping;

— share and coordinate management of infrastructure
where competition is resulting in over-supply;

— improve links between national and regional-level
transport services, particularly in sparsely populated
areas.

The regions have an important part to play here,
in drawing attention
alongside the Member States,
to their particular circumstances and exploring the
potential for including some of their development
projects in cross-border cooperation schemes.

The COR deems it essential to classify EU sub-regions
on the basis of criteria applicable to different countries
(or regions). This will enable local and regional auth-
orities to compare their typologies, policies and tools in
place, to launch new joint activities and to establish a
‘clearing-house’ for these.

2.3.1.2.
The COR considers that the structure, form
and use made of infrastructure determine the organ-
ization of the EU area. Account must also be taken of
technological advances in the transport, mobility and
communications field (telecoms, high-speed rail links),
the tightening-up of environmental standards, and the
opening-up of business links with central and eastern
Europe which will bring new transport flows.

The COR notes that national policies regarding major
infrastructure have often led to inconsistencies. The
remaining regional gaps must be filled.

Any plans must also bear in mind that while road
transport is undoubtedly the most important mode,
other modes become more competitive as distance
increases. Intermodal policies, inter alia for cross-border

This development is vital for a number of reasons. It
helps to relieve urban congestion, breathe new life into
residential areas, and boost economic and cultural
vitality. It improves links between rural areas and nearby
‘magnet areas’. It means that high-speed train links can
be used over medium distances, and that train and air
services can complement each other.

2.3.1.3. We are now seeing the emergence of develop-
ment corridors with heavy traffic flows and a highly
dynamic siting of economic activities.

A ‘Eurocorridor’
links EU-level metropolitan areas
and is characterized by significant supraregional and
international traffic and trade which can buttress local
development processes.

Eurocorridors should thus be an important tool for
coordinating spatial planning at national and regional
level, provided that national and regional authorities
reconcile
environmental
improvements;
in other words, that they apply the
principle of sustainable development.

growth with

economic

Cross-border networking is of great importance for
exploiting the synergies offered by the larger European
market, establishing closer links between regions and
— in the case of more peripheral regions — keeping up
with new developments in the core regions of Europe.
Cooperation with third countries such as the countries
of Eastern Europe also benefits considerably from the
further development of Eurocorridors.

In conclusion, an integrated EU approach to spatial
planning must embrace infrastructure, transport modes
and distribution, and accommodate the rapid growth of
telecommunication technologies.

2.3.2. A c c e s s

t o n e w i n f o r m a t i o n a n d
t e c h n o l o g i e s

c o m m u n i c a t i o n s
( I C T )

The COR feels that the establishment of an EU infor-
mation policy is essential, given the continuing develop-
ment of the telecommunications sector.

Without a coherent strategy on this, there is a serious
danger that certain regions and towns will become less
attractive.

The ESDP rightly sees ICT as a means of overcoming
the adverse impact of geographical remoteness on

6.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93/45

business start-ups. The expansion and spread of com-
munication networks throughout the EU must therefore
be stepped up.

2.3.3.1. Access to knowledge and innovation

2.3.2.1.
The COR thinks that geographically bal-
anced development of ICT is a precondition for achieving
the broad aims of the ESDP. Concentration of ICT in
the most developed regions and cities can only increase
disparities, and will encourage migration. The COR
therefore strongly urges that account be taken of the
close relation between regional disparities and the
development of ICT access.

2.3.2.2.
points:

The COR wishes to draw attention to two

— the whole population must have access to ICT. The
information society is a user-friendly educational
instrument; it concerns everyone, young and old;

— the national and regional authorities should address
the effects of deregulation, especially the danger that
services will deteriorate or become more expensive.

The COR notes that public monopolies failed to establish
the requisite infrastructure, and that the most developed
networks are to be found in regions where there has
been deregulation.

Regional and local authorities must take steps to ensure
that their communities are not excluded from the
information society. This problem is felt in most of the
outlying regions, and will also arise in the candidate
countries.

2.3.3. D i f f u s i o n o f k n o w l e d g e a n d i n n o -

v a t i o n c a p a c i t y

The COR approves the manner in which the ESDP
considers this issue. In order for innovation to help
the economy cope with global competition, the EU’s
handling of research must be improved, and a construc-
tive dialogue must be established between scientists,
industry and the political and administrative authorities.
The regions must be involved in the framing and
implementation of knowledge and innovation policy, as
this will make the policy more effective. Lastly, the
benefits of innovation must no longer be the preserve of
just a few countries, and of a few regions within those
countries.

While some areas of the EU enjoy intense scientific
activity and high levels of investment, others have
traditional, sometimes obsolete, unprofitable economic
structures based on artisanal techniques. In these (often
outlying or upland) regions, firms tend to be small and
to lack knowledge and innovation capacity. These
regions and their populations raise issues of social
cohesion and solidarity for the whole EU.

The ESDP proposes improving general education levels
and skills in these regions, and including research and
development and innovation in a development strategy.

The COR recommends measures more closely geared
to the specific needs of the local economic fabric, and
to improving the skills of participants in existing or
potential business networks and familiarizing them with
new production methods and technologies.

The ESDP might have pointed out that a significant
contribution from the Structural Funds is vital for
launching such a policy. The percentage allocated so far
has been woefully inadequate, at an overall 1 % (1). In
order to meet their social cohesion and development
goals, the Structural Funds must support knowledge
and innovation and encourage regional programmes
which devote serious attention to them. Successful
examples are not lacking (2).

2.3.3.2. Action to support small businesses

Measures for disseminating knowledge and innovation
must be directed first and foremost at small businesses
since their access to innovation is only half that of large
firms. A balanced, polycentric urban system will mean
a more even spread of knowledge throughout the EU.
This will help both SMEs and lagging regions.

To this end, the COR wishes to recommend measures
calculated to help businesses make the most of inno-
vation. Innovative businesses create twice as many jobs
as traditional ones, and any costs should be offset

(1) 1994-1999 figures for Objective 1: 5 %; Objective 2: 17 %;

Objective 5b: 2 %; Objective 6: 8 %.

(2) North Jutland (Objective 2), Wales: regional technology

plan.

C 93/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.1999

against the economic, social and human costs of lay-offs
or closures. The COR recommends:

— training schemes to help the local workforce learn

innovative techniques;

that this is the best level at which to identify mismatches
between supply and demand for knowledge and inno-
vation, effectively organize dialogue between businesses
and the education/research system, see that no exclusion
or fragmentation of employment ensues, and propose
appropriate financial aid.

— support for research institutes which establish part-
nerships and exchanges with other institutes, and
offer researchers business placements either to fam-
iliarize them with management techniques or to
facilitate the transfer of technology. Partnerships
with large companies should also be encouraged;

— the introduction of technologies for disseminating
knowledge, and logistical back-up for job creation;

— establishment of a legal and financial framework
assisting SMEs with long-term loans, pension funds,
venture capital, and tax breaks for the launch of
new products or the adoption of new production
methods.

The COR considers that the ESDP should adopt the
above measures to help Europe’s small business sector.

2.3.3.3. The role of the regions

The ESDP policy options mention the role of the regions.

the EU’s regional and
that
The COR points out
local authorities have total or partial responsibility for
education and training. They would therefore appear
ideally placed to spread ICT use not only in schools but
also among the population in general.

The regions can also draw up an integrated R&D and
innovation strategy that is tailored to their economic
structure and fleshes out the regional development plans
for the next programming period of the Structural
Funds. Drawing on past experience, it should be possible
to make an ex ante evaluation of the consistency of the
R&D and innovation strategy set out in the regional
development plans. A set of indicators should be devised
for monitoring and assessing how effectively knowledge
and innovation are being disseminated.

The COR points out that the concept of the ‘learning
region’, combined with those of business ‘clusters’ and
industrial districts, has already shown its potential.
These formulas all promote the role of local players and
the active support of the regional authority, recognizing

2.4. Management and development of the natural and

cultural heritage

The COR regrets that the policy options recommended
in the ESDP do not pay more attention to protection
of the natural environment and EU environmental
protection policy. This is also true of
the policy
statements on air pollution, climate, soil conservation,
land use, and exploitation of the natural environment.
Sustainable spatial planning must take account of all
aspects of environmental protection.

The sections on the natural and cultural heritage must
be revised. It is illogical to consider the natural heritage
only in relation to rural areas, and the cultural heritage
only in relation to urban ones. Natural and man-made
landscapes are all part of the same Europe, and one can
hardly describe the châteaux of the Loire or the castles
of the Rhine as part of the ‘urban’ cultural heritage.
Urban areas too have natural landscapes which it is
particularly important to preserve. At the same time,
and as an essential complement to the network of
natural areas (Nature 2000 network), thought must be
given to the establishment of a network of open spaces
around towns and cities, to interlink the network of
natural landscapes and provide areas for recreation.

Tourism is a vital economic activity for protecting and
making the most of the natural and cultural heritage.
However, it must not be confined to the most well-known
natural and cultural attractions. The promotion of a
regional ‘green’ tourism in man-made landscapes is an
essential stage towards protecting them and for the
economic survival of rural communities. It is also
important that the public be made aware of the ecological
importance of these landscapes.

The COR thinks that this chapter of the ESDP needs to
be expanded.

2.4.1. P r o t e c t i o n

a n d

d e v e l o p m e n t

o f

t h e n a t u r a l h e r i t a g e

The COR considers that this requires more than simply
identifying individual protected areas. It therefore sup-
ports the establishment of a network of protected areas
as provided for in the Habitats directive. When the
Habitats directive has been fully implemented, the
Community will have a basic European conservation
network to safeguard its natural heritage. This will

6.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93/47

provide a springboard for the ESDP and for EU spatial
planning, dovetailing with the other policy strands.

The COR considers that forests have a strategic role in
the future EU area. It therefore thinks that the proposals
on the various ecological and economic functions of
forests should be expanded, as should indications for
encouraging rational technical management of them.

Natural disasters — when not caused entirely or in part
by man — are part of the ecosystem. The serious damage
they cause is in many cases the result of the way the area
has been used. A long-term prevention policy is needed
in order to save human life and physical assets.

Europe also has a significant scientific and industrial
heritage which is as just as much a part of its culture as
its historic monuments. Mention should also be made
of archaeological remains that have yet to be discovered,
and which must not be allowed to disappear for ever
under the concrete of new buildings. These remains
must also be protected against some of the effects of
intensive farming and the construction of road and rail
infrastructure.

The COR points out that the EU’s cultural heritage does
not just involve physical assets. Regional traditions,
communication culture and popular art are integral
parts of the European spirit and of regional identity.

2.4.2. C o n s e r v a t i o n a n d c r e a t i v e m a n -
l a n d -

t h e m a n - m a d e

a g e m e n t o f
s c a p e s o f E u r o p e

The COR stresses the importance for regional identity
of the EU’s man-made landscapes, which are also
essential for the economy and for tourism.

Cultural landscapes are those which have been fashioned
by human activity. The interest of man-made landscapes
originates in the use of traditional farming practices,
and conserving them often necessitates extensive farming
methods which will not damage them. Their upkeep
must thus be encouraged, especially in upland and
mountain regions. In cases where activities have to be
prohibited in order to protect the landscape, compen-
sation should be provided.

The COR feels that, in present circumstances, it is
not generally possible to ‘develop these landscapes
creatively’; programmes must nevertheless be drawn
up which take account of the great importance of
maintaining them.

2.4.3. C o n s e r v a t i o n a n d c r e a t i v e m a n -
a g e m e n t o f t h e u r b a n c u l t u r a l h e r i -
t a g e

Aside from the special importance of historic buildings
in determining city identity and character, the COR
thinks that this chapter should cover the main man-made
assets whose upkeep is too costly to be shouldered by
local and regional authorities.

2.4.4. M a n a g e m e n t o f w a t e r r e s o u r c e s

Universal access to a sufficient supply of high-quality
water is a prerequisite for sustainable economic develop-
ment.

The ESDP rightly notes the importance of water as a
natural resource and proposes that water management
be included in spatial planning, stressing the need for a
transnational approach. However, the ESDP’s analysis
focuses on two main problems, namely flood prevention
and the fight against drought. These are not the only
possible water management policies, nor indeed does
the ESDP appear to cover all aspects of these two.

2.4.4.1. Prevention of flood risk

Traditional
flood prevention methods need to be
improved. Disasters caused by floods are becoming more
and more frequent and carry increasing socio-economic
costs. Further scientific research is needed on water
issues, notably as regards the impact of abstraction,
dams and public works (e.g. roads, deforestation), world
and local climate change, changes in land use, study of
flooding patterns, and the maximum extent of rivers
during high-water periods.

The ESDP could have laid more stress on the impact
of certain sectoral policies (whether EU, national or
regional), such as urbanization and housing, transport
infrastructure and the CAP. It should be stressed that
the best way of protecting cities and plains from flooding
is to take greater care over upland settlements, continue
to practise farming and forestry, and keep anti-flood
defences in good order.

C 93/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.1999

The COR supports the preventive measures promoted
by Interreg IIC with the aim of combating river flooding
and flood damage. This programme should be extended
to other river basins (mainly those straddling borders),
and Interreg IIC’s
should be
financial
increased.

resources

The application of
the ESDP’s concept of spatial
planning also depends on its espousal by all the relevant
EU, national, regional and local players, who must
cooperate and coordinate their respective action pro-
grammes.

2.4.4.2. The fight against drought

Some of the above comments and suggestions also apply
to drought-threatened areas. However, account must
also be taken of other, more complex factors at play in
these areas.

Technical advances in irrigation and heavy demand for
agricultural produce have led to an increase in cultivated
area, which has aggravated water shortages. The build-
ing of new dams and reservoirs has not sufficed, and
ground water has had to be pumped out, bringing the
risks of over-exploitation and use of polluted water.

To facilitate this, the ESDP proposes:

— systematic inclusion of spatial-planning consider-
ations in the formulation, implementation and evalu-
ation of Community policies, inter alia regarding
the candidate countries;

— swifter development of transnational, interregional
and crossborder cooperation between States and
regions,
for instance via the Intereg IIC pilot
measures;

— information campaigns to make the relevant players
and the EU public more familiar with the ESDP
approach.

In such regions, the problem is not only one of water
shortages, but also of competition between users. This
raises the question of whether the cost of water should
be increased in response to the shortages caused by
drought. The COR rejects this idea. It is up to the EU,
national and local authorities to ensure a minimum
constant supply to affected regions.

The COR broadly supports these proposals, but wishes
to add some further comments on the following points:

— Community sectoral policies;

— Agenda 2000 — reform of the Structural Funds and

enlargement;

The COR offers the following suggestions:

— develop techniques for reusing urban waste water

and irrigation water;

— Extension of the Interreg initiative;

— Regulatory bases and tasks of the ESPON.

— conduct further research on desalination, both of

water for urban areas and for irrigation;

3.1. Community sectoral policies

— explore the possibility of building large-scale water
storage facilities, as is done in the case of gas, using
northern Europe’s water.

3. The implementation of the ESDP and its impli-

cations

The ESDP seeks to provide a spatial planning framework
for constructively integrating policies and action pro-
grammes. In so doing, the ESDP should help to further
the EU’s economic and social cohesion, sustainable
development, balanced competitiveness, and environ-
mental conservation; this latter point has received
insufficient priority hitherto.

Spatial planning demands a cross-functional approach
that ensures consistency between sectoral policies at EU,
national and regional level. The aim should be to achieve
greater equity between regions and their populations,
countering the sometimes adverse effects of unchecked
market forces which are not offset by public intervention.
Those responsible for spatial planning often opt for a
different approach: it is not a matter of securing more
even growth in a particular region, country or part of
Europe, but of concentrating development instruments
on particular appropriate areas. The aim is to build on
an analysis of needs in order to garner the support of all
the relevant local and other players, with a view to
meeting these needs as effectively as possible.

In the COR’s view, this does not mean amending or
supplementing Community sectoral policies, but

6.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93/49

reviewing their implementing arrangements in the light,
firstly, of
their impact on particular regions and,
secondly, of the requisite dialogue with local players.

The interdepartmental group which the European Com-
mission has appointed to look into the relations between
Community policies and spatial planning is a step in the
right direction, but does not go far enough as it does
not affect the actual framing of sectoral policies. The
group should produce a Commission agreement to alter
the procedure for framing sectoral policies and their
content ‘from within’. It is reasonable to suppose
that if, for instance, the Essen European Council’s
programme for EU transport infrastructure had been
buttressed by other Community sectoral policies or
national or regional programmes that lent weight to it,
a larger proportion of this infrastructure might have
been built — or might be being built — by now.

3.1.1. T h e C o m m o n A g r i c u l t u r a l P o l i c y

The new CAP reduces support for farm prices, and
places greater emphasis on rural development and
environmental measures. The CAP thus has new tasks
that have spatial planning implications: diversified
agriculture, the promotion of related activities in rural
areas, assistance for young farmers and to stem the rural
exodus, creation of jobs in the forestry sector and in
environmental protection, upkeep of the landscape,
tourism and the processing of agricultural products.

The COR has endorsed these objectives before (1). In
the light of the ESDP, it recommends that the CAP pay
even greater attention to rural development, and invest
the requisite resources in the diversification of the
rural economy, quality production, the processing of
agricultural products, the organization of recreational
and tourist areas, and the safeguarding of rural society
on the basis of viable, family farms that can compete on
world markets.

A spatial analysis of the CAP’s impact on land use and
on natural resource management should help with the
framing of an environmental policy for the agriculture
sector. If the ESDP is to succeed in promoting prudent
management of the natural and man-made heritage,
account must be taken of the CAP’s impact on local
and regional efforts to safeguard natural areas and
biodiversity.

(1) CdR 239/96 fin — OJ C 116, 14.4.1997, p. 39.

With a view to EU enlargement, and given the importance
of agriculture in the candidate countries, the resources
freed under the new CAP should be used to help reform
farm structures in these countries, drawing on experience
with certain problem sectors in the EU in order to
strike a balance between structural improvement of
agricultural systems, appropriate price levels and health
standards for foodstuffs, and diversification of the rural
economy.

3.1.2. E n v i r o n m e n t p o l i c y

The ESDP should help to provide a clearer definition of
the areas covered by the relevant directives (Habitats
directive, environmental impact directive, etc.) and by
conservation measures (Nature 2000). Description of
the environmental protection measures to be taken
within the EU will help local and regional authorities in
their activity. Such measures include waste management
and monitoring plans that take account of techniques
for emission abatement, discharge monitoring, and
separation of waste at the point of origin. Community
environment policy must get in step with the ESDP, so
that decision-taking can benefit from the grassroots
knowledge of the local and regional authorities.

3.1.3. T r a n s - E u r o p e a n n e t w o r k s

The COR notes that although the ESDP stresses the need
to consider transport systems from a wider perspective, it
does not devote sufficient attention to short and long
distance sea transport. The COR considers that the
development of sea transport, whether in the Mediter-
ranean, the Atlantic or the Baltic, could help to secure a
more even and effective distribution of trade over a
wider area. The interface between sea and land transport
represents a major spatial planning issue for the EU,
and will test
the challenge of
globalization. The COR also stresses the importance of
developing inter- and intra-regional links that encourage
economic activity and economic relations between the
regions concerned.

its ability to meet

3.2. Agenda 2000 — Reform of the Structural Funds

and enlargement

The COR considers that greater coordination is needed
between the ESDP and Agenda 2000, not least because
they both seek to use the EU budget more effectively
in the light of past experience and world economic
developments and in preparation for the accession of
new member states.

C 93/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.1999

Certain considerations common to both documents need
to be further developed:

3.2.1. T h e

r e f o r m o f

t h e

S t r u c t u r a l

F u n d s

The Agenda 2000 proposals for reforming the Structural
Funds have been shaped by three main factors: experi-
ence with these Funds since the 1992 reform, Member
States’ reluctance to increase their contributions, and,
above all, the prospect of EU enlargement to those
candidate countries which fulfil the political and econ-
omic criteria for opening the pre-accession process.

area when drawing up an Objective 2 programme. The
areas selected should tap a wide range of measures
spanning research and development, innovation, trans-
port and communications infrastructure, aid for small
businesses and the setting-up of service companies,
training for young people in deprived neighbourhoods,
specific local measures and local public/private partner-
ships. Such measures should trigger a real regeneration
of the urban fabric and economy.

Once the ESDP approach has been tested, fine-tuned
and developed, it could provide the basis for the next
reform of the Structural Funds in the year 2006.

3.2.1.1.
reform because:

The ESDP provides vital new input for this

3.2.2. E n l a r g e m e n t

— it seeks to make existing instruments more effective,
so that the same amount of EU resources will provide
more efficient support; this in turn should bolster
Agenda 2000’s objectives for prospective member
states and offset possible limitations on public
spending in existing Member States;

— it accommodates the proposal (made by both the
Commission and the COR) for operational coordi-
nation of the various Structural Funds and for
harmonization of administrative procedures so as to
avoid overlaps and excessive costs.

In its Opinion (1) on arrangements for structural policy
after 1999, the COR stated that ‘EU structural policy
needs a new approach making it possible to establish
more ambitious development strategies based on part-
nership and on territorial development projects....’.

3.2.1.2.
The COR notes that all too often, projects
are ‘divided up’ so as to receive financial assistance
according to the specific rules of each fund. The COR
favours systematic provision for global programmes
eligible for support from several funds (ERDF + ESF +
EAGGF-Guidance and Guarantee). This would provide
an unequivocal demonstration of EU added value. The
COR recommends that programmes in Objective 1
regions adopt the ESDP’s spatial planning approach.
The ESDP approach is more difficult to apply in
Objective 2 areas, which are more complex and receive
less funding, but the ESDP is even more vital here,
especially for urban areas and the relation between
urban and rural areas.

The COR emphasizes the usefulness of the global
approach and of identifying the relevant geographical

(1) CdR 131/97 fin — OJ C 64, 27.2.1998, p. 5.

EU enlargement represents a unique opportunity and
challenge, and could also provide the opportunity to try
out the ESDP’s spatial approach.

There are three preconditions for this:

— the local and regional authorities of the candidate
countries must be given the capacity and resources
to become major players in spatial planning;

— the administrative authorities in the candidate
countries must be equipped with instruments
enabling them to draw up global programmes, with
their local and regional authorities, qualifying for
EU financial aid;

— EU aid must be coordinated (ECOS/Ouverture,
Phare, Tacis, and aid from the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development).

The COR’s liaison group could give the various auth-
orities the benefit of their experience here and provide
practical information on the EU’s sectoral policies and
on use of the Structural Funds.

This approach could be extended to the regions of
neighbouring countries such as Switzerland and Nor-
way. The COR recommends that environmental, R&D,
culture and transport infrastructure policies be incorpor-
ated in regionally based development programmes gea-
red to the different local and regional situations. This
would illustrate the soundness of the ESDP approach,
and the added value which it injects. It would give local
and regional decision-makers in these countries a say in
the development of their regions, and could speed up
their accession to the EU. A similar approach could also
underpin action in the Mediterranean area. The

6.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93/51

COR thinks that using the Interreg cooperation pro-
cedure, in all its forms, will also improve the chances of
success.

covers a few regions, whether adjacent or not) be treated
on the same footing as cooperation between several
countries and generally covering larger areas.

3.3. Extension of the Interreg initiative

The ESDP rightly stresses the lessons to be learned from
the Interreg IIC pilot actions, deeming these a vital
instrument for promoting transnational, interregional
and crossborder implementation of the ESDP, and for
developing a spatial approach based on ‘relevant action
areas’; this should make it possible to deal with different
configurations and prevent the action areas from becom-
ing too unwieldy.

In order to achieve this objective of extending and
‘standardizing’ cooperation, the COR considers that
four conditions must be met:

— the national, regional and local authorities concerned
must have ‘credible’ machinery for discussing, de-
vising and administering spatial planning schemes;

— these authorities, and the EU, must be sure of
having sufficient funding to carry out their joint
programmes;

— there must be spatial coherence across the areas
concerned in terms of common strengths, weak-
nesses, opportunities and threats;

— the management body must have a clear legal status,
in order to put crossborder and/or transnational
cooperation on a firm footing.

The COR feels that this last condition is essential. If the
crossborder body does not have a recognized legal status
it will not have the stature needed to influence the
relevant authorities and to receive and administer
the funds needed for the programme for which it is
responsible. The COR would also stress that although
the cooperation bodies should give priority consider-
ation to the action areas proposed by the ESDP, they
should be free to add other more specific topics geared to
their local circumstances, and to decide the geographical
area which the programme will cover.

The COR does not feel it appropriate to enter into the
detailed implementing arrangements for the various
strands of interregional, crossborder and transnational
cooperation. It would nevertheless recommend that
interregional cooperation (i.e. cooperation which only

Lastly, the COR suggests that the Commission organizes
specific follow-up to all the cooperation projects, in
order to swap information and fuel discussions within
the ESPON, make provision for the financial resources
to be drawn from the Structural Funds, and take stock
of the widening of Interreg IIC with a view to launching
an Interreg III which is more broadly based in terms of
action and legal and financial back-up, paying particular
attention to the development of city networks.

3.4. Regulatory bases and tasks of the ESPON

The COR hopes that the ESPON will be finalized as
soon as possible. The COR wishes to be involved in its
operation, by participating in its administrative board
and in its various activities.

The COR stresses the importance of the legal bases of
the ESPON, with a view to ensuring that it receives the
appropriations needed to carry out its duties. It is not
feasible for the ESPON to receive ERDF Article 10
funding indefinitely. Under the current EC Treaty, it
would be up to the Member States to provide financial
contributions and to decide which member(s) of their
information and discussion network will participate.
The COR recommends that an effort be made to use
Treaty Article 235 as the regulatory base, and that the
ESPON be allocated a special line in the European Union
budget, which will be approved by the European
Parliament, thereby ensuring that ESPON activities are
supported by the European Commission.

The Spatial Development Committee (SDC) will entrust
the ESPON with a certain number of duties that should
help to spread the ESDP rationale among all spatial
planning players. Here it should draw on the proceedings
and the conclusions of the thematic seminars.

The COR stresses the importance of assessing the
effectiveness of the territorial partnership and of the
regions’ involvement therein. The COR thinks that the
regions should have direct access to the information
gathered by the ESPON, as well as access to its scientific
and technical documents. The COR supports the idea
of a link between the ESPON and the bodies responsible
for Interreg IIC activities. It recommends that this link
be extended to all the interregional partners. Lastly, the
COR asks that the regional and local authorities be
consulted on the selection of the network(s) that will be
responsible for coordination within the Member States.

C 93/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.1999

4. Conclusions

The ESDP is an ongoing process for discussing and
adjusting Community policies in the light of their spatial
impact. It represents Member States’ chief instrument
for appreciating the common factors which underpin
their spatial development and hence for taking the
necessary account of the ESDP when administering their
respective areas.

The ESDP seeks to reach a consensus on the coordination
and adaptation of Community sectoral policies and
on the framing and implementation of the resultant
programmes carried out by local, regional and national
authorities. This involvement should also include the
socio-economic players who contribute to local develop-
ment.

company), the time they spend travelling, the need to
update their skills, the state of their environment, and
their cultural identity.

Here the COR points out that it is up to the ESDP to
help the lagging, peripheral and ultraperipheral and
upland regions to analyse their needs and potential, so
that EU policies can help enhance their competitiveness
within the EU spatial area.

The COR thinks that the ESPON should give local and
regional authorities a bigger input into its activities.

The COR urges that proper Community legal basis be
established for both the ESDP and ESPON, recognizing
the need for both the Commission and the Spatial
Development Committee to have ownership of them.

The ESDP forms part of a democratic strategy based
on the subsidiarity principle and on interregional,
crossborder and transnational cooperation.

4.2.
In addition to these comments and recommen-
dations, the COR reiterates the principles which must
guide the future development of the ESDP.

The COR supports the ESDP approach and spatial
development concept, and will work for their success.
To this end, the COR asks that local authorities — who
play a significant practical and financial role in spatial
planning policies — be fully consulted on and involved
in the framing and implementation of the ESDP. The
COR also asks to sit as an observer on the Spatial
Development Committee.

The present opinion seeks to enhance the first
4.1.
draft of the ESDP which offered too limited a choice of
policy options and guidelines. These relate to the
spatial aspects of economic globalization and of EU
enlargement, the emergence of some of these territories,
the crucial importance of access to innovation and new
communication technologies for SMEs and for the
general public, the importance of surface transport, the
scant attention paid to rural areas and to the role they
play, the need to guarantee them a real partnership with
urban areas, the lessons to be learned from all forms of
intra- and interregional cooperation, and the attention
that must be devoted to culture, the environment and
the EU’s man-made and natural heritage.

The COR has endeavoured to flesh out the policy
options put forward in the ESDP by suggesting practical
initiatives, many of which have already been tried out
by local and regional players. These schemes help
to meet the economic and cultural challenges facing
Europe’s urban areas and their hinterlands, and relate
to the daily lives of their populations. Whether people
live in urban, suburban or rural areas, they share the
same concerns — their job (most often in a small

The ESDP was not set up as a new tier of planning, or
to alter the powers and responsibilities of national,
regional and local authorities.

Instead, it seeks to promote institutionalized cooperation
on spatial planning policy at EU level:

— firstly, by encouraging a change in the framing and
implementation of Community sectoral policies, so
as to take account of their impact on spatial planning
and make them more effective;

— secondly, by developing the concept of ‘relevant
planning and action areas’, which may be regional,
interregional or transnational, so that all pro-
grammes promoted by the geographical authorities
are implemented in a coordinated manner.

The ESDP should build on Interreg IIC and ensure that
Interreg III has a clear legal basis and makes provision
for specific pilot measures on the topics included in
the final draft of the ESDP; these topics should be
supplemented by the conclusions of the current series of
seminars and by suggestions from the EU institutions,
notably the COR.

These programmes could be conducted in ‘European
cooperation areas’. They would provide a testbed for
increasing the effectiveness of the Structural Funds and
for new CAP tasks, first and foremost as regards the
environment and the countryside. They should also help
further economic development and create new jobs.

6.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93/53

The ESDP should help with EU enlargement, by propos-
ing specific measures to help the border areas of the
candidate countries meet the economic, demographic
and logistical challenges facing them. These measures
could also be extended to other countries bordering the
EU.

The COR points out that the ESDP must provide
4.3.
an opportunity for regional and local authorities to
develop their diversity while showing their ability to
ground their spatial planning programmes in a European
approach. To do this, it must insist on adherence to the
‘bottom-up’ approach and the vital nature of the
partnership with regional and local authorities.

Throughout this opinion, the COR has shown that local
and regional authorities are key players in spatial

planning, and that their participation is essential for
achieving most of the objectives of the ESDP. This
participation must henceforth be guaranteed at both
national and European level.
Lastly, given that the role of the ESDP is to offer a
new spatial perspective to national, regional and local
decision-makers, it must also provide them — via the
ESPON — with information and arguments to convince
them of its worth. Its analysis and recommendations
must be presented in clear terms, backed by appropriate
maps, and must be accessible to local development
players and to the public.

The success of the ESDP’s spatial approach depends on
its espousal by the public and by the authorities closest
to them. This represents a challenge for democracy and
subsidiarity and for the sustainable development of the
European economy.

Brussels, 14 January 1999.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Manfred DAMMEYER