Does a place-based policy foster cohesion
Jacek Zaucha
The preparation of the presentation was partially financed from the grant NCN 2012/05/B/HS4/04212 of National Science Centre in Poland.
ARL-Kongress 2014, Karlsruhe 26 June 2014
Plan of the presentation:
1. Territorial Cohesion – conceptualisation attempt (policy territorialisation)
2. Two ways of operationalisation of territorial cohesion in practice –place-based approach and territorial keys
3. Polish regions implementing territorial cohesion
4. Attempt to measure territorial cohesion at
the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) level
CONCEPTUALISATION
New paradigm of regional policy:
• the imperative of integrating both sectoral and horizontal policies (e.g. combination of hard investments with development of social or human capital),
• growing attention to flows, networks and functional interlinkages,
• shifting the focus from resources to institutions i.e. development actors and relations among them,
• attempting to substitute redistributive measures with those enhancing permanent self-reinforcing growth processes,
• the revival of the multi-governance concept resulting in increased importance of the local context.
• dissatisfaction with the one-size-fits-all model of regional development
Territorial cohesion has become the key element of this shift.
5 02.07.2014
Territorial Cohesion:
‘The European Union shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’.
Treaty of Lisbon,
Thus, territorial cohesion has become the legitimate component and dimension of the EU Cohesion Policy but still hardly defined.
Böhme (2011,2)
“over the last years, debates have shown that a precise definition of territorial cohesion is impossible. Because different groups of
stakeholders focus on different dimensions of the territorial cohesion idea, any attempt to define it will exclude certain understandings and thus lead to a poorer result.”
Zillmer and Böhme (2010,1)
a formal definition might be the end of the territorial cohesion use and popularity.
(Dühr et al. 2010, 188-189),
The concept as such, though vague, has been appreciated and widely recognised
(Camagni 2011, 79).
TC has been considered as a potentially powerful conceptual innovation by the Commission
02.07.2014 7
Dimensions of the Territorial Cohesion (1) :
1. ECONOMY OF PLACES - TC is to redirect development policies on better exploiting regional potential and territorial capital
•Economies of scales and scope
•Economies of agglomeration
•Clusters
•Access to public services of general interest
2. ECONOMY OF FLOWS - TC is about formation of functional regions and networking.
•Functional regions
•Networks
8 02.07.2014
Dimensions of the Territorial Cohesion (2) :
3. GOVERNANCE - TC is to promote the coherence of EU and
national policies with a territorial impact, both horizontally and vertically.
•Multi-level governance
•Cross-sectoral integration
•Place-based policies
4. INCLUSION - TC is to bring attention to disadvantaged regions.
Territory matters:
• Territorial cohesion has been associated with an overall effectiveness of networks and flows and territorial assets.
• Thus territory has started to matter for growth as a home of social capital, an important factor for economies of agglomeration, a medium for functional relations and self-reinforcing processes, and finally - an interplay arena between different levels of governance and decision- making agents.
• Better understanding of the need to infuse the territorial context in the programming and implementation of policies - policy territorialisation
Faludi (2004, 1349) argues that the original focus of the concept of territorial cohesion has been on regional economic development. Also in the Territorial Agenda of EU (Territorial Agenda
2007, 2) territorial cohesion is perceived not as a developmental goal as a such (i.e. the desired state of territory) but rather as a “prerequisite for achieving sustainable economic growth and implementing social and economic cohesion”. But nowadays broader approach prevails.
Territorialsation is still a challenge:
Despite these advancements, the policy is still lagging behind theory with regard to its territorialisation.
Almost twenty years of intergovernmental cooperation on territorial development among EU Member States has not managed to bring more closer territorial dimension into convergence and competitiveness objectives
The key territorial strategic documents of EU remain on the fringes of the mainstream development process both at the EU and national levels.
Territorialisation of policies is still in its infancy.
TWO WAYS
Two (complementary):ways of policy territorialsation:
Focus on spatial structures TC as a proxy for territorial capital
Focus on institutions and
policy making TC as a process Impact of policies on spatial
categories: polycentrcity, territorial capital and vice versa impact of categories on the policy performance
Policies better tailored to the territorial context Focus on mandates and competences and on
arguments e.g. territorial
relevant knowledge and ways of sharing and discussing it Instruments:
•Vertical and horizontal coordination
•Territorial keys
Instruments:
•Decentralization of
competences, multilevel gov.
•Place-based policy making
Essence of the place-based
Place based approach:
Development - both in its economic and social dimensions – can be promoted in (almost) any place by a combination of tailor-made institutions and integrated public investments designed through the interaction of agents endogenous and exogenous to that place.
Essence is
in dialogue linking development actors
bringing together different development context,
Barca had never spoken about territorial capital although he reffered to strong cities and networks
Place-based
Main ingridients of the place-based
Knowledge on individual development context (territorial capital, other type of local/regional potential etc.),
Impact assessments of different policies,
Institutional frame for multilevel governance dialogue including instruments,
Dialogue between different developmental agents/institutions . This is only an example. Many other configurations are
possible e.g. regional versus local
Capable Institutions for development of individual places and all places in harmony
Knowledge on the overall developmental context (of all places)
Place-based
Place-based
https://www.mir.gov.pl/english/regional_development/spatial_policy/territorial_cohesion/Str ony/default.aspx
Key findings
• All the necessary ingredients of the place-based approach are in place.
• There is no uniform template of the place-based approach. Countries’ approaches differ.
• Territory can be considered as an important topic for cross-governance dialogue within the place based frame.
• Some elements of the place-based approach needs
strengthening, mainly: the way territorial knowledge is collected, multi-level governance dialogue and its
instruments.
Place-based
Key findings
• While territorialisation of some policies (e.g. transport policy, environment policy, urban policy, regional
policy, spatial policy), should be continued there is a need to extend the place-based approach to some other policies mainly: R&D policy, business policy, employment policy, education policy, health policy, and perhaps also fishery policy.
This conclusion was also supported by ESPON research i.e. findings of the KIT Project (cf. Capello 2012)
Place-based
3. Territory is an important topic for cross-governance dialogue within the place-based frame
Key sub topics:
• Strong cities >60%
• Functional regions >70%
• Accessibility and transport
>80%
• Public services of general interest >60%
• Rural regions >75%
• Problem regions >75%
• Environment and nature
> 70%
(N=26)
Place-based
Spatial concepts used in various policies by
countries
5. Some elements of the Place Based approach needs strengthening
50% of countries are not satisfied with the current state of the cross- governance dialogue
(N=26)
Place-based
5. Some elements of the Place Based approach needs strengthening
Main problems with the dialogue are:
• Insufficient culture of dialogue
• Too narrow horizons of local stakeholders and governments (egoism?)
Number of indicated solutions for dialogue strengthening
(N=26)
Place-based
5. Some elements of the Place Based approach needs strengthening
Only in 57%
of our countries local
governments are able to asses the impact of upper level policies and formulate expectations on them
Number of countries (N=26)
Place-based
5. Some elements of the Place Based approach needs strengthening
We should focus on impact assessments, and planning in line with functional geography
Number of countries where instruments were used
Place-based
5. Some elements of the Place Based approach needs strengthening
(N=26)
Place-based
Knowledge on territorial development is collected by national
authorities mainly from statistical sources, permanent monitoring systems are less popular.
6. There is a need to focus our efforts on implementation of the Place Based approach on some policies
Methods used for policy territorialisation
Place-based
6. There is a need to focus our efforts on implementation of the Place Based approach on some policies
Functional Geography
SGEI
0 5 10 15 20 25
Fishery and Maritime policy
Health policy Research and development,…
Business policy (Enhancement of…
Employment and labour market
Education
Focus
0 5 10 15 20 25
Regional socio- economic policy
Urban policy Spatial policy Land use (physical)…
Transport policy ad transport…
General grants to regions and…
Territorial polices
is territorially blinded and should be territorial is and should be territorially blinded should be
territorial and is territorial
0 5 10 15 20 25 Macroeconomic policies:
monetary, fiscal
No need to be territorial
(N=26)
Place-based
Territorial keys:
Territorial keys:
1. Accessibility
2. Services of general interest 3. Territorial capacities
4. Functional regions
5. Territorial Networking
They bridge Europe 2020 & TA2020, and show that territory matters for ‘Europe 2020’.
Territorial keys:
Howe we
have come up
with the keys
Territorial key: accessibility
Example: Poland
Territorial key: accessibility Example: Poland
STEP 4: Policies=> concentration and conditionality
Type Principles of Cohesion Policy Concentration Conditionality Financial solutions A lack of support for transport
investments, with the exception of projects which:
a. may change the modal structure toward smaller environmental costs b. improve traffic safety
c. enlarged the local labour markets
Public transport development in big centres and its hinterland
Road pricing introduction;
Integration of the public transport within metropolitan areas
Preferences for solutions which combine direct assistance and loans.
B Support for investments linking regional centres Type of investment depends on the territory characteristic (population density - for example, at low density e-investment are preferred).
Support for the investment improving European and transborder accessibility only in the case of rail or intermodal solutions.
Road and rail connections between main regional centres;
Structural reforms of the State Railway
Direct support (grants) for investments linking regional centres, but for trans- border investment only loans
©
Territorial key: accessibility Example: Poland
STEP 4: Policies=> concentration and conditionality
Type Principles of Cohesion Policy Concentration Conditionality Financial solutions C Support for trans-border investments
in the region connecting given territory with the core of the European Union and other EU countries
Support for the investment improving within country accessibility (internal accessibility) only in the case of metropolitan public transport and projects which improve traffic safety.
Polish-Czech transborder infrastructure
Scale of investments
(concentration of resources),
Introduction of road pricing on transit routes
Direct support (grants) for transborder investments,
but for
internal investments – only loans
D Basic transport investments as a mandatory issue of funds concentration.
Support for investments in different scopes with softer than for other types of territories preferences for environmentally friendly modes.
Type of investment depends on the characteristics of the territory
Main projects generating bigger spatial effects
No conditions Direct aid (grants)
©
POLISH EXPERIENCE
Case of Polish regions
Polish regions
(voivodeships) are
elaborating nowadays regional development strategies. Two
regions provide good illustration of the
application of
territorial keys and
place-based approach:
Warmińsko Mazurskie and Pomorskie
respectively
Territorial keys
Place-based
According to its statutory position and competences, regional self-government in Poland is responsible for planning and implementing regional development policy.
Case of Pomorskie – place based dialogue
The Self-Government of the Voivodeship will play three basic roles in the implementation of the Regional Strategy:
• as an Investor – it will act as the entity directly implementing and co- financing actions identified in the Strategy through its own projects or projects undertaken together with the partners;
• as a Coordinator and Leader of development activities – it will act as the entity compiling and updating the Strategy, responsible for its implementation, defining the obligations, and monitoring the implementation, as well as managing external resources (including those of the EU) aimed at achieving the objectives of the Strategy ;
• as an Inspirer – it will act as the originator and supporter of region's key development projects arising from the Strategy that are implemented at other levels of public governance, particularly at the national and European level.
For all these function there is a need for a regional knowledge and the place based dialogue
Case of Pomorskie – place based dialogue
The Strategy has listed /identified/contained
The expectations of Pomorskie Region towards central government.
This is a novelty in the Polish system of conducting development policy. This is the first example of such bottom-up instrument of influencing upper-level policies and trying to harmonise them.
Clear offer of joint action of Self-Government of the Voivodeship addressed to the key partners in the region.
Contractual tools :
• territorial contracts with central government (TC)
• Integrated territorial agreements with regional partners (ITA)
Case of Pomorskie – place based dialogue
ITA (Integrated territorial agreements) will:
• cover functional areas around large cities and rural areas in need for support for development processes.
• replace sectoral understanding of problems and socio-economic challenges by problem or issue based and territorial approach.
• be based on a negotiation procedure.
• identify well-focused "packages" of projects, dealing with different thematic issues, but complementing each-other, and contributing to the functional area development.
Case of Pomorskie – place based dialogue
Territorial contract:
• a tool of multilevel coordination (within the framework of decentralized regional policy system) of actions between the region, and the national authorities, represented by the Ministry of Regional Development.
• will be used in order to identify and agree on strategic development projects and organisational solutions, important both from the point of view of the country and the region.
• mutually oblige contracting parties to coordinate decisions in order to support the agreed undertakings. Those undertakings, covered by the contract, complement each other, but will be supported by instruments managed at different levels – regional or national.
• will enhance coordination of interventions carried out from the national and regional level for achieving the objectives of the Regional Strategy.
Case of Warmińsko-Mazurskie – territorial keys
Area of Strategic Intervention – TYGRYS WARMINSKO-MAZURSKI (Regional Tigers)
Key interventions foreseen, i.e. support for:
•Economic development (business)
•Networking and co-operation
•Innovation
•Attracting FDI
Around big cities and along main transport axis
Case of Warmińsko-Mazurskie – territorial keys
Area of Strategic Intervention – AGLOMERACJA OLSZTYNA (Olsztyn city agglomeration)
Key interventions foreseen, i.e. support for:
•Stregthening metropolitan functions
•Investing in helath care,science, culture
•Strengthening regional economy
•Integrated transport system
•Attracting creative people
•Socio-economic revitalization
Regional capital and its vicinity
Case of Warmińsko-Mazurskie – territorial keys
Area of Strategic Intervention – OŚRODKI SUBREGIONALNE (Subregional Centres)
Key interventions foreseen, i.e. support for:
•Strengthening of high level functions of the cities
•Investing in culture, education, health services
•International and interregional networking,
•Investing in social capital,
•Improving labour market,
•Socio-economic revitalization,
Around secondary cities
Case of Warmińsko-Mazurskie – territorial keys
Area of Strategic Intervention – OBSZARY O SŁABYM DOSTĘPIE DO USŁUG PUBLICZNYCH (Areas of low accesibility to SEGI)
Key interventions foreseen, i.e. support for:
•Social stimulation (activation)
•Improvement of acess to SeGI
•Improvement of transport connections
•Strengthening enterpreneurship
Access to Services of General Interes
Intensity of the problem Very high
High
Low and medium
Case of Warmińsko-Mazurskie – territorial keys
Area of Strategic Intervention – OBSZARY PRZYGRANICZNE (Border area)
Key interventions foreseen, i.e. support for:
•Activation of cross-border co-operation,
•Capitalizing on the opportunities given by the local-border traffic,
•Socio-economic activation and stimulation of entrepreneurship,
•Establishment and promotion of tourist products,
•Improvement of transport connections close to the border.
Along the border with Russia
Case of Warmińsko-Mazurskie – territorial keys
Territorial keys applied:
1. Accessibility (Access to SEGI, Border Areas, Tigers) 2. Services of general interest (Access to SEGI
3. Territorial capacities (Border Areas, Modern Villages)
4. Functional regions (Tigers, Subregional Centres, Olsztyn) 5. Territorial Networking (Tigers, Subregional centres)
BSR MEASUREMENT
TeMo: Territorial Monitoring for the Baltic Sea Region Lead Partner: Nordregio
Objective: To develop a territorial monitoring system for the BSR based on indicators.
The project has tested the system in 4 thematic fields to
show its analytical capability and produced a "handbook" for using and maintaining the system.
Policy feedback: mainly provided by VASAB CSPD
(Committee on Spatial Planning and Development in the Baltic Sea Region)
TeMo key facts
44
TeMo Presentation Tool
http://bsr.espon.eu/app_territorial_cohesion.htm
45
TeMo strenght:
conventional indicators
proper territorial typologies
TeMo strenght: conventional indicators &proper territorial typologies
TeMo domains and indicators
46
Thank you for your attention
The preparation of the presentation was partially financed from the grant NCN 2012/05/B/HS4/04212 of National Science Centre in Poland.
