A coherent approach

Dutch MEP Lambert van Nistelrooij believes territorial cohesion can provide the European ‘answer’ to globalisation

Besides social and economic cohesion, the reform treaty highlights the territorial dimension more then ever as a focus point of EU policy, and I believe that this territorial dimension should be seen as a European answer to globalisation. Without it, Europe will end up with prospering core regions on the one hand and large territories that lag behind on the other. This two-tier development has no place in a Europe based on shared values and solidarity between countries.

The work of the European spatial planning observatory network (Espon) has recently shed new light on the cohesion issue, focusing in particular on whether we want a multi-polar Europe based on a new cohesion approach or whether we continue down the route of development around competition between major urban centres and leave other, more rural regions of Europe to lag behind.

Espon shows that the competitiveness scenario will clearly lead to spatial segregation, a conclusion also reached in last year’s fourth cohesion report: the opening up of the European market to competition from across the world will tend to strengthen the territorial concentration on the most advanced regions.  In my view, there is need for a new and more coherent approach: a cohesion-oriented scenario is much more likely to deliver the equitable development of Europe’s regions.

In the course of 2008, the European commission will present a green paper on territorial cohesion, with new building blocks for this approach. It is clear that member states are leading in the territorial agenda, since they are responsible for spatial planning, but the focus on so-called “top-regions” and larger cities, as “centres of excellence” needs to be changed to a more polycentric development policy that offers economic opportunities for all parts of the EU.

Present cohesion policy focuses on the so-called convergence of the less-developed regions, and this policy will obviously be continued. But in addition to narrowing the gap between Europe’s richest and poorest regions, we also need to work on more efficient ways of developing a more balance economic growth across the whole of the EU.

Both the Lisbon (growth and jobs) and the Gothenburg (sustainable development) strategies will have to be combined and adapted to meet the climate change challenge. This means more interaction and knowledge transfer between large cities, clusters or other economic hubs and their ‘hinterland’. These centres of activity are instigators of economic growth but can only play that role when they are placed in a regional and, increasingly, cross-border context. European structural funds can help finance this integrated approach.

This new approach to territorial cohesion will also have to feature heavily in the discussions on the EU budget post-2013, and related programmes from the common agricultural policy to research framework programmes. In my opinion, the link between cohesion and the post-2013 budget has not yet been made sufficiently clear, although we can see the tendency to foster cohesion and competitiveness within the current budget period. It is clear, however, that the new territorial dimension will oblige us to make new choices after 2013.

Globalisation means we need to rethink our old definitions of cohesion and find greater efficiency within our cohesion programmes. Yet the EU’s example can also help other regions cope with globalisation. Europe has a worthy history of transferring wealth to poorer regions, and China and South America have both shown interest in developing similar wealth-transfer methods as they attempt to reap the opportunities and stave off the threats of globalisation.