III. Justification for a European Spatial Development Policy

1. The Need for a European Spatial Development Policy

According to the "principle of institutional balance", the Community should in fact only take action on those matters for which it has been accorded the relevant competencies in treaties. In practice, however, this institutional balance of powers has usually been seen in more relative terms with the appropriation of functional and final competencies. Since the mid 80's attempts have increasingly been made to develop and to emphasise the subsidiarity principle in order to counter this process, which has increasingly met with opposition within Member States and has been seen as representing an inappropriate tendency towards centralisation incompatible with maintaining the greatest possible degree of sovereignty and responsibility with individual Member States. This finally gave rise to Art. 3b of the EC Treaty.

If the basic tenet of this principle is observed, then special justification must be provided for any move to shift competencies to the European level. In particular it must be made quite clear why the discharging of public tasks at regional14 or national level is not satisfactory and can consequently be more effectively carried out at Community level. Areas affected by such assignments of responsibilities are:

- competencies for political planning, decision-making and coordination,

- financial competency,

- competency for implementation and preparation,

- competency for supervision.

In accordance with the economic theory of federalism, a shift of competency to the next level up, or to the Community level, is regarded as necessary if:

- political decisions or an emerging conviction, also found in the area affected by integration, exist which support a desire to prevent serious inter-regional disparities in the level of development (distribution or equalisation policy justification),

- by way of its significant cross-border (external) impact, regional or national action affects the economic development of other sub-areas (justification on grounds of serious external effects) and implementation of the principle of spatial congruence (of beneficiary and benefactor areas) is capable of mitigating reductions in efficiency,

- continuity of the natural landscape or other types of interdependency and networking call for cross-border cooperation (justification on grounds of implementation of the fiscal equivalence principle), and

- the existence of a specific dilemma situation (spatial disparity with regard to the beneficiary/benefactor principle) makes it impossible to achieve a satisfactory solution to cross-border problems without joint action.

2. Relevant Spheres of Action for European Spatial Development Policy

2.1 The Issue of Cohesion
The distribution or equalisation policy justification is based on a willingness to implement the process of integration in a spirit of solidarity, or at least on an expectation that failure to reduce disparities between regions or to resolve other regional problems (e.g. environmental problems) will trigger migration, which could easily place an insupportable burden on the capacity of highly developed nations or regions to absorb and integrate the resulting influx, or could create a need for measures which are not compatible with the principle of freedom of movement (e.g. freezes on immigration).

In the Treaty on European Union15 great importance is attached to the issue of equalisation policy. It is interpreted principally as consolidation of economic and social cohesion. This consolidation is also seen as representing a reduction in imbalances in levels of development found in the various regions. According to this understanding, spatial planning is to be regarded as a spatial development policy serving the purpose of cohesion. As emphasised in the White Paper Growth, Competitiveness and Employment and the position papers issued by the European Parliament16 and also by the Economic and Social Committee17, spatial development is intended not only to take due account of environmental concerns, but also to play a part in improving "the quality of life for EU citizens" and in increasing the competitiveness of European industry.

As the number of Member States grows, and with it the variety of the preferences and cultural values of EU citizens becomes ever more diverse, and in the face of changes to the macro-economic context (such as globalisation and internationalisation in business), the EU territory is becoming "increasingly complex and diversified"18. Consequently, it is becoming more and more difficult to define the disparities which need to be overcome solely in terms of deviations from the Community average, or to derive uniformly weighted indicators to measure disparities. This state of affairs makes it all the more important to understand the issue of cohesion as one of compensating regional disparities, while at the same time taking pains to preserve cultural and regional diversity. Since the idea of solidarity at the European level still needs a good deal more time to mature, the role of spatial planning in dealing with the issue of disparities will be played out against the backdrop of the conflicting pressures of regional diversity and the pressure towards standardisation and uniformity.

This situation will place special demands for cooperation among key actors in the field of spatial development, and on reporting and documentation, which will become an essential channel for bringing spatial differences and regional diversity to light.

2.2 Cross-Border Cooperation
In the context of cross-border cooperation in areas along the EU's internal and external borders, the very demarcation of border regions is of particular importance for their ability to act concertedly. In demarcating regions within the economic theory of federalism, it is the requirement that the principle of fiscal equivalence should be observed as far as possible which is of predominant importance. According to this principle, both the motivation of local actors and reinforcement of the liability principle are achieved primarily by creating spatial congruence between beneficiaries and benefactors. This requires account to be taken of interdependencies either side of the border (e.g. in the labour market and in the service sector), as well as of natural geographical continuity (e.g. hydrogeographic features) and of emission/immission effects. This has already in the past led to a variety of forms of cross-border cooperation. In this connection European spatial development and regional policy can promote bilateral and multilateral cooperation (for instance among states sharing river systems and coastal states).

This approach also makes it possible to take account of those problems which are themselves the result of cross-border (external) effects. Problems of this kind occur when national or regional activities affect the development opportunities or the well-being of other countries or regions. In legal terminology this is a case of transnationality, which in its most acute forms can create a need for uniform or EU-wide regulation.

2.3 Networks with Spatial Relevance
External effects impacting not only on cross-border sub-areas, but on the entire EU territory are of particular significance when network effects or decisions affecting network infrastructure are under discussion. With network infrastructures the performance of all sections of the European network is influenced by investments in specific sections, and consequently there is a need for supra-regional coordination in order to mitigate undesired adverse effects on levels of prosperity in the territory of another Member State (e.g. divergent changes in accessibility as a result of regional extensions and improvements).

Although the significance of transnational networks is mentioned in the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment, their spatial impacts are not described in sufficient detail. It is therefore necessary to stress that transnational networks represent an instrument which is capable of exerting a decisive influence on spatial development by means of the effects of such networks on inter-regional accessibilities, defined in terms of weighted time-distances to all European regions and regional centres.

In the transport sector influence should, however, be limited to determining the basic structure of long-distance transport routes and to establishing priority classes for construction or for up-grading. Solving the problem of creating local public transport networks and of fixing routes within regions should remain a matter for the regions or for Member States. Since network effects are capable of generating reductions in costs which are to the benefit of all Community members, there are good grounds not only for coordination in planning matters, but also for Community financing. In the process of the coordination of planning, it would also be possible to include airport policy in cases where regions might be favoured or disadvantaged by congested airspace or by the granting of landing rights.

2.4 Decisions on "Community Assets" which Warrant Protection
Supra-regional cooperation at the European level is particularly appropriate in connection with what are known as "common goods" or "common-pool resources". In the case of "common goods" the task is that of deciding on a list of assets of European significance which warrant protection; "common-pool resources", on the other hand, are those resources which are at risk of over-exploitation as a result of the ineffectiveness of the exclusion principle - e.g. due to the absence of ownership rights. The relevant areas of concern include the connected system of European biotopes, the regulation of fisheries rights in order to safeguard renewable resources, the use of cross-border waterways, etc.

3. Conclusions for the EU Level

In order to take due account of the principle of subsidiarity and the issue of preserving diversity, the derivation of a system of spatial planning aims should be undertaken in a process of dialogue, and a considerable degree of scope for action should be left with Member States. Spatial (development) planning and policy should be limited to determining the disparities which call for priority treatment, and also to the general structure of trans-European networks, the application of the Structural Funds to reducing disparities, to support for cooperation within regions, in particular where this is cross-border cooperation, and to deciding on what-from a Community perspective-constitute appropriate assets warranting protection. To this list must be added coordination of departmental policies within the Commission (cf. Chapter IV 6), a matter which has hitherto not been adequately addressed.

 
Inhaltsverzeichnis zurück  weiter Seitenanfang