Suchergebnisse

Against the background of the increasing importance of evidence, knowledge and learning in both domestic and transnational policy development processes, this paper analyses how non-EU and intra-European Union knowledge arenas in spatial development policy and planning are connected by focussing specifically on the interrelationship between CEMAT and European Union activities and arenas of co-operation. The Council of Europe Conference of Ministers Responsible for Spatial/Regional Planning (CEMAT) has long served as a platform for pan-European (including both EU members and non-members) co-operation in spatial development, but has recently been sidelined by EU initiatives in this field of activity and even faced the possibility of discontinuation. Analysing potential areas of competition and complementarities/synergies and reviewing the recent Russian CEMAT Presidency, the paper argues that CEMAT retains an important role in connecting EU debates, practices and research with actors outside the European Union. However, institutionalised collaborative mechanisms and the systematic exchange of information between CEMAT and the EU in this field should be strengthened, particularly in a direction from EU to CEMAT and in the domain of research and evidence. Continuing with a sub-optimal level of co-operation between CEMAT and the EU in this field or even discontinuation of CEMAT would undoubtedly hamper the involvement and integration of non-EU members in the debate on European spatial development policy and would probably rather quickly lead to the significant disruption of the territorial knowledge channel linking the EU and Russia as well as that with the EU neighbourhood more broadly, while also significantly inhibiting the processes of learning on a pan-European level and stalling the development of a trajectory towards the emergence of something that would resemble a pan-European 'epistemic community' in spatial development policy and planning. ; The paper is published by the European Journal of Spatial ...

The advancing European discourse on spatial development policy and, more recently, territorial cohesion contributes to the emergence of an increasingly sharpened territorial profile of the European Union by supporting the development of a single, more integrated and cohesive EU territory. This internal European Union process obviously also has external implications for the wider European neighbourhood. Within this setting at the interface between the internal and external dimensions of European territorialization, this article investigates co-operation in spatial development policy between the two major regional actors, the European Union and the Russian Federation. Initially, the analysis is theoretically framed by clarification of the concept of territory/ality and its relation to European Union governance while exploring the influence of geopolitical relations between the EU and Russia on existing co-operation in this policy field. An investigation is then made of CEMAT, ESPON, the ESDP process, VASAB, and the INTERREG Community Initiative as channels for co-operation between the EU and Russia. It is argued that EU-Russian co-operation in spatial development policy is of an explicitly multi-level nature that incorporates a peculiar mix of regional, national/bilateral, and panEuropean/supranational co-operation initiatives, although the main channels of Russian access to European Union spatial policy initiatives are those in which the national level retains a strong role. Thus, collaboration efforts across the EU's external border cannot be generalized but rather are contingent on broader geopolitical relations between the EU – as well as its member states – and Russia. ; The paper is published by the European Journal of Spatial Development (EJSD). The previous version of the journal was host by Nordregio.

Territorial co-operation has become an integral part of European Union Cohesion Policy, and is regarded as an instrument towards achieving the EU policy objective of Territorial Cohesion. Since the inception of the INTERREG Community Initiative in the early 1990s, EU-funded cross-border, transnational and inter-regional co-operation has enabled diverse actors to co-operate in a variety of fields, thus contributing to territorial integration through the common identification of problems and solutions for territorial development, exchange of knowledge, benchmarking, processes of learning and, not the least, 'getting to know each other'. Also across its external borders, the European Union has facilitated cross-border co-operation through a (though, uneasy) combination of INTERREG and TACIS funding, which has recently been replaced and simplified by the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). Cross-border co-operation across the external border both shares similarities and exhibits differences with co-operation across the EU's internal borders. Although, the types of actors involved and priorities and project contents on the ground are generally similar, high politics and large economic trends have significant impact on EU-external border regions. This is true also for the Finnish-Russian borderlands, which had been for a long time separated by a closed border and the distress of forced land cession, and which, two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, includes an EU-external 'neighbourhood'. Co-operation across this external border is also conditioned by the macro-level framework of factors such as political relations between the EU and Russia, intricate and variable customs regulations, changing border regimes and a general 'ambiguity between co-operation and control' (Cronberg 2003). Leaving from the assumption that territorial cooperation contributes to territorial cohesion/integration across borders, we seek answers to questions including the following: To what extent this is true in the context of external borders of the European Union? Are there any signs of territorial cohesion/integration across the Finnish-Russian border? Using findings from the empirical analysis carried out in the TERCO project (ESPON 2013), this paper thus also sheds light on the potential schisms between internally oriented cohesion policy and externally oriented neighbourhood policy.

Place-based strategies are widely discussed as powerful instruments of economic and community development. In terms of the European debate, the local level – cities, towns and neighbourhoods – has recently come under increased scrutiny as a potentially decisive actor in Cohesion Policy. As understandings of socio-spatial and economic cohesion evolve, the idea that spatial justice requires a concerted policy response has gained currency. Given the political, social and economic salience of locale, this book explores the potential contribution of place-based initiative to more balanced and equitable socio-economic development, as well as growth in a more general sense. The overall architecture of the book and the individual chapters address place-based perspectives from a number of vantage points, including the potential of achieving greater effectiveness in EU and national level development policies, through a greater local level and citizens' role and concrete actions for achieving this; enhancing decision-making autonomy by pooling local capacities for action; linking relative local autonomy to development outcomes and viewing spatial justice as a concept and policy goal. The book highlights, through the use of case studies, how practicable and actionable knowledge can be gained from local development experiences. This book targets researchers, practitioners and students who seek to learn more about place-based based development and its potentials. Its cross-cutting focus on spatial justice and place will ensure that the book is of wider international interest.

Internationalisation of regional development policies – Needs and demands in the Nordic countries. Different regions have different preconditions for polycentric or monocentric development. Eitherspatial structure can be rational as a consequence of e.g. location and territorial capacity. However the concepts and policy applications have been questioned as to their feasibility in all types of countries and regions. Particularly in the Nordic countries, where many regions are marked by low population density and peripheral location, working towards a polycentric growth strategy may not have the same effects as in the central Europe, for instance. Debates on polycentricity in regional policy and governance have proceeded along different lines in the Nordic countries, but the outcomes are still comparable in several respects. Thus this report omprises four country studies (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) in which we examine whether and how the concept of polycentricity has played a role in the debates on regional evelopment policy and governance reforms in these countries. The analysis provides a review of how polycentricity is interpreted against the contours of regional development policy and the regional/municipal reform processes in each country and in light of the particular settlement patterns of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden.

The paper begins with a discussion of the concept of "shrinking", and its origins, outside the realm of rural development. Building on this, the paper shows the distribution of shrinking rural areas across Europe. Using both the project's literature review and findings from its eight case studies the socio-economic processes which drive demographic decline in rural areas are then described. A brief account of the evolution of EU interventions to alleviate the effects of shrinking, and some remarks about the current policy/governance landscape follow. We conclude by considering how a better understanding of the problem and process of shrinking may lead to more effective interventions, within the context of a refreshed long-term vision for Rural Europe. The latter needs to fully acknowledge the expanding repertoire of opportunities confronting rural areas as COVID-19 changes in working behaviour, and the geography of economic activity, accelerate, and fulfil, previously incremental shifts in technology and markets. ; published version ; peerReviewed

The ESPONontheRoad project was a Transnational Networking Activity (TNA) of nineteen ESPON Contact Points (ECPs) with the aim to bring ESPON results closer for decision-making and thus increase the capitalisation of the ESPON Programme. During a year, participating ECPs brought ESPON closer to the local and regional level, and to citizens in physical and virtual forms. The project built a bridge between the issues on a local level and scientific evidence on EU territorial development policy themes. After taking stock of the most recent policy issues in each national context, ECPs formed transnational working groups to have a common understanding of the messages coming from ESPON results. These working groups designed the most appropriate and efficient form of communication for their target groups. In this way ESPON results were put into the macroregional context of West, South, North and Central-Eastern areas, and both the content-related and the organisational tasks were organised in a balanced way. The activity report summaries the goals of the project, presents how they were implemented and what are the lessons learnt. It concludes with recommendations for the future.