ESPON
ECP Transnational Networking Activities
COBALT
Territorial Cohesion and Coordination in the Baltic Sea
Region
Annex 3
Preliminary Coordination Plan for National Actions
promoting Territorial Cohesion and Polycentric
Development in the BSR
Co-financed by the European Community through the Interreg III ESPON Programme
“COBALT”
ECP Transnational Networking Activity
(2006)
Annex 3
Preliminary Coordination Plan for
National Actions promoting Territorial
Cohesion and Polycentric
Development in the BSR
This report represents the final results of
an ECP Transnational Networking Activity
conducted within the framework of the
ESPON 2000-2006 programme, partly
financed through the INTERREG
programme.
The partnership behind the ESPON
programme consists of the EU
Commission and the Member States of the
EU25, plus Norway and Switzerland. Each
partner is represented in the ESPON
Monitoring Committee.
This report does not necessarily reflect
the opinion of the members of the
Monitoring Committee.
Information on the ESPON programme,
projects, and ESPON Contact Points
Transnational activities can be found on
www.espon.eu
The web site provides the possibility to
download and examine the most recent
documents produced by finalised and
ongoing ESPON projects and ECP
transnational activities.
ISBN number:
This basic report exists only in an
electronic version.
Word version:
© The ESPON Monitoring Committee and
the partners of the projects mentioned.
Printing, reproduction or quotation is
authorized provided the source is
acknowledged and a copy is forwarded to
the ESPON Coordination Unit in
Luxembourg.
Table of Contents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Introduction ................................................................................................. 4
Point of Departure: The European Spatial Planning Observation Network
(ESPON) ...................................................................................................... 5
Concepts for Dissemination ............................................................................ 7
A Polycentric Baltic Sea Integration Zone? ....................................................... 9
Potentials for Small and Medium Sized Cities ...................................................10
A Territorial Cohesion Strategy for the BSR .....................................................12
Concluding Remarks .....................................................................................22
3
1
Introduction
This document highlights the challenges and possibilities for further spatial and
regional development in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) with a focus on the connecting
potentials of transnational cooperation and coordination of national plans for
promoting territorial cohesion and polycentric development. It builds upon the
visions and strategies for the BSR already produced by VASAB 2010+ (Visions and
Strategies around the Baltic Sea), Tallinn Report and USUN (Urban Systems and
Urban Networking in the Baltic Sea Region) by taking the ESPON (European Spatial
Planning Observation Network) programme research as a basis for the methodology
and inputs from the “COBALT”-ECP transnational seminar in Pärnu, Estonia on April
24-25, 2006.1
VASAB has been active in producing not only visions for the Baltic Sea Region, but
also since 1994, a coordinated strategy for territorial cohesion (updated in 2001).
Thus while there seems to be no need for an additional coordinated strategy for
promoting territorial cohesion and polycentric development, this ESPON preliminary
plan does further to relate the need for coordination in the BSR to ESPON research.
This may be useful for further updates of VASAB strategies.
The BSR is a heterogeneous area, showing both commonalities and divergences.
The potentials and challenges of the BSR in terms of the goal of territorial cohesion
and by means of the policy instruments of polycentric urban development and
accessibility are explored in this short and tentative report. The potentials to be
connected are later discussed in terms of transnational coordination of national
plans.
ESPON research on polycentricity has shown that scale matters. Policies and
measures carried out to evoke polycentric development on a European level, i.e. by
stimulating zones of economic development beyond the Pentagon, may increase
polycentricity of the European territory in the sense of developing FUAs (Functional
Urban Areas) and MEGAs (Metropolitan European Growth Area) outside of the
Pentagon. Such a strategy would stimulate further growth in the BSR metropolitan
cities such as Stockholm, Riga or Tallinn. With such an EU or BSR strategy it could
be that by connecting the potentials of the MEGAs with efficient accessibility a Baltic
Integration Zone could be possible. National plans must thus reflect and implement
such a transnational strategy.
VASAB ref: Wismar Delaration and VASAB 2010+ (2001), Visions and Strategies around the Baltic Sea 2010:
Conference of Ministers for Spatial Planning and Development, Wismar 20-21 September 2001.
Tallinn report ref: Third Ministerial Conference in Tallinn adopted the Final Report under the title "VASAB 2010.
Towards a Framework for Spatial Development in the BSR" (so called "Tallinn
Report"). http://www.vasab.org.pl/documents.php?go=display&ID=72
USUN: Interreg IIC project Urban Systems and Urban Networking in the Baltic Sea Region. Report: Cities and
Networking: The Baltic Sea Region, Niels Boje Groth (ed)(2001) Skov & Landskap Report No. 8, 2001
1
4
Although large cities and capital areas are the engines of growth, territorial
cohesion will not be achieved without a complementary focus on the small and
medium sized cities in the BSR. It is vital that the role of these types of cities be
further researched and considered in transnational forums. Strategies for small and
medium sized cities include specialisation and clustering, but there is a need for
more capacity building on the transnational sphere in order to exchange practices
and experiences.
As the result of the presented research a case for a possible “Territorial Cohesion
and Coordination Strategy for BSR” is sketched. This strategy consists of three
elements, coordination of spatial planning actions at the national level, coordinated
actions for transnational cooperation, including the revitalisation of the idea
presented in USUN of a “BALTSPON” for coordination of regional data and
indicators, as well as research, and a the formulation of political territorial cohesion
guidelines for the region as a whole, which would have a normative or prescriptive
character.
Hopefully, this report could serve as a tool for both national actions and coordinated
transnational actions in the EU as well as the BSR. The purpose is also to build a
bridge between ESPON, VASAB, and other relevant activities and projects taking
place in the BSR. Furthermore, this report will, hopefully, also contribute to the
ongoing debate on territorial cohesion and polycentric and sustainable urban
development both in the EU and, especially, in the BSR. This document is inspired
and based on a previous document written by ITPS/KTH for the Swedish Ministry of
Industry, Communication and Employment to be used further as a background
document for VASAB work2. As such the document has already received feedback
from the VASAB Secretariat. The document has been further enriched by the results
of the “COBALT” seminar.
2
Point of Departure: The European Spatial Planning
Observation Network (ESPON)
From a European perspective, there have been initiatives to improve and achieve a
more balanced spatial and social development in Europe. The ESPON programme
and the ensuing projects have since 2002 been contributing to a better coordination
and implementation of actions and policies regarding spatial planning as well as
spatial development. The goal for ESPON has been to support a more balance
polycentric settlement structure and territorial cohesion by providing a spatial
picture of the European territory. In much of the BSR the urban structure is mostly
2 Cortés Ballerino, C., Johansson, M., and Van Well, L., (2005) Polycentric development and territorial cohesion in
the BSR: Strategies and priorities. Report written for the Swedish Ministry of Industry, Communication and
Employment.
5
characterized by a dominant position of capitals at the national level and unclear
goals for spatial national, regional and local levels. Thus, ESPON is a contribution to
BSR seeking to see how it is possible to counterbalance the dominant positions of
the centres and to advocate for optimal pattern and distribution of urban centres in
a territory by combining sector and spatial goals to reach territorial policies.
Concepts such as polycentricity and territorial cohesion and their applied meaning
at the trans-regional and regional level were reviewed and highlighted during the
“COBALT seminar” in terms of a strategy for dissemination of some of the most
relevant results of the ESPON programme that could influence the development in
the BSR.
In integrating the normative goals of the ESDP (European Spatial Development
Perspective) ESPON seeks to see how it is possible to counterbalance a dominant
position centres and to advocate for optimal pattern and distribution of urban
centres in a territory by combining sector and spatial goals to reach territorial
policies. One of the main strategies to reach this is polycentric development at
various levels – from local to EU-wide- with focus on functionality aspects.
Territorial cohesion comprises morphological aspects (distribution of urban areas in
a given territory) as well as the flows and networks between various centres,
aspects that have been clearly linked to the concept of polycentric development.
Under the morphological aspect, cities are the considered the engines for growth
and therefore the potential starting points for cooperation. The identifications of
potential cities in the BSR have been used the criteria and methodology of
Functional Urban Areas or FUAs. Relationship among rural and urban cooperation
are not going to be dealt in this document.
While this report builds upon the important research results published within the
ESPON programme, it also acts as a complement to the VASAB efforts. It
unavoidable to discuss cohesion and coordination in the BSR without referring to
the work done VASAB since VASAB has been a pioneer in this topic since the 1990s.
More specifically, concrete questions in which ESPON can contribute to the work of
VASAB is by helping to determine3:
1. Which cities, towns and their networks have particular potential to contribute to
BSR cohesion based on flows and linkages (functional polycentricity)
2. What flows and linkages between cities and towns should be supported to
increase BSR cohesion/competitiveness.
3. How adequate is the BSR accessibility model described in the VASAB Policy
Document, and how to implement it?
3 Presentation by Olle Lundgren at the ECP Transnational Activity “CABALT” in Pärnu, Estonia, April 24-25, 2006
(see Part II of the COBALT Seminar Proceedings).
6
3
Key Concepts for Dissemination
One of the main ways for ESPON to contribute to effective design of national of
regional policies is in providing scientific evidence and support for policymakers is
to more accurately define and disseminate the concepts used within the ESPON
programme. While national policymakers are not unaware of many of these terms,
they may sometimes find them difficult to employ in a real-life perspective. In fact,
VASAB has long been using terminology very much akin to that of ESPON, as show
in the figure below:
VASAB
ESPON
Cities or FUAs
The system of urban settlements
(pearls)
The interlinking networks
Accessibility
(strings)
Uses of land use (patches)
in non-urban areas
Border areas, islands, coastal
zones, cultural landscape
Comprehensive spatial planning
function (system)
Figure 1
Territorial cohesion
VASAB and ESPON terminology similarities
Thus a dissemination strategy is a first step in reaching out to practitioners and
convincing them of the value-added of ESPON. Tandem to conceptual
dissemination, maps and empirical evidence produced by ESPON help even further
to illustrate how nations and regions are performing vis-à-vis one another. Below a
few of the most relevant terms for the BSR are highlighted:
Territorial cohesion is the umbrella concept and an integrated part of the
cohesion process covering the territorial aspects of economic and social cohesion
and the EU objectives of balanced and sustainable development. It can be argued
that territorial cohesion underlines the fact that the transnational territorial
7
dimension possesses a potentially large added value for effective development
policies. 4
The concept of territorial cohesion is vital within Europe as while the disparities
between EU Member States is gradually decreasing, the disparities within Member
States seems to be on the rise (Sapir et al (2003), page 59-60). This is particularly
true within the BSR, which exhibits a great degree of regional polarisation, being
home to both some of the wealthiest regions, as well as poorest regions in the
European Union. Of the 100 NUTS 3 regions with the lowest GDP per capita in
2002, 56 of these are located within the BSR5
Although the disparities in per capita income in the BSR are among the highest in
the world, with the largest economic gap presumably on the border between
Finland and Russia, many of the regions in the BSR are growing rapidly. Poland,
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all show increasing growth rates, although these
appear to be confined to the capital city regions.
A polycentric urban system is a spatial organisation of cities that is
characterised, among other things, by a functional division of labour, economic and
institutional integration as well as political cooperation6.
Polycentricity is conceptualised as both an ongoing process and as a goal to be
achieved and is alleged to help in reducing regional disparities and in increasing
competitiveness for integration. Yet it is important to bear in mind that
polycentricity at heart is a political concept. While polycentricity is the main
research object of ESPON, the verdict is still out if it can reduce economic and social
disparities and lead to balanced competitiveness and sustainable development in all
regions in the European territory.
Achieving polycentricity at all levels may have inherent contradictions built in. As
ESPON project 1.1.3 found, carte blanche policy interventions to achieve
polycentricity may lead to conflicts between the goals of competitiveness, cohesion
and sustainability at various levels7. If, for instance at the EU level, the goal is to
strengthen major urban centres outside the “Pentagon”, this will increase spatial
disparities between the already too dominant capital cities in countries in Baltic
states. However, if the promotion of balanced urban systems in these countries is a
common goal, more Structural Funds and transport infrastructure would have to go
into the peripheral regions of the new member states, and this would go at the
expense of their capitals”8.
4
ESPON project 3.1, Final Report Part C, Glossary, p 85 and p 95
5
Hanell, T. Neubauer, J and Tornberg, P. (2005) Cities of the Baltic Sea Region at a Glance. Medium Sized Cities in
Dialogue Around the Baltic Sea (MECIBS) brochure.
6
Ibid. p. 62
7
Polycentricity and goal conflicts ESPON 1.1.3 Final Report (2006).
8
ESPON 1.1.3 Final Report
8
Accessibility is the “main product of a transport system. It determines the
locational advantage of an area”9. Connectivity of cities (FUAs) constitutes one of
the central factors of polycentricity; any share of exchange such as economy,
knowledge needs to be accompanied by efficient transport infrastructure and
accessibility. High connectivity enables trade-flows opportunities and functional
interactions among cities. Quality of transport infrastructure determines a
competitive advantage. Accessibility facilitates the attraction for investments and it
could influence companies’ location and FDI by means of economic benefits.
4
A Polycentric Baltic Sea Integration Zone?
Cities have different roles in relation to the urban system and capital cities top the
hierarchy of the urban systems. ESPON has identified seven functions of Functional
Urban Areas (FUA) that taken together provide an initial indication of certain role in
Europe. These are: population, transport, tourism, manufacturing, knowledge and
decision-making in private and public sector.
A FUA consists of an urban core and the area around it that is economically
integrated with a centre10. For the BSR area there are 256 cities according to the
FUAs classification from ESPON Final and Interim reports that are shown in Figure
1. The 76 European FUAs with the highest score have been labelled Metropolitan
European Growth Areas (MEGAs) by ESPON and 22 of these MEGAs are located in
the BSR.
9
Ibid. p. 3
10
http://www.espon.lu/online/documentation/projects/thematic/1873/fr-1.1.1-part-1
9
Global node
Category 1 MEGA
Category 2 MEGA
Category 3 MEGA
Category 4 MEGA
MEGA :
Metropolitan Europe Growth Area
Pentagon area
Potential Baltic
Metropolitan Growth Area
Baltic Sea Region
Figure 2
MEGAs categories and FUAs in Europe, highlighting the Baltic Sea Region
(Adapted from ESPON 1.1.1 part 3, page 35, map 3.5 and ESPON 1.1.1 part 3,
pag 5, map 4.1 )
Of the total 76 European MEGAs according to the ESPON classification, 22 or 29%
are located in the BSR space, while only 18 are located in the “Pentagon”. Granted
the MEGAs of the “Pentagon” are primarily Category 1 and 2 MEGAs, while those of
the BSR are mainly Category 3 and 4 MEGAs (primarily in Poland), but still this
points to the great possibilities of the BSR in terms of a potential Baltic Integration
Zone that, while not pretending to rival the “Pentagon”, could at least be a
formidable globally competitive complement.
5
Potentials for Small and Medium Sized Cities
The USUN-project has found that, “…any strategy concerning integration of the BSR
must rely on the involvement of the metropolises” and “… the commitment of the
capitals to the development of the BSR is crucial”.11 Yet one of the findings of the
USUN project was that all of the capital or largest cities in the BSR had GDP and
employment shares that were higher than the proportionate shares of the national
11
Groth, N.B (ed) (2001), Cities and Networking: the Baltic Sea Region: A report on the Interreg IIC project Urban
Systems and Urban Networking in the Baltic Sea Area. Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy/Danish Forest
and Landscape Research Institute. p. 113.
10
population, “Thus, the large BSR cities take the lion’s share of national economic
development”12.
The MECIB-project13 takes up the plight of smaller cities that are undergoing
processes of structural change and consequently loosing population and
employment opportunities. The project also discusses that medium and small cities
are often economically dependent on special competencies and local and regional
clusters for their future development14. VASAB has also stated that specialisation
could be a promising approach for secondary urban regions to gain a share in
economic growth15.
ESPON 1.1.1 also considers “functional specialisation as an important dimension of
polycentricity as it is these functions that make cities different from each other and
produce flows necessary for economic and political integration”.16
Spatial economies will depend on being involved in one (single) or more (multiple)
transactions; policies will have to provide appropriate conditions, especially if
agreements are among cities of different countries. Cities near borders, even water
borders, are most potential cities for transnational cooperation. The ESPON 1.1.3
has found in its study of spatial autocorrelation, that “the more a region is
surrounded by regions with positive dynamics, the higher is its own growth rate”17.
While geographical proximity is no guarantee of cooperation, it may provide cities
with a better opportunity for functional integration.18
Several small and medium sized cities in the BSR, as studied by MECIBS have been
able to foster the capacity needed for strategic development in an environment
characterised by lack of national polycentricity. While specialisation may certainly
be a way to deal with restructuring of an economic base in cities and has
successfully been employed in a lot of BSR-cities it may also mean a degree of
long-term vulnerability. Thus small and medium sized cities in the BSR would be
smart to consider alternatives to clustering, such as some diversity of the economic
base or increased knowledge or competencies.19
If the goal is to develop a Baltic Integration Zone in the BSR, it cannot be stated
often enough that a main focus must be on the role of medium-sized and small
cities, in addition to the metropolitan areas. While large metropolitan areas are
Groth, N. B, Smidt-Jensen, S., Kanninen, V. and Van Well, L. (eds) (2005) Profiles of Medium Sized Cities in the
Baltic Region, Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, Frederiksberg, p.6
13
Medium Sized Cities in Dialogue around the Baltic Sea, INTERREG IIIB project.
12
14
Medium Sized Cities in Dialogue around the Baltic Sea Final Report (2005), Prepared for the 6th MECIBS
conference, Nyköping, Sweden 13-14 June 2005, p. 46
15
VASAB 2010+ Spatial development Action Programme, Key theme 1, p 22,
http://vasab.leontief.net/vasab2010/key5_1.htm
16
ESPON 1.1.1, “Potentials for polycentric development in Europe”, pg 8
17
ESPON 1.1.3 “Particular effects of enlargement of the EU and beyond” Final Report, 2006, Part 1.
18
ESPON 1.1.1, “Potential for polycentric development in Europe”, pag 26
19
Medium Sized Cities in Dialogue around the Baltic Sea Final Report (2005) Draft, Prepared for the 6 th MECIBS
conference, Nyköping, Sweden 13-14 June 2005, p. 46
11
primarily do generate the majority of wealth in the BSR and are the engines that
make the region competitive on a European and even global basis, there is little
evidence that this wealth sufficiently “spills over” to the hinterlands. Territorial
cohesion can only be achieved by a specific focus on the spread of small cities and
towns throughout the territory.
6
A Territorial Cohesion Strategy for the BSR
Local, regional and national authorities face a huge task when considering the
needs of an urban system to deal with diverse territorial aspects and combinations
of factors. The VASAB Vision, as expounded in the Tallinn Report in the middle of
the 1990s, discusses a comprehensive spatial planning function in the BSR for
harmonisation across borders, coordination of sectoral and regional planning and
participatory and transparent planning20. The “System” of VASAB would also help in
implementing territorial strategies in a coordinated manner.
In accordance with the outputs of the “COBALT” ESPON ECP Seminar, we find that
within the BSR there is scope for a more institutionalized response to the
challenges of achieving territorial cohesion on transnational, national and primarily
regional levels. Naturally transnational cooperation is one key method to achieve
this, but the case could also be made that the global nature of many of the
challenges could also demand greater guidance from the BSR institutions as a
whole, ESPON can plan an important role in this.
Thus we sketch a case for a possible “Territorial Cohesion Strategy for BSR” based
on the VASAB, and ESPON experiences, where also inputs from the COBALTseminar are included.
The strategy could first identify urban systems, regions and cities regional and local
goals. An essential part of this strategy would be thus to revitalise the idea
presented in the USUN document of a Baltic Spatial Planning Observatory Network
(BALTSPON), either as an ESPON 2013 project or in the form of an EU territorial
cooperation project for the 2007-2013 period (corresponding to the 2000-2006
INTERREG IIIB programme). Secondly the strategy would identify territorial
strategies for transnational coordination, such as classifying territorial areas that
have similar problems and similar solutions for these problems.
National coordination is one strategy of addressing the various aspects of
transnational cooperation but not restricted to it. There is also a need to tackle
specific assets such as common geographic conditions and cultural heritage that are
contained in different countries and territories but not necessary linked in a given
space. Territory in this sense is considered more than a geographical area of
20 Tallinn Report (1994) “Towards a Framework for Spatial Development in the BSR.
12
interest, implying also the notions of identity, culture and give a new notion of
planning. Although the “COBALT” seminar has not specifically taken up these
aspects, they are obviously important elements for future cooperation and
coordination.
The second part of the strategy could focus on several priority areas according to
the degree of transnational and national coordination. In Priority 1 actions, spatial
planning action are addressed by countries, regions and local entities, acting more
of less independently, but according to common norms and prescriptions such as
those elucidated in the ESDP or VASAB. Priority 2 areas includes coordinated action
in the form of national, regional or local networks to realise connecting potentials
and territorial cohesion, while Priority 3 actions, efforts to achieve territorial
cohesion are pursued not only in coordination, but in a transnational forum such as
VASAB. Schematically these priorities of a territorial cohesion strategy are
presented below in Figure 3.
Figure 3
Sketch of Territorial Cohesion strategy for the BSR at various levels 21
21 Inspired by and adapted from Ketels C., Sölvell Ö., 2004, “An Assessment of competitiveness in the Baltic Sea
Region
13
Priority 1: Spatial Planning Actions
National, regional and local policies contribute to improving the urban systems and
their connections in a national context. Spatial planning regulations and policies
should give a geographic expression to the economy, society, cultural and
ecological issues of society in the BSR. The focus of such actions for concerted
effort in the BSR could include: Institutional Frameworks
The authority levels vary in the BSR including 3 parliamentary monarchies
(Sweden, Denmark, Norway), 2 federal states (Germany, Russia), and 6 republics
(Belarus, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland). This difference in laws
regulating the planning system obviously influences coordination of spatial
development goals. At the same time is an area that VASAB has been quite active
in comparing.
The overall principles regarding planning frameworks 22 in the BSR are similar but
there are also strong individual distinctions due to: traditions in land use and
building regulations, settlement patterns and density, natural geographical
conditions, authority levels and public administration.
The traditional way of planning has mainly focused on economic growth and land
use management. But in recent years political upheavals, natural disasters,
globalization, global markets, oil crises, etc. have been re-shaping this geography,
with a particular emphasis on urban structures, functions and demographics of
cities, resulting in a need for a new approach for planning. This new approach
includes new governance structures and policies processes.
The institutional aspects of governance become even more important in light of the
focus on the involvement of additional actors in the policy making process,
including planners, the private sector and the scientific and educational
communities. Territorial governance levels are also becoming more fluid,
particularly in Europe with regard to sustainable development, where influences and
mandates come from the processes of international environmental negotiations,
from EU directives and structural fund support, from national policy and goals and
from regional development plans. Many of the sub-national entities in the BSR
region, particularly on the eastern shores of the Baltic Sea, lack a recent traditions
and practices to deal with this.
A Territorial Cohesion and Coordination Strategy for the BSR should recognise the
principle of subsidiarity. Institutional frameworks are primarily the responsibility of
the nation and sub-national levels. Yet transnational efforts will be of great
influence in prompting actions for “self-help”.
22
The Planning system seeks to strike a balance between encouraging sustainable development while minimising
its impact on the physical environment. It is regulated through the use of authority specific development plan
and use of the development control system.
14
A first step for coordinated national action in the BSR could be made in terms
of boosting institutional capacity of municipalities and regions in both
east and west of the Baltic Sea to deal themselves with the challenges of
globalisation and territorial cohesion. Projects in this field could be
encouraged and funding sought from EU Structural Funds
Sectoral policies
The policymaking process proceeds from consulting, agenda setting to establish and
formulate goals, to political negotiation or bargaining, and finally, to
implementation and monitoring implications providing feedback. Policies in practice
have different characters in the public and in the public sectors and have different
implications in the short, medium and long term and for national, regional and local
levels. Using tools such as taxes and penalties or rewards such as reduction taxes
can regulate policies in the public sector. Political actors and planners in the BSR
should seek out new forms of public-private partnerships to realise chosen sectoral
policies.
Potential cooperation in planning sectors where the national and sub-national level
enjoy competencies could include issues related to land demand for urban
development such as:

Implement efficient accesses to suburban and peripheral areas

Control of spatial fragmentation

Conversion of rural land to urban areas

Re-utilisation of vacant land

Improve conditions of degraded land due to urbanisation

Protection and conservation of environmental valuable land

Integration of green corridors

Protection land from pollutants and other dangerous substances

Distribution of activities according to urban functions
Sectoral policies for promoting regional and local specialisation, for instance, are
highly dependent upon planning and land-use functions. However, economic
prosperity and specialisation do not always go hand in hand. Therefore some
reasonable caution is needed in regional and local plans for clustering and
specialisation. Transnational cooperation in the BSR could aid in providing a forum
for the exchange of experiences in this regard.
15
Local and regional specialisation could be approached in the transnational
context through exchange of practices illuminating the possibilities and
challenges of a specialisation strategy. This could include seminars
and workshops on instigating local clusters, technology parks and
centres of competencies based on local assets.
Cross-sectoral policies
Sustainable growth requires a focus on the multi-level aspects of sustainable
governance, both the vertical integration among governance levels (local, regional,
national and EU) and horizontal integration among policy areas (transport,
agriculture, environment, labour market etc.). However the capacity of an
institution or organisation is not always built up in this manner. Policymaking has
traditionally been made according to a sectoral approach, where issues are kept
separated and dealt with individually. The new approach, heard in calls for holistic
policies at all levels, demands that institutions instead deal with most sectors of
policy in a coordinated manner. The problem is that most institutions have been
slow to respond to this call.
This process entails initially creating a culture and a will for integrated policy
making and subsequently the formal and informal administrative channels for
coordination in a segmented governance system. Needed elements of a national,
regional or local programme that integrates sustainability concerns and includes
pronounced and clear goals, strong leadership, legitimatization and partnerships
with all stakeholders.23
To encourage cross-sectoral capacity implementation, discussions at the
transnational level could be made to consider how horizontally placed
“Development Councils” at the regional or local levels could be
entrusted to coordinate cross sectoral goals for sustainable growth and
territorial cohesion. These Councils could also be active in providing a
framework for seeking Territorial Cooperation projects.
Priority 2: Coordinated Action
The VASAB mission is to give more attention to co-operation in the field of spatial
development policy in the BSR. Priority 2 actions, taken in the form of coordinated
action among the nations of the Baltic Sea Region focus on connecting the unique
23 Bredda Perspektiven!: Miljöintegration i tillväxtarbetet. Naturvårdsverket, Rapport 5136, 2001.
16
potentials of these actors. This was also one of the aims of the COBALT-seminar
where recommendations based on the ESPON-projects were a central ingredient.
Small and medium sized cities network
There is an urgent need in the BSR to improve the functions of second-rank cities in
order to achieve polycentric development at the national and regional scale. To
avoid the national dimension of polycentricity is to even further accentuate socioeconomic differences within countries in the BSR-discontinuities that are rapidly
expanding. National programs for regional development could achieve this with an
emphasis on the functional growth of these areas, along with the necessary
transport infrastructure to increase accessibility of smaller FUAs.
The goal of boosting polycentric development and increasing social and
economic cohesion of the region could also be worked at by encouraging
within the VASAB 2010 framework more transnational projects and
key themes dealing specifically with supporting the functional
position of small and medium sized towns. There is a great need for
more Interreg IIIB projects with thematic focuses, such as “shrinking
cities”, environmental or sustainability concerns, becoming a logistics hub or
instigating further education initiatives.
Learning networks and best practices exchange
Learning networks and best practices are exchanged in an array of various projects,
and thus it is hardly new to emphasis the relevance of such networks. However
territorial cohesion concerns should to a greater extent be the focus of these
networks, particularly regarding the search for more efficient use of resources as
well as support the formulation of cross-cutting strategies for dealing with issues
such as climate change. Some of these issues could include:

Legislation for pollutants e.g. penalties to polluters

Clean mechanism for production, manufacture, etc

Energy efficiency

Environmentally friendly technologies, such as wind power

Eco-labelling

Eco-tourism

Monitoring systems e.g. Transport Impact Assessment
For example, in the construction sector environmental concerns should be from the
extraction of materials, processing, manufacturing, building, to the operational and
17
maintenance phase. There is a also need for more cooperative coordination
between the trade and tourism industry industries in the BSR. It is recognised that
with trade increases peoples’ mobility resulting in a higher demand of hotels and
energy flows (water, waste, heating, etc.). A deficient management of
infrastructure investments allocation could result initially in economic decay and
eventually loss of population.
A continuous transnational network among cities is to keep
promoting dissemination of sustainable matters and best practices
(especially for Russian and Belarus cities) and to promote the
involvement of more cities. These activities could take the form of
seminars, forums and workshops. However networks may often have the
tendency towards non-action. A role for VASAB or other transnational
political groupings could be to monitor and take stock of the various
concrete outcomes of networking the BSR.
Revitalising the idea of a “BALTSPON”
In todays changing world urban entities are not always easy to define and they
could receive a variety of socio-economic meanings. In the course of this research
we have continually stumbled upon data gaps and non-clear indicators that could
be used to give a more accurate picture of the situation of the BSR today. This
situation echoes that of the ESPON project.
We thus find that there is a need for a Common Information System for the BSR
(CIS-BSR) to allow researchers to visualize and compare regions and cities.
CIS-BSR could also develop GIS maps, database with standard typologies, etc.
Techniques for mapping accessibility and spatial integration and for communicating
spatial development concepts should be considered. Indicators and statistical
analysis can help decision-makers and the policy process. It can be created a
number of factors and indicators weighted to give a global index for
competitiveness. The following factors and indicators are examples that could be
included in this information system:

Human Factor. Indicators: Education level, health, labour force

Natural Resources Factor. Indicators: natural resources, land use

Infrastructure factor. Indicators: investments, # telephones, roads, airports,
water and sewage systems

Enterprise Factor. Indicators: productivity per sector, # executives,
innovation system, innovation technologies, existing cooperation and
agreements
18

Institutional capacity factor. Indicators: income, expenditures, relation with
private sector

Science and Technology Factor. Indicators: Funding assigned to research, #
academic institutions, # doctor degrees

Economic Results Factor: Indicators: income per capita, income distribution,
exports, imports, private and public investments, FDI, planned investments,
GDP pr capita, perspectives
As well as collecting and analysing more traditional data such as GDP, population,
and sectoral information, the CIS-BSR could also make a start to cross-analyse
global and local goals for territorial cohesion. Lack of data at regional and city level
does not allow making this analysis. It would be a contribution to gather this
information in order to be able to connect goals at different sectors and coordinate
cross-sectoral policies. For example to coordinate at a local level the challenges
detected at a global level such as:

Ecosystem protection

Energy efficiency and renewable sources

Transport corridors and fossil fuels-driven in the transport sector

Agricultural improvements practice and policy

Continued attention to reducing the gaps in economic and social conditions
between the older and the newer marked economies

Detailed data on flows of people, goods and services with in the BSR
Resulting from the ESPON “COBALT” activity, we cannot overemphasis the
need for a revitalisation of the idea of a Baltic Spatial Planning
Oveservation Network - “BALTSPON” as suggested by the USUN project.
Such a project would perhaps necessarily be on a smaller scale than the
ESPON, but would be more attuned to the special needs and possibilities
of attaining territorial cohesion of the region. The Ministers
Responsible for Spatial Planning in the Baltic Sea Region should thus
consider revitalising this idea on the agenda.
Priority 3: A Territorial Cohesion Strategy for the BSR
While there are several policy documents in the BSR with visions of how the region
could develop and political priorities, specifically the Wismar Declaration and VASAB
2010 + Spatial Development Action Programme and the Tallinn Report “Towards a
framework for Spatial Development in the BSR”, there is still scope for guidelines
that deals more specifically with territorial cohesion of the Baltic Sea area, if this
indeed proves to be as important a political goal for the region as this document
stresses. Such a document would take the form of normative prescriptions or
19
guidelines of how the BSR can act jointly in questions that could best be addressed
at the transnational level.
The focus on the document would be normative, since spatial planning is still
primarily the realm of the local, regional and national levels. Even the European
Union, while wielding considerable influence over spatial issues in the form of the
Cohesion and Structural Funds, still does not enjoy competence in the area of
spatial planning, which in many aspects is subject to the principle of subsidiarity. A
Territorial Cohesion Strategy for the BSR would thus rely on the generation of
common norms, much like the ESDP does. In this sense norms describe “collective
expectations for the proper behaviour of actors with a given identity”24.
Norms differ from visions in that norms have the quality of what an actor “should”
or “should not” do if he or she wants to be included within a certain identity. Norms
thus prescribe or proscribe the range of acceptable actions for an actor
(governmental or non-governmental) that adheres to a certain identity.
We assert, as VASAB also indicates, although not in terms of norms, that the norms
active in the BSR with regard to spatial planning should be territorial cohesion with
polycentric development of the urban tissue “the pearls” and accessibility “the
strings” as the sub-norms, which may (or may not in some cases) make it possible
to achieve territorial cohesion. These priorities are necessary in order to deal with
social-economic global trends. Increased social cohesion and reduced socioeconomic polarisation are important areas for transnational cooperation.
Transnational cooperation could allow more integration of sparsely populated areas,
providing more job opportunities and diminishing out-migration. Examples that
could be a motive of replication are some of the projects in Interreg IIIB programs.
Also, increasing the position of small and medium size cities at the global arena and
making the living environment more attractive will contribute to diminish the outmigration that has characterised many cities in the BSR. The links with education
and research it is also very important for the people and the perspectives of job
opportunities, competition is based in the human capacity that could activate new
clusters and business opportunities.
Involvement of local communities, professional associations, civil society, etc., has
been integrated in many cities in the BSR as local strategy e.g. Local Agenda 21
initiatives, but stronger involvement is still needed. Participation of local
communities has developed synergy effects with elderly and disadvantage people
and moreover increasing young and women participation encouraging at working
and improving the own living environment.
24
Katzenstein, Peter J. (ed.)(1996), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, New
York: Columbia University Press, p. 5.
20
Yet actors, public, private and citizens, may not easily be swayed to the norm of
territorial cohesion of the entire BSR territory unless they can identify with the
region. On the other hand it is easier to create a common identity if there are less
disparities and differences in the region25. Thus a normative Territorial Cohesion
Strategy for the BSR would have to address the important question of identity.
Polycentric Urban Structure
One of the most lucent results of the ESPON research on polycentricity is that scale
matters. Policies and measures carried out to evoke polycentric development on a
European level, i.e. by stimulating zones of economic development beyond the
Pentagon, may increase polycentricity of the European territory in the sense of
developing FUAs (Functional Urban Areas) and MEGAs (Metropolitan European
Growth Area) outside of the Pentagon that may have the potential to even one day
rival the Pentagon. A strategy such as this would focus EU and national policy
interventions to the capital city regions of, for instance the BSR, with the goal to
stimulate further growth in cities such as Stockholm, Riga or Tallinn. But this should
not be at the cost of the economic and social development of small and medium
sized cities that also have the potential to development in a polycentric direction.
With such an EU or BSR strategy it could be that by connecting the potentials of the
MEGAs a Baltic Integration Zone could be possible.
While a strategy such as this is vital to make Europe the most competitive
region on the globe, it only acerbates efforts to combat national
monocentricity. Thus unless complementary measures to strengthen the
placement of second-order or small and medium sized towns are also
implemented, true territorial cohesion will not be achieved. Most importantly
policymakers in the BSR must make the conscious normative decision
that polycentricity at the lower levels are at least as important as
realising a Baltic Integration Zone.
Accessibility and connectivity
Accessibility it is interpreted as quality of transport infrastructure in terms of
capacity, connectivity, travel time and cost, etc. It determines a competitive
advantage of location relative to other cities and regions. Accessibility indicators are
considered a policy-relevant output and therefore a potential priority for
transnational cooperation.
25
Kjellgren, D, Carpelan, A. Nordling, C, and Albrech, C. (2005) Region or Patchwork?: Identities-NetworksImages, Thesis project work for the KTH course, “Planning for Regional Development: Networking Neighbours”,
Stockholm, May 2005.
21
The ESDP stresses the need for an integrated approach for improved transport
links, making reference to the polycentric development model, highlighting the
efficient and sustainable use of infrastructure and referring to the importance of the
diffusion of innovation and knowledge.
Connecting potentials are largely dependent upon the effectiveness of transport
systems and communication infrastructures. Connectivity of cities (FUAs)
constitutes one of the central factors of polycentricity and one of the crucial factors
in the achievement of territorial cohesion; any share of exchange such as economy,
knowledge needs to be accompanied by efficient transport infrastructure and
accessibility.
All of the transport infrastructure policies examined by e.g. ESPON project
2.2.1 accelerate the decline in polycentricity of national urban systems because
they tend to be directed at primarily connecting large urban cities at EU-level.
Thus it is important in the BSR that political decisions be made at a high level
to intensely support development of regional highway networks with a
focus on the major regional cities and with particular emphasis on the
East-West corridors, and to develop local transport accessibility,
especially public transport.
7
Concluding Remarks
The central ingredient in the Lisbon and Gothenburg processes are increased
sustainable competitiveness in the EU. The EU is a very heterogeneous area, and
this has been even more obvious after the enlargement in May 2004. The
heterogeneous character is also valid concerning the BSR where the gaps in living
conditions still are very large even if the new member states have a fast economic
growth today. Despite Poland, the BSR-countries seem to be more monocentric
than polycentric and this may be a hampering factor with regard to territorial
cohesion and competitiveness in the long term.
There have been tendencies towards convergence between the EU-countries but
the divergent tendencies seem to dominate within the differing countries, including
the BSR-countries. Although the disparities in per capita income in the BSR are
among the highest in the world, with the largest economic gap presumably on the
border between the eastern and western parts of the BSR, many of the regions in
the BSR are today growing rapidly. The aim of this short report is to give some
hints and suggestions about what can be done by politicians, spatial planners,
researchers, etc. in order to avoid these tendencies and, instead, stimulate factors
that strive towards convergence and cohesion between the BSR-countries as well as
the within them. This will probably also increase the competitiveness and the
territorial cohesion in both the BSR and in the EU. The development of the BSR
22
shall not be seen as an alternative to the development in other parts of the EU,
instead it shall be seen as a complement and a European growth partner that
increases the competitiveness and cohesion of the whole EU.
As mentioned in the introduction, this document may, hopefully, contribute to the
ongoing debate on territorial cohesion, polycentric and sustainable urban
development both in the EU and in the BSR and serve to stimulate both national
and concerted actions in the EU as well as in the BSR.
23