ESPON 2.3.2
GOVERNANCE OF TERRITORIAL AND URBAN
POLICIES FROM EU TO LOCAL LEVEL
Salzbourg, 13th March 2005
Joaquín Farinós Dasí
University of Valencia
Key Findings
Context
To describe
To
evaluate
Policies
To describe
Territorial
features and
dynamics
Favourable
territorial
preconditions
Institutional
frameworks of
territorial
policies
Processes
TGAs
To
evaluate
Results
Indicators
Domains and Features of Governance
represented by indicators
Domain
State
(S)
Economy
(E)
Civil Society
(CS)
Space
(T)
Structure (S)
ISS
IES
ICSS
ITS
Process (P)
ISP
IEP
ICSP
ITP
Data on
ISS & IST & IES & ICSS
Indicator on
→ Structure
Typology
ISP & ITP & IEP & ICSP
→ Dynamics
Shift from government to governance?
Indicators:
• Official acceptance of governance concepts and
principles
• Changes in formal government in the direction of
governance
• Experience with participation processes
• Experience with partnerships
• Extent of financial dependence of local
government on central government
• Basic laws regulating urban development/land
use and regional development
• Devolution of powers to 1st tier local authorities
• Centralization / decentralization / devolution
• Number of conditions leading to shifts towards
governance
• Number of factors operating in favour of
adoption of governance approaches
• Number of forms of cross-border co-operation
Interpretation (on basis of three classes only):
–
11 – “clearly advanced”
–
9 – “neutral”
–
8 – “development challenge”
Weighted additive combination of
Regulatory Quality and Government Effectiveness
Weighted additive combination of
. Regulatory Quality
. Government Effectiveness
Interpretation:
strong development challenge for
Romania, Bulgaria to catch up by
and large advanced experiences in
> third of EU countries
C1 – development challenge
C6 - advanced
Multi-level Governance: States groups
12
DE
CH
AT
9
FR
BE
Total Score
ES
IT
CZ
NL
6
PL
SK
HU
SW
3
BG
RO
IE
PT
DK
UK
FI
NO
SL
GR
EE
LU
LV
LT
MA
CY
0
Centralised
Decentralised
Regionalised
Federal
Definition of Models of Governance: Policies
Classification in
ECSP
1. Styles of Planning:
Mixture to the
Comprehensive one
4 countries shifted
3 countries shifted
2 countries shifted
*Indirectly mentioned in ECSP
**not mentioned in ECSP
ESPON Project 2.3.2
Classification
Definition of Models of Governance: Policy
1.1 Styles Mixture also intra-State : Options for
Spatial Development Planning
ES
SD
Levels
Lisbon
‘ soft’ Supranational
ESDP
Territorial
Cohesion
Strategy
National
‘ hard’
vs.
‘soft’
Sustainable
Spatial
Development
Regional
Supra-local
/sub-regional
Environmental
Economic
Local
FARINÓS, J. (2006): from author’s
presentation on ‘Methods of Territorial
Analysis’ Workshop, Department of
Geography, Urbanism and Spatial
Planning, University of Cantabria,
Santander 18 Febrary. Adapted.
Physical
Land
Use
Urbanism
Regional
Economic
Comprehensive
Integral
‘ hard’
Spatial planning
style
‘ soft’
Focus of
planning
Partnership formation and Co-operation: Catalysts
EU Policies
Tradition
Tradition of
informal
procedures
Public reaction
to government
policy and public
projects
National or
sub-national
legislation
and policy
Access_Fund
- Economic
interests of
participants
Pol_Strategy Political reasons
Partnership formation and Co-operation: Barriers
Undeveloped civil
society and hierarchical
decision-making
Other
Limitations
on powers
and activity
potential of
partnership
Lack of funds
and external
dependence
Complexity
Reluctance to
share power
Undermining from
external sources
Communication
problems
between
participants,
antagonisms,
mutual
suspicions, etc.
Running of TGA
Failures and Success
Build a
Consensus
To agree on the
contribution of
each stakeholder
Obstacles
and Barriers
To go on with
implementation
To reach a
common
Spatial Vision
To achieve
negotiated and
shared rules
(T9;
n=45)
(T9;
n=45)
To achieve
integration of
territorial action
Results of TGA
Outcomes
Integrated
Planning
Specific
governance
modes
Helping EU
Cohesion
Territorial
Policy
Coordination
All Case Studies (T9; n=45)
Capacity to
integrate local
interests
Conclusions and recomendations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Slow but continuous –incremental- process to governance practices: it takes time
and resources
Incremental changes better than radical
Differences in points of departure in a same time: Importance of tradition and
history (political culture and territorial conflicts). Situation and Dynamics.
Governance not applies in case of strong conflictual relations (usual in
Mediterranean spatial planning styles)
Key challenge, how change ‘conflict’ by ‘consensus’ (trough more traditional
instruments: Master Plans, technical public research…) avoiding trends to
judiciary ways to solve problems (possible?)
‘Elite’ Governance vs. ‘civil’ governance; accountability fragmentation vs.
unrealistic situations; Visioners vs. ownership.
Necessary involvement of public actors: central/federal not impositive with
financial support key role ; conflictual relations between sub-national if hierarchic
relations; better strong meso-levels without hierarchy
Economic interests prevail on sustainability, not so obvious on social
Groups of interest better than individual citizens
Participation depending on Openness. Necessary info (intellectual capital) and
mechanisms of involvement (i.e. Conseil de dévelopement –Lyon Metrop. Area)
Incremental Process to Governance Practices
Tn
GOVERNMENT T1
Formal
(rules)
SUSTAINABLE
‘Elite’ Governance
Levels
Top
Territories
Up
Cooperation
Accountability,
Coord. – Coop.
GOVERNANCE T4…
Openness,
Information
Down
Coherence
Bottom
Participative Gov.
Groups, Citizens
Sectoral Policies
GOVERNMENT T3…
R
a
d
i
c
a
l
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
GOVERNANCE T2
Informal
(soft)
R
a
d
i
c
a
l
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
Adapted
(Formalisation)
Further research
• Complete indicators
• Complete ranking exercise for horizontal (between
policies, territories and participation) + Identification new
intermediate levels on spatial planning
• Finalisation analysis and synthesis on CS info
• Definition of governance models and typologies
• Presentation of best practices and added-value of
governance, as well as limits, in relation to specific
territorial or policy context.
• Final conclusions and policy recommendations
Thank you for your attention!!
Ximo Farinós
University of Valencia
[email protected]