ProgreSDEC aims at activating an exchange of experiences and joint experimentations of methods and procedures for territorial planning and policies related to selected fields of the ESDP. Therefore, the project is looking at planning strategies on the national level. The results of the analysis of the strategies in all four ProgreSDEC-countries is particular in so far, as three of these are located on the Mediterranean Sea and only Germany is in a very different situation.

Basically, four general remarks can be made:

1. Characteristics: Path dependance of political and planning systems

The respective political and planning systems have distinct historical roots. The similari-ties of Greece, Italy and Spain can be traced back to the early 19th century, when the feudal institutions were abolished during the French Revolution and replaced by the Civil Code of 1804. Two particularities are of interest in the context of ProgreSDEC:

• The legal system tends to use abstract norms.
• Considerable emphasis is laid on the lowest level of government.

This is not true for many other European countries, such as Germany, Scandinavia or the British Isles. Therefore, political and planning systems are path dependant to a consider-able degree. It cannot be expected that planning in a European context happens in a completely similar way.

2. Challenges: New relation between governance and government

New levels of decision making and acting on the one hand and coordination demand on the other hand raises the question of the new relation between governance and gov-ernment. Governance in terms of planning combines the political and the planning sys-tem. This has mainly three effects:

• In the first place, this means combining horizontal and vertical coordination. In case of the ProgreSDEC-countries, three of them can be regarded having none of them. In Greece, the strong hierarchy and the almost exclusive planning competence on the national level hinder any coordination, whereas in Spain the urban focus on the local level and the main planning competence on the regional level are in conflict with each other.
• As regional economic approaches are becoming increasingly popular – partly due to European structural funds – this requires involvement of non-public actors, i.e. civil federations or businesses.
• Finally, the established plans and reality do not really fit – take for instance sponta-neous urban sprawl and unlawful building as well as informal planning practices de-spite all the rules. This is a result of the fact that the planning system is not so well established and that it has neither strong public support nor great political priority, a circumstance which makes it less effective. Similar development applies to Germany, where procedures of negotiation become increasingly important and where the com-plicated system of counter current offers a certain range of interpretation of compe-tences.
  

3. Tasks: Similarity of general topics

In ProgreSDEC, the dynamics, problems and – finally – topics of planning are subdivided into four categories:

• urban regeneration – policies and tools for the rehabilitation of urban areas;
• landscape management – policies and instruments for landscape management and sustainable development in rural areas;
• urban-rural-relationship – policies and tools for rebalancing urban structures and urbanized areas.
• polycentrism – strategies and tools for developing polycentrism in large area systems.

The national relevance of these topics differs from country to country, even from region to region. Apart from some differences, which are due to the differing political systems (and history), planning tradition resp. style and geography, in all four ProgreSDEC-countries some similarities prevail. These are the following:

• Critical changes of the demographic and economic development of parts of the coun-tries (national cohesion), in some cases the economic divide even within regions is being observed. This in particular is true for Italy, as there is no territorial national policy and, therefore, the strategies vary all over the country.
• Sustainability in ecologic terms is a topic present in all countries, but in particular in Greece, where on the one hand Athens and Thessaloniki face the typical problems of huge and increasing density and on the other hand tourism and residential areas of the countryside suffer from relative density, as well.
• Finally, the political system and in particular the planning system are in transition in all countries. Main concern is the representation of territorial issues in planning and the emphasis on regionalization. In this respect, for example, researchers talk of an “unfinished Spain”.

4. Outlook: Importance of coordination of sectoral policies on a regional level

There is no common planning strategy in the EU. However, this is subject to change. Research projects show that “the planning systems in the countries are not static, but borrow and mix elements from the other styles of spatial planning and thus are dynamic” (ESPON project 2.3.2). Consequently, it can be expected that planning styles which have been discovered in the mid-90s not necessarily prevail the dynamics of the first decade of the 21st century.

There is no “perfect” planning style, although comprehensive integrated planning seems to be the one with the least limitations (see the map) – and it is becoming increasingly popular among the EU15. So, it can be concluded that the planning styles of the four ProgeSDEC-countries do not represent the majority of the EU or ESPON-countries. Spain, Italy and Greece are the only countries referring to the so-called “urbanism tradition” among the EU15. Even Germany, which proved to be a very typical representative of the comprehensive integrated approach, does form an exception, as it tends to introduce more and more regional economic policies.

In general, due to the multi-level character of European spatial planning, coordination of policies and planning strategies in future must and will deliver the missing link between sectoral approaches. As the size of local municipalities is too small, regions are about to become the new spatial focus. However, it remains to be seen, what territorial size they will have.

Axel Stein-IRS

Top