Are we on track for a future for all places?
March 2024
What happened to the aim of a sustainable future for all places and people in Europe? In December 2020, the ministers responsible for spatial planning, territorial development and/or territorial cohesion agreed on the Territorial Agenda 2030 (Opens in a new window). Its main objectives are a just Europe that offers future perspectives for all places and people, and a green Europe that protects common livelihoods and shapes societal transition. In short, it seeks to contribute to sustainable development and to keeping Europe together. It also underlines the importance of and provides orientation for strategic spatial planning and calls for strengthening the territorial dimension of sector policies at all governance levels.
What has happened since then? Surely, a series of unexpected events have shaken Europe and the world since then. Changing framework conditions and shifting political priorities make the aim of sustainable future for all places and people in Europe both appear ever more distant but also ever more needed.
So, what happened to the Territorial Agenda aim of a future for all places? What is your take on this? Have you applied or referred to it during the last 3 years? Tell us more, by filling in our short survey https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/Territorial_Agenda_2030_uptake (Opens in a new window)
This is part of an ESPON study assessing the uptake of the Territorial Agenda and providing inputs for possible ways forward. While waiting for your inputs and the results of a range of stakeholder workshops and interviews, let us share some personal impressions on the topic with you.
An intergovernmental endeavour
The intergovernmental character of the work has been the charm of the policy documents and maybe its biggest potential and hinder. Since the launch of European Spatial Development Perspective in 1999, it became clear that we are dealing with a policy carried by the cooperation between national ministries. This has been reemphasised in the Territorial Agenda of the European Union of 2007, the Territorial Agenda 2020 adopted in 2011 and also in the current Territorial Agenda 2030 agreed upon in 2020. They all are developed and governed by a European intergovernmental cooperation on territorial cohesion. This includes formats such at the Network of Territorial Cohesion Contact Points (NTCCP) and the Directors-General responsible for Territorial Cohesion (DGTC). The intergovernmental focus implies that there are no direct implementation tools, funding or legal implications linked to policy documents. Indeed, they rather serve as a manifestation of a common understanding and reference point which everyone is asked to promote and apply where, how and when appropriate. Having been involved in various factettes of the work with all these documents, it has always been amazing to see how much work, energy, ownership and personal engagement some national representatives put in this work. These people have very clearly been and are the backbone of the Territorial Agenda work. At the same time, for others the Territorial Agenda seemed merely to imply the obligation to regularly attend European meetings on seemingly obscure matters.
A substitute for a vision for Europe
Back in the days, the European Spatial Development Perspective started off as shared planning document. This was not at least based on the insight that spatial planning cannot stop at national borders and more coordination and possibly a common understanding is needed across Europe. It coined and/or boosted many concepts widely used in planning today. Most prominently the idea of polycentric development and the stress on rural-urban partnerships. Very clearly, the ambition was always to be a policy document, not a plan for Europe. This was not at least due to the very different planning cultures and systems in Europe. Given the nature of the documents and well as the complex issues addressed which stretch over several policy sectors and administrative levels, there is a strong focus on governance issues and policy coordination. At times there were even discussions whether European spatial planning (read the Territorial Agenda) should be a policy alongside other sector policies or rather aim at ‘coordinating’ other policies. Over the years, the focus shifted increasingly from a ‘planning type’ of policy document, to a policy document outlining the need for a spatial dimension in policy making. This is not at least reflected in the very broad objectives of the current version of the Territorial Agenda, and the stress put on overarching principles linked to place-based policy making and stakeholder involvement. Despite all its weaknesses and vagueness, it offers a reference framework and sense of direction for Europe and the need to think Europe spatially to keep it together. One may argue, it is the closest Europe gets to an integrated spatial vision for its future. It could be the starting point for wide ranging and intense dialogues with thousands of stakeholders and citizens in Europe to sketch what a sustainable future for all places and people in Europe could look like. Given the challenges that come with the intergovernmental nature, this has not happened in any concerted manner. Still, in some places one can sense that things were and/or are happening.
Untraceable causality
The Territorial Agenda needs to fit the planning systems and culture of all EU members states and partner states, such as Switzerland and Norway, and stay in the remit of the respective ministries which adopted it. This implies that it needs to be rather broad and open to interpretation and adjustments. It also needs to avoid being prescriptive. This makes it difficult to trace which formulations in policy documents and plans from the local to the European level are influenced by the Territorial Agenda. Direct references are very limited to our current knowledge, but a wide range of documents are in line with the overall objectives of a just and green Europe. Whether that is thanks to the Territorial Agenda, or merely a sign of Zeigeist will remain open, as the causalities are almost impossible to trace in most cases. Maybe this is not a major issue, as long as the overall developments point towards a more harmonious spatial development leading to a sustainable future for all places and people in Europe and the strengthening of place-based approaches and territorial awareness of various sector policies. In a sense one could picture the Territorial Agenda as a soft policy approach working through discursive integration and network governance.
ESPON and TIA as biggest achievement?
It certainly is always nice to have tangible achievements of a policy to showcase. Accepting the idea of the Territorial Agenda as rather ambiguous policy exercising its influence through discursive integration and network governance limits the achievements to examples and storytelling. Most likely even the Territorial Agenda pilot actions (Opens in a new window), which have been introduced in 2020, will not change that. The two most tangible achievements of the European Spatial Development Perspective and subsequently the Territorial Agendas are called ESPON and TIA. Both ideas have been born during the elaboration of the European Spatial Development Perspective. In the early 2000s ESPON was set up as an Interreg programme supporting policy making with comparable European territorial evidence. In the context of ESPON also the idea of Territorial Impact Assessment (TIA) of sector policies has been developed and tested. Today it is part of many EU policy debates.
The what if question
Still underlying all these reflections is the ‘evil what if question’ – or as some might call it, a counterfactual analysis: What if there were no Territorial Agenda? Would anything have been different in the past if the policy documents would not have been elaborated? Would in future anything be different, if the intergovernmental cooperation on territorial cohesion, i.e. the Territorial Agenda, would stop now?
In our current study for ESPON we hope to get some answers to these questions by taking stock of the uptake of the Territorial Agenda. It would certainly help if you shared your reflections with us. Please respond the survey on the Territorial Agenda uptake (Opens in a new window).
By Kai Böhme & Maria Toptsidou
