Spatial Planning Harmonisation as a Condition for Trans-National Cooperation

Abstract

This paper explores a possible direction for enabling trans-national cooperation in Europe through forms of spatial planning harmonisation. The specific case considered is that of the trans-national border area located in the wider Alpine-Adriatic context, comprising Carinthia (Austria), Friuli Venezia Giulia (Italy) and Slovenia. Starting from a general analysis of spatial planning systems and identification of operational difficulties which may emerge within any one Member State's planning system—and which then may be compounded in a trans-national context—the paper considers the establishment of a “shared knowledge base” as well as a “shared vision” between the Member States as preconditions to fostering trans-national cooperation.

Notes

“Territorial cooperation” in this paper refers to “cross-border, trans-national and/or interregional” cooperation, in accordance to the definition used in the Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 concerning the establishment of European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC), which builds up a legal framework for high-quality forms of territorial cooperation between its members and promotes economic and social cohesion in the EU.

The authors have chosen this study area because of its very particular situation: the combination of the similarity of physical geography on the one hand and the diversity and complexity in human geography (cultures, traditions, languages, etc.) on the other hand poses a challenge for trans-national cooperation practices and research.

In this paper, the trans-national cooperation scale adopts the definition of Zonneveld (2005, p. 138) and refers to the cooperation between the Member States (and between regions within individual Member States) extending over the territory of several countries.

Kunzmann (2006b), for example, considers the end-product of the ESDP as a rather technocratic document, a paper tiger, but nevertheless highlights strongly the process of the ESDP as noteworthy achievement for Europe.

Although the ESDP contains a chapter focusing on the accession countries, it was essentially an EU-15 document and one that was undoubtedly North-west Europe dominated in terms of approach (Adams, 2007; Dematteis & Janin Rivolin, 2004; Faludi, 2004c).

The ESDP is one of the most circulated documents on spatial planning in Europe. It is available in all languages of the Member States of the European Union, except those of the new members in Central and Eastern Europe.

Although Olsen (2002) argues that Europeanisation is a fashionable term, he (and other authors as well) acknowledges the process of downloading European-Union directives, regulations and institutional structures to the domestic level as a useful concept.

Euroregions are initiatives of border regions and/or other local entities of several countries (not necessarily the Member States of the EU) and have until now no defined status in the EU context. Euroregions concentrate on cross-border cooperation, where cultural aspects as well as attracting tourism and other forms of economic activity are central. The label “Euroregion” is not protected. The legal status of Euroregions varies. Euroregions could appear as Community of Interest without legal personality, as European Economic Interest Grouping, as non-profit-making association, as Working Community without a legal personality, as public body and starting from 2007 even as EGTC. In general, it can be said that most of the Euroregions having a long history in territorial cooperation (more than 20 years) have already achieved a legal personality. For them, no added-value of the EGTC can be recognised. However, the EGTC has a high value for Euroregions currently working together without a legal personality or where no bi- or multilateral agreements had been established until now (Haselsberger, 2007).

What Healey (1997) and Healey et al. (1997) and other authors (see also Innes & Booher, 2003) have defined as collaborative planning draws on a series of theoretical suggestions deriving in particular from Giddens (1984) and Habermas (1983). All these theories, as a common denominator, put an emphasis on participatory forms of democracy and on “the development of open dialogue encouraging the emergence of shared solutions” (Campbell & Marshall, 2002, p. 179). Thus, the “collaborative” planning approach draws attention to the recognition of how difficult and yet necessary it is to share spaces in our complex, culturally fragmented and differentiated societies (Healey, 1997; Healey et al., 1997). It pursues first and foremost the aim of producing “relational goods”, such as “social capital”, “institutional capacities” or, in other terms, the ability to tackle complex problems with autonomous and cooperative ways of deciding and acting.

In 1980, on the initiative of the Council of Europe, a set of European countries produced the “Madrid Convention” as a first step towards cross-border cooperation structures based on public law. The convention has been signed by 20 countries and was updated with two additional protocols. It provides a legal framework for completing bi- and multi-national agreements for public law cross-border cooperation. An example of such agreements is the German–Dutch Treaty of Anholt (1991) or the German–French–Swiss–Luxembourg Agreement of Karlsruhe (1996).

The authors have chosen this classification in accordance to the NUTS 2 regions, which are characterised by their heterogeneity both in the territorial dimensions and in the number of inhabitants (ESPON et al., 2006a).

It has to be acknowledged that in general Občine in Slovenia are larger than Gemeinden in Carinthia and Comuni in Friuli Venezia Giulia.