Salzbourg, 13th March 2005

Joaquín Farinós DasíUniversity of Valencia

ESPON 2.3.2 GOVERNANCE OF TERRITORIAL AND URBAN POLICIES

FROM EU TO LOCAL LEVEL

Key Findings

Context

Policies

Territorial features and dynamics

Favourable territorial preconditions

Institutional frameworks of territorial policies

Processes

To describe

To evaluate

To describe

TGAs

To evaluate

Results

Indicators

Domain

State(S)

Economy(E)

Civil Society(CS)

Space(T)

Structure (S) ISS IES ICSS ITS

Process (P) ISP IEP ICSP ITP

Domains and Features of Governance represented by indicators

Data on Indicator on ISS & IST & IES & ICSS → 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 challengeC6 - advanced

Multi-level Governance: States groups

FI

FR

SK

SL

SW

CH

UK

BE

CY

EE

DE

GR

HU

IE

IT

LV

LTLU

MA

NL

NO

PL

PT

RO

ES

AT

BG

CZ

DK

0

3

6

9

12

Centralised Decentralised Regionalised Federal

To

tal

Sc

ore

4 countries shifted

3 countries shifted

2 countries shifted

*Indirectly mentioned in ECSP**not mentioned in ECSP

1. Styles of Planning: Mixture to the

Comprehensive one

Definition of Models of Governance: PoliciesClassification in

ECSPESPON Project

2.3.2 Classification

Definition of Models of Governance: Policy

1.1 Styles Mixture also intra-State : Options for Spatial Development Planning

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.

FocusFocus ofofplanningplanning

Economic

Urbanism LandUse

Physical

ComprehensiveIntegral

Regional Economic

Local

-

Regional

National

Supranational

SpatialSpatial planning planning stylestyle

LevelsLevels

Environmental

Lisbon

Strategy

Territorial Cohesion

‘hard’

vs.

‘soft’

‘soft’

‘soft’

‘hard’

ESDP ES SD

Supra-local /sub-regional

Development Spatial

Sustainable

Partnership formation and Co-operation: Catalysts

EU Policies

National or sub-national legislation and policy

Access_Fund - Economic interests of

participants

Pol_Strategy - Political reasons

Public reaction to government

policy and public projects

Tradition of informal

procedures

Tradition

Partnership formation and Co-operation: Barriers

Undeveloped civil society and

hierarchical decision-making

Limitations on powers and activity potential of partnership

Lack of funds and external dependence

Communication problems between

participants, antagonisms,

mutual suspicions, etc.

Undermining from external sources

Reluctance to share power

Complexity

Other

Failures and Success

(T9; n=45)

Build a Consensus

To agree on the contribution of

each stakeholder

To achieve negotiated and shared rules

To achieve integration of

territorial action

To reach a common

Spatial Vision

To go on with implementation

Obstacles and Barriers

(T9; n=45)

Running of TGA

Results of TGA

Outcomes

All Case Studies (T9; n=45)

Integrated Planning

Territorial Policy

Coordination

Capacity to integrate local

interests

Helping EU Cohesion

Specific governance

modes

• 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)

Conclusions and recomendations

Incremental Process to Governance Practices

Territories

Levels

Sectoral Policies

Groups, Citizens

Cooperation

Accountability,Coord. –

Coop.

Openness, Information

Coherence

TERRITORIA

LSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPM

ENT

GOVERNMENT T1

GOVERNANCE T2

GOVERNMENT T3…

GOVERNANCE T4…

TnFormal(rules)

Informal (soft)

Adapted(Formalisation)

Progressive

Progressive

Radical

Radical

Top

Down

Bottom

Up

‘Elite’ Governance

Participative Gov.

• 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

Further research

Thank you for your attention!!

Ximo FarinósUniversity of Valencia

Joaquin.Farinos@uv.es