Territorial Dimension of Environmental Sustainability

8/11/2019 Territorial Dimension of Environmental Sustainability

1/96

The territorial dimension of environmental sustainabilityPotential territorial indicators to support the environmental

dimension of territorial cohesion

EEA Technical report No 9/2010

ISSN 1725-2237


2/96

X


3/96

The territorial dimension of environmental sustainabilityPotential territorial indicators to support the environmental

dimension of territorial cohesion

EEA Technical report No 9/2010


4/96

Cover design: EEALayout: Diadeis/EEA

Legal noticeThe contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the EuropeanCommission or other institutions of the European Union. Neither the European Environment Agencynor any person or company acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may bemade of the information contained in this report.

Copyright notice EEA, Copenhagen, 2010Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated.

Information about the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through theEuropa server (www.europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2010

ISBN 978-92-9213-104-3ISSN 1725-2237DOI 10.2800/42669

European Environment AgencyKongens Nytorv 61050 Copenhagen K

DenmarkTel.: +45 33 36 71 00Fax: +45 33 36 71 99Web: www.eea.europa.euEnquiries: www.eea.europa.eu/help/infocentre/enquiries
http://www.europa.eu/http://www.eea.europa.eu/http://www.eea.europa.eu/help/infocentre/enquirieshttp://www.eea.europa.eu/help/infocentre/enquirieshttp://www.eea.europa.eu/http://www.europa.eu/


5/965

Contents

The territorial dimension of environmental sustainability

Contents

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. 6

Executive summary .................................................................................................. 7Preface ..................................................................................................................7Purpose of the study ...............................................................................................7Main findings ..........................................................................................................8

1 Introduction: Background and aims of the study ............................................... 17

1.1 Objective of the study ....................................................................................171.2 Priorities and approach ...................................................................................17

2 Policy overview ................................................................................................. 192.1 The EU budget review ....................................................................................202.2 The EU Sustainable Development Strategy ........................................................202.3 Other relevant policy discussions .....................................................................21

3 The territorial dimension of Community policies ................................................ 223.1 Overview of EU policy areas ............................................................................223.2 Assessing selected EU policy areas ..................................................................283.3 The impact of key environmental policies ..........................................................32

4 The environmental dimensions of territorial cohesion ....................................... 41

4.1 Discussion on developing a definition ................................................................414.2 Identifying the environmental dimensions of territorial cohesion ...........................44

5 Characterisation and indicators to support the analysis of territorial cohesion .. 465.1 Reviewing current indicators for territorial cohesion and Cohesion Policy ...............465.2 Characterisation of territories ..........................................................................495.3 Potential indicators of the environmental dimension of territorial cohesion ............58

6 Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................... 616.1 Analysis of the integration of environmental objectives into territorial

Cohesion Policy .............................................................................................616.2 Analysis of potential indicators ........................................................................61

Annex 1 Analysis ................................................................................................... 63

Annex 2 Concepts and definitions .......................................................................... 71

Annex 3 Territorial aspects already addressed in Impact Assessment ................... 76

Annex 4 Abbreviations .......................................................................................... 79

Annex 5 Characterisation of European territories .................................................. 81

Annex 6 References ............................................................................................... 90


6/96The territorial dimension of environmental sustainability6

Acknowledgements

This report has been prepared by EEA projectmanager Gorm Dige. Support was providedby EEA experts, namely: Elena Cebrian Calvo,Philippe Crouzet, Ronan Uhel and Andrus Meiner.

We would like to thank Patrick Salez, Jean Peyrony,

Lewis Dijkstra, Gabor Novotny, Mathieu Fichter andJonathan Parker of the European Commission fortheir insightful comments to the report.

In addition, we would like to thank StefanKleeschulte, Alejandro Iglesias, Marta Perez Soba,

Marco Falconi and Antonella Vecchio of theEuropean Topic Centre on Land Use and SpatialInformation (ETC-LUSI) for their comments onthe paper in its entirety and for their inputs toChapters 4 and 5 in particular.

Lastly, we would like to thank Ric Eales andOwen White (Collingwood EnvironmentalPlanning) and Tony Zamparutti (Milieu Ltd) fortheir comprehensive contribution to this study.

Acknowledgements


7/967

Executive summary


Executive summary

Preface

With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on1 December 2009, territorial cohesion, along witheconomic and social cohesion, became a goal of theEuropean Union as identified in the previous EU

treaty (Title XVIII). This part of the Treaty mentionsthe role of the structural funds and the cohesionfund, but does not really define 'territorial cohesion'.

However, the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesionstates that:

The concept of territorial cohesion builds bridgesbetween economic eectiveness, social cohesion andecological balance, puing sustainable development atthe heart of policy design (p. 3).

This aspiration has not yet been met by a clear

definition of territorial cohesion. It is still subject ofongoing discussion although much of the discussionhas focused on economic and social aspects ratherthan the environmental dimensions of the concept.As this study underlines, the environmentaldimensions of territorial cohesion need to be clearlydefined on equal terms with the economic andsocial elements of the concept. Indeed, without astrong enunciation of the environmental dimensionof territorial cohesion, this concept could representa step backwards in terms of European efforts forsustainable development.

Clearly it is fundamental to understand what ismeant by the term territorial cohesionas a startingpoint; however 'territorial cohesion' is a term alreadyin use and a concept underpinning policy and, assuch, can be considered an important principle.

One potential danger is that territorial cohesionis seen only in terms of the spending of funds tosupport Cohesion Policy. In this restricted vision, thefunds implement territorial cohesion and territorialcohesion is what the funds do. This circularapproach would leave out the territorial dimensionsof other European policies (agriculture and ruraldevelopment in particular).

Purpose of the study

This study undertakes an analysis of theenvironmental dimensions of territorial cohesionand of related EU policies. It is intended tocontribute to and support external processes

including the European Commission's GreenPaper on Territorial Cohesion, revision of theEU budget (e.g. regarding Cohesion Policy) andthe work of ESPON (the European Spatial PlanningObservation Network) on territorial indicatordevelopment.

It recognises the relevance of economic and socialaspects as equal issues within the concept ofterritorial cohesion. As most discussions focus on theeconomic and social issues of territorial cohesion, itis pertinent to stress the environmental dimensionof this concept. Hence, the choice of potential

territorial indicators for consideration so that thosecould support the analysis of territorial cohesionby making better use of existing databases (like airquality, water, land use, climate change) in orderto bring environmental aspects into the cohesiondebate.

Thus emerge questions and challenges regardingdata availability, the nature of potential analysisand its utility to support the consideration ofthe potential key elements of the environmentaldimension of territorial cohesion. It aims to provide

a structure within which further work can beundertaken in this area, including data analysis anddevelopment of potential indicators.

There were two main aspects to the study:

(1) Policy analysis:describe and analyse the contextof territorial cohesion and the territorialdimension of environmental sustainability andillustrate, where possible, by practical examplesat national, regional and local levels;

(2) Characterisation and indicator analysis:Draw up afirst rough landscape characterisation tool basedon environmental and natural assets to supportthe development of potential indicators for theenvironmental dimension of territorial cohesion.


8/96The territorial dimension of environmental sustainability

Executive summary

8

Main findings

The term 'territorial cohesion' lacks a clear definitionand is often used throughout the EU and its Member

States, and between different disciples and interests,with differing shades of meaning

Territorial cohesion means furthering a more balancedand harmonious development of the European Union.Moreover, it should ensure that its citizens were ableto use and benefit from the inherent features of theirterritories, but there is no one agreed definition.

Territorial cohesion should encompass the sharingof environmental responsibility and benefits amongterritories and throughout the EU. At a conceptual

level, it includes managing shared spaces, andaddressing common concerns whilst working outsolutions for such environmental problems aspollution, water management and mitigation of andadaptation to climate change. It also includes thepreservation of natural assets and the protection ofnatural areas as well as protecting the local ability tomaximize gains from the territorial capital. Implicit inthis are the ideas of resource efficiency and ecologicalbalance. In considering the environmental facet ofterritorial cohesion, it is necessary to recognise local-regional-global linkages.

A potential danger of a narrow interpretation is thatenvironment is seen as a peripheral or, at most, asectoral part of territorial cohesion for example,that in terms of Cohesion Policy, spending onenvironmental infrastructure, such as wastewatertreatment, is seen as satisfying the environmentaldimension.

To ensure that sustainable development is pursuedthroughout Europe, the concept of territorialcohesion needs to incorporate the idea of sustainabledevelopment including the environmental

dimension. In other words, the environmental andsustainability dimensions of territorial cohesion needto be enunciated.

Territorial cohesion can be seen as the 'spatialrepresentation of sustainability', which would meanthat assessing policies in terms of the environmentaldimensions of territorial cohesion could become animportant step towards the better integration ofenvironment and sustainability

Indeed, the environmental dimensions of territorialcohesion need to be integrated more strongly aspart of the development of key EU policies, such ascohesion, agriculture, energy and transport. Whilepositive elements exist, conflicts remain and themechanisms to address these (e.g. the Environmental

Impact Assessment (SIA) and the StrategicEnvironmental Assessment (SEA) processes) have notalways been effective.

In terms of environmental policy, both the WaterFramework Directive and the Habitats Directiveclearly put in place some of the environmentaldimensions of territorial cohesion. For example, bothpieces of legislation focus on natural geographicunits. For both pieces of legislation, however, anumber of problems are handled in terms of their fullimplementation.

Looking to the future, the importance of introducinga territorial dimension into policies to address climatechange adaptation cannot be overestimated. Policies

and the actions put in place need to be cross-cuttingand cover areas from flood risk management throughagriculture to biodiversity protection. Here it couldbe valuable to use territorial cohesion and incorporateits environmental dimensions as a reference point fordeveloping and assessing policies and programmesin this area. This approach could help identify moreeffective and more sustainable adaptation strategiesand actions.

It is imperative to identify essential factors ofenvironment and sustainability in terms of theelements of territorial cohesion described in the Green

Paper on Territorial Cohesion

As most discussions of 'territorial cohesion' lack astrong consideration of the environment, an initialproposal supporting potential key elements of theenvironmental dimension of territorial cohesion couldbe as summarised in Table ES.1.

In spite of the territorial focus inherent in CohesionPolicy, the environmental dimensions of territorialcohesion are not always well integrated

Here we show a summary of synergies andconflicts between the Cohesion Policy area and theenvironmental dimensions of territorial cohesion.

(a) Potentially significant areas of synergy include:(i) the use of the European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF) mechanisms forthe improvement of environmental conditionsin applicant countries;

(ii) the focus on cooperation and partnershipsamong regions as a result of the InterregProgramme helps regions to developnew solutions to economic, social andenvironmental challenges;

(iii) the environment and climate change themeof Cohesion Policy can also be a source ofeconomic growth.


9/96

Executive summary

The territorial dimension of environmental sustainability 9

Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion key elementsof territorial cohesion

Potential key elements of the environmentaldimension of territorial cohesion

Harmonious development:

1. building bridges between economic effectiveness,social cohesion and ecological balance;

2. putting sustainable development at the heart ofpolicy design.

Harmonious and sustainable development:

1. achieving sustainable development, and thusintegrating economic, social and environmentalpolicy goals and actions;

2. environmental limits and carrying capacity (as aconstraint on economic growth);

3. utilising a high quality environment as a good andservice (e.g. recreation, agriculture, tourism, etc.).

Inherent features of territories citizens able to usethe inherent features of their territories

1. transforming diversity into an asset;

2. making best use of territorial assets.

(Three specific types of region are identified whichcan face particular development challenges: mountainregions; island regions; and the 18 sparsely populatedregions, all rural and almost all border regions).

Inherent features of territories natural featuresare protected for future generations:

1. maintaining/improving natural capital maintaininglocal features and environmental quality;

2. maintaining and enhancing current ecosystemservices and recognising future needs;

3. recognising vulnerability to environmental risks.

Concentration overcoming differences in density:

1. avoiding excessive concentrations of growth;

2. facilitating the access to the increasing returns ofagglomeration in all territories;

3. recognising that whilst most economic activity isconcentrated in towns and cities, rural areas remainan essential part of the EU and provide most of thenatural resources and natural areas;

4. ensuring sustainable territorial development strengthening economic competitiveness andcapacity for growth, while respecting the preservationof natural assets and ensuring social cohesion.

Concentration addressing differences in density andother natural features:

1. addressing environmental problems related toconcentration (e.g. pollution and water needs),including negative effects within and among regions;

2. recognising environmental/ecosystem services;

3. concentrated spatial patterns are better performingthan low density patterns (because of better energyperformance of buildings, and a possibility to

develop public transport facilities).

Connecting territories overcoming distance or'strengthening' connections:

1. ensuring good intermodal transport connections;

2. adequate access to services (e.g. health care,education and sustainable energy, broadbandinternet access, reliable connections to energynetworks and strong links between business andresearch centres).

Connecting territories strengthening positive naturalconnections and interactions between territories:

1. understanding environmental connectionsbetween and within regions, e.g. availability ofwater, materials and energy; and making theseconnections more sustainable;

2. recognising inputs and outputs (interdependences)of environmental (and ecosystem) services withinand between regions on different scales;

3. recognising/avoiding negative environmental effects

from one region to another (e.g. pollution, climatechange flooding, droughts, fires, etc.; biodiversityloss etc.);

4. avoiding the environmental impacts of connectivity(e.g. pollution, habitat loss, landscape intrusion etc.).

Cooperation overcoming division:

1. addressing problems of connectivity andconcentration through strong cooperating atdifferent levels;

2. ensuring policy responses on variable geographicalscales (e.g. neighbouring local authorities in differentcountries and between neighbouring countries);

3. addressing environmental problems that

are transboundary and require cooperation(e.g. problems associated with climate change);

4. governance plays a major role in ensuring territorialcohesion.

Cooperation overcoming division:

1. cooperation on implementing EU environmental lawsand policy at all levels (national, regional and local);learning from different regions; supporting regionsmeet common environmental standards: thesesections might encompass the 'traditional' view ofenvironment into territorial cohesion and CohesionPolicy;

2. recognising the importance of administrativeboundaries in territorial governance.

Table ES.1 Potential key elements of the environmental dimension of territorial cohesion



Executive summary

10

(b) Potentially significant areas of conflict include:(i) a central focus of Cohesion Policy on economic

growth and social development where thesepotentially could conflict with environmental

and sustainability goals;(ii) also, environmental dimensions such as 'green

growth' have received increased attention butare not central to Cohesion Policy;

(iii) current Cohesion Policy does not explicitlyrecognise or seek to address the connectivitybetween natural and protected areas, andbetween environmental assets and impacts,such as air and water pollution, and habitatdegradation.

(c) It will be important for Cohesion Policy to recognise

and support the key environmental dimensions ofterritorial cohesion:(i) these include harmonious and sustainable

development, environmental limits andcarrying capacity as well as the value ofa high-quality environment; the inherentfeatures of territories, including naturalassets, ecosystem services and natural risks;addressing problems of concentration;supporting the connectivity between naturalfeatures and areas, environmental assets andissues; and recognising natural boundaries aswell as administrative ones.

These elements need to be considered and shouldbecome part of the regulations governing the policyand spending of its funds. Measures are needed toput these principles into action as part of the overallprogramming as well as national programming.One is the SEA process, which can identify potentialconflicts and trade-offs that arise. It is importantthat Member States should use Cohesion Policy forbuilding links between spatial and territorial planningand funding. Ideally, such planning, based on theprinciple of territorial cohesion, would provide the

framework for setting budget priorities. This wouldgo a long way to address the key problem identifiedin Cohesion Policy: a lack of the coherent, place-basedterritorial perspective.

To what extent are the territorial dimensions likelyto be included in the assessments of new policy andlegislative proposals?

The European Commission's new impact assessmentguidelines do not specifically mention territorialcohesion; however, they do refer to 'regional' issuesamong those that may require attention in an impactassessment. The Annexes to the Guidelines, whichprovide detailed recommendations and guidance onspecific aspects of the Impact Assessment process,

while not referring to territorial cohesion do require/outline the consideration of regionally specificimpacts.

It appears that in practice the first round of SEAshave had mixed results in terms of addressingterritorial dimensions. Several analyses carriedout, for example, by the European Network ofEnvironmental Authorities (ENEA) and the WorldWildlife Fund (WWF) indicate that Member Statestake different approaches in terms of the SEAs oftheir Operational Programmes. Notably, countriescould do a better job of applying the SEA Directivefully and bringing the results of strategic assessmentinto the final Programmes. The SEA as a tool forintegrating environment, including the environmental

dimensions of territorial cohesion, has not beenconsistently used in an effective way.

Within environment policy areas identified by theEuropean Commission only the chemicals policylacks an explicit territorial dimension

All other policy areas have both explicit and implicitterritorial dimensions. The European Commission'senvironment policy areas reveal overlapping in scopebetween various policy areas, for example, the policyrelating to climate has key overlaps with policiesrelating to water, nature and biodiversity. Climate,

nature and biodiversity, water and air policy areasall have strong territorial dimensions. Importantexamples follow.

(1) The White Paper on adapting to climate change(European Commission, 2009a) explicitlyrecognises that as impacts of climate change willvary by region and that certain areas will be morevulnerable than others, many adaptation actionswill need to be carried out nationally, regionallyand across borders.

(2) The Habitats and Birds Directives establish

the Natura 2000 network. In addition, natureand biodiversity policy area promotes greeninfrastructure, ecological connectivity andmaritime strategy/policy, which are all territorialin focus.

(3) Planning and management at the river basinlevel and the management of groundwater at riskunder the Water Framework Directive present yetanother example.

(4) One should also mention the new Air QualityDirective requiring that Member States shouldidentify zones/agglomerations as the basis for airquality assessment and management.

For the waste, soil and noise policy areas, theterritorial dimensions are less strong, though all of


11/96

Executive summary


these have both explicit and implicit elements, forexample:

(a) the transport, treatment and safe disposal of waste

and waste as a resource under Waste Directives;(b) the identification and remediation of

contaminated sites and soils under the SoilThematic Strategy;

(c) the development of strategic noise maps andaction plans for specific noise sources andagglomerations under the Environmental NoiseDirective.

Synergies and conflicts exist between agriculturaland rural development policy and the environmentaldimensions of territorial cohesion

The assessment indicates that agri-environmentalschemes as well as the rural development pillarof the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) showsome strong synergies with the environmentaldimensions of territorial cohesion. This might notbe the case, however, for direct farm support, whichaccounted for 75 % of the CAP budget in 2007. Inparticular, this support may encourage large-scalesingle crop farming and long-distance transportationof food, potentially undermining environmental goals.

(a) Potentially significant areas of synergy include:

(i) CAP support for sustainable agriculture andbetter farm management and the 'improvingthe environment and countryside' thematicaxes of rural development policy theseelements address environmental themes andshould, in particular, support actions that areappropriate for regional territories;

(ii) regulations that address biodiversity, naturalresource protection and climate change

(b) Potentially significant areas of conflict include:(i) the CAP continues to place a strong emphasis

on the competitiveness of Europeanagriculture: thus, environmental dimensionsappear to be secondary goals.

(ii) the environmental impacts of CommunityAgricultural Policy have been, for severaldecades, an issue for concern and thepolicy debate has led to the developmentof programmes and axes that addressenvironmental issues within the CAP aswell as to the articulation of the so-called'cross-compliance'.

There are fundamentally territorial dimensions of thepolicy for both energy and transport

Specific territorial elements of transport and energypolicy include:

(a) the creation of a 'real' internal market for transportand energy;

(b) major infrastructure projects and the creation oftrans-European networks and arteries;

(c) efforts to minimise the impacts of both sectors onCO

2emissions and air pollution, including the

promotion of renewable energy and connectedenergy systems;

(d) actions to control maritime pollution; and(e) promotion of air transport (together with rail and

road) both within and outside the EU.

For energy, key synergies include the recognitionof the interdependencies between EU territoriesand of the territorial dimension of energy issues.The new energy policy goals also have important

territorial impacts, for example the use of land for theproduction of biofuels and biomass and for generationof solar energy. While energy connections amongterritories improve the overall efficiency, they will alsohave impacts.

For both energy and transport policy, attempts topursue sustainability mean paying attention to theenvironmental dimensions of territorial cohesion. Forenergy policy, these territorial dimensions include theimpacts produced by the new infrastructure createdfor renewable energy generation, for example windpower in coastal zones and solar power in southern

Europe. In addition, the EU's goals to increase theshare of biofuels and biomass will affect territoriesthroughout Europe.

Thus, the environmental dimension of territorialcohesion play an important role in identifyingproblems and trade-offs. It is important that theseenvironmental dimensions are addressed on arange of spatial scales, including the European level,as both energy and transport policies are linkinginfrastructure across EU and the neighbouringcountries.

The Water Framework Directive provides a goodexample of how the environmental dimensions ofterritorial cohesion can be integrated into policy

The Directive calls for water services (clean drinkingwater, irrigation, hydropower, wastewater treatment,etc.) to be charged at a price which fully reflects theservices provided. This implicitly recognises the valueof ecosystems services, and thus, the inherent featuresof a territory. It therefore provides a mechanism toaddress interdependencies and relationships betweenterritories.

The Directive establishes governance by thenatural geographical units. It has also increasedthe need for cooperation among administrative



Executive summary

12

units, such as regions that share common riverbasins. The Directive calls on the Member Statesto cooperate where river basins cross boundaries.This cooperation is seen in relation to the Saar and

Mosel Rivers, where international cooperationhad preceded and helped to inspire the Directive,which has, in turn, spurred further mechanisms forcooperation. Moreover, this mechanism builds onthe natural connections between territories: in thecase of the Saar and Mosel Rivers, these territoriesrange from mountain areas (the Vosges in France)to down plains. In addition, the Directive callsspecifically for a system whereby the citizens wereinformed and involved in the development of riverbasin management plans.

While the Directive provides a strong mechanismfor addressing the environmental dimensionsof territorial cohesion, it should be noted that ina number of cases implementation of the WaterFramework Directive has been poor (EuropeanCommission 2007a). In 2007, the EuropeanCommission identified 'significant shortcomings'in several countries, both in terms of the legaltransposition of the directive into national law andthe initial work needed to assess water quality inriver basins. In 'some Member States there appearsto be a systematic and serious problem with the WFDimplementation resulting in significant delays'.

The Habitats Directive is very closely linked toterritories: it calls for the protection of naturalhabitats across Europe from Taiga forests to

Mediterranean salt marshes, as well as for theprotection of wild species

The Directive identifies Europe's 'biogeographical'regions that cross national and other administrativeboundaries. The areas protected under theDirective can also cross boundaries, and therefore,transboundary impacts on these areas should also be

addressed. Thus, the Directive seeks to protect theinherent features of territories.

The Directive calls for an assessment of theinfluences on a protected area, including activitiesin the surrounding territory, which means it looksat connections among habitats. While the Directiveallows economic activities in the protected areas,these should be compatible with the site itself. TheDirective sets up a mechanism for the assessment ofpotential impacts.

For individual protected areas, the HabitatsDirective urges participation of local communitiesand stakeholders. It also calls on cooperativeresearch among European Member States. An

example of this cooperation can be seen in theHABITALP Project under the Alpine SpaceProgramme, funded through the EU funds forCohesion Policy.

While the Directive clearly embodies key elementsof the environmental dimension of territorialcohesion, it should be noted that its implementationin the Member States has often been difficult. Natureprotection is one of the environmental themesresulting in the highest number of cases openedin the European Court of Justice to settle disputesbetween the European Commission and MemberStates.

Recent assessments suggest that the Directive and

the action plan are not sufficient to protect existingNatura 2000 sites. Agriculture remains a majorpressure on biodiversity: a key need is to strengthenthe integration between biodiversity and agriculturalpolicy. The fragmentation of natural areas createdby infrastructure continues and climate changemay exacerbate these pressures. These problemscall for a more in-depth analysis, including analysisfrom a territorial perspective. In this work, theenvironmental dimension of territorial cohesioncould provide a valuable approach and also serve asa tool for assessment.

The Climate Change Adaptation White Paper andthe work to put in place adaptation strategies havestrong synergies with the concept of territorialcohesion including its environmental dimensions

These include:

(a) the role of environmental capacity, greeninfrastructure and ecosystem services inadaptation;

(b) a recognition of regional, and urban-ruraldifferences;

(c) a call for more strategic long-term spatialplanning and regional development.

The White Paper notes the importance of naturalunits, such as river basins, that cross regional andnational administrative units. This underlines theconnections between territories as well as theirnatural features. The White Paper also underlinesthe importance of green infrastructure, includingconnections among natural areas. It will beimportant to address climate change adaptationin water policies, which will require integratingadaptation into areas such as land use planning.Work has shown the importance of 'climatecorridors' that can link wetlands (and otherecosystems) as part of adaptation strategies.


13/96

Executive summary


There is a need to define and better understandEuropean territories, and the environmental assetsand features they provide, currently or potentially

European territories have to be understoodbetter including a more precise idea of howto delineate them and what assets and featurescontribute to their identity. Environmental assetsand features are key aspects of defining a territory.Characterisation, e.g. landscape and environmentalcharacterisation, is one way of investigating,defining and recording the key assets and inherentfeatures of a territory.

Potential objectives of characterisation as part ofthe territorial cohesion debate could include the

following:

(1) environmental characterisation of Europeanterritories provides a scientifically relevantand politically operational description of theseterritories to support territorial cohesion;

(2) strengthening of territorial identity the needto enable regions to identify their territorialassets within the framework of spatialdevelopment policies;

(3) identification of region-specific natural andenvironmental assets;

(4) help to assess and then monitor the positive

and negative impacts of European policies,including the allocation of funding to supportexisting natural assets and regional sustainabledevelopment;

(5) identification of high diversity areas from thepoint of vulnerability of territories to natural risks.

Landscape and environmental characterisation ofterritories provide baseline information about theenvironmental assets of a specific region that makesit unique or important. The characterisation work inthis report proposes a 'new geography' that supports

territorial identity through the identificationof natural and environmental assets. Thecharacterisation of territories thus emerging providesbaseline information about the environmental'value' of a specific region, i.e. if the region ownsenvironmental assets that make it unique and thathence could support the development of the regionby exploiting the asset item properly and sustainably.Map ES.1 shows a proposal for characterisation ofhomogeneous regions based on environmental assets(from Class 1 with the lowest share of environmentalassets to Class 5 with the highest share).

In developing this approach to environmentalcharacterisation, existing environmental'stratifications' of Europe, e.g. types of landscape

character, biogeographical regions, etc., are utilisedas spatial frameworks, which provides for a deeperunderstanding of environmental issues in theterritorial context. These 'natural' spatial frameworks

are useful in assessing impacts of policies and,therefore, have potential for inclusion into theanalysis of territorial cohesion and being used asspatial units to map and analyse other indicators.

An important first step is to establish a potentialframework for territorial indicators that wouldlink the analysis of environmental dimensionsof territorial cohesion to the DPSIR model forenvironmental indicators

Territorial cohesion indicators should be placed

within the DPSIR (Driving forces, Pressures, States,Impacts and Responses) assessment frameworkas it will help linking it to the ongoing indicatorwork. Table ES.2 proposes relationships betweenthe elements of territorial cohesion (i.e. Harmoniousand sustainable development, Inherent features ofterritories, Concentration, Connecting territories andCooperation) and the DPSIR framework.

When developing territorial indicators, it isrecommended to also have a forward-lookingcapacity provide projections of possibledevelopments in the coming decades. This will be

valuable for many policy areas including workon climate change adaptation where strategiesand actions need to look ahead to the comingdecades.

The Eurostat indicators for monitoring thesustainable development strategy can beconsidered as contributing to monitoring theenvironmental dimension of territorial cohesion.These indicators, however, appear to focusmore on the national scale. The environmentalaccounts developed by Eurostat/EEA at the

regional level would provide a very useful toolfor comparison. This would be based on regionalaggregation of, e.g. local/elementary/catchmentanalytical units.

Relevant data will also become available throughongoing initiatives, for example EURECA willprovide information on stocks, flows and valueof selected ecosystem goods and services at aEuropean level. In addition, SEIS and the INSPIREDirective (that puts in place EU-wide geo-referenceddata by harmonising datasets and access acrossnational boundaries) will be valuable in expandingthe availability of data to support the analysisof territorial cohesion. This is important to bearin mind, as in some areas, the data for territorial



Executive summary

14

Elements of territorial cohesionPredominant relationships with DPSIR framework

Drivers Pressures State Impact Responses

Harmonious and sustainabledevelopment

Inherent features of territories

Concentration

Connecting territories

Cooperation

605040

30

30

20

20

10

10

0

0-10-20-30

60

60

50

50

40

40

0 500 1000 1500 km

Legend

class 1

class 2

class 3

class 4

class 5

Environmentalassets

Map ES.1 Proposal for characterisation of homogeneous regions based on environmentalassets

Note: Class 1 with the lowest share of environmental assets to Class 5 with the highest share.

Table ES.2 Proposal for relationships between the elements of territorial cohesion

indicators and the data on specific geographical

scales may not be available at the present time.

Many existing indicators have potential utilityas indicators of the environmental dimensionof territorial cohesion, however, they need to beanalysed on the appropriate geographical scale toprovide the territorial dimension. Analysis shouldbe carried out at the level of administrative units(e.g. NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 regions) as well as othergeographical units, such as river basin districts (and,preferably, sub-basins), landscape character areas orbiogeographical regions.

Characteristics and types of potential indicators to

evaluate the environmental dimension of territorialcohesion

The work to identify current data available forterritorial cohesion is underway. Table ES.3 indicatesthe initial areas where it would be useful to havedata available in order to monitor the environmentaldimension of territorial cohesion. The key todeveloping these indicators is through using theappropriate scale and utilising reporting unitsby 'territories' or natural units (e.g. landscapecharacter areas, river basin districts, etc.), rather than

administrative units. The list is organised by thekey elements of the environmental dimensions ofterritorial cohesion and is intended as a proposal fordiscussion and further development.


15/96

Executive summary


Potential key elementsof the environmental

dimension of territorialcohesion

Characteristics and types of potential indicatorsto evaluate the environmental dimension of

territorial cohesion

Overview of possible indicator availability/source

Harmoniousand sustainabledevelopment

1. Cross-cutting (and potentially composite)indicators considering broad principles likeenvironmental limits and carrying capacity;

2. Composite approaches to characterise territorieswould fall into this category;

3. Could include indicators of broad concepts such asquality of life;

4. The Eurostat indicators for monitoring thesustainable development strategy could beconsidered for their suitability for monitoring theenvironmental dimension of territorial cohesion in which case consideration would need to begiven to how they fit into the DPSIR framework

and to which appropriate scale and reporting unitsto use.

Eurostat's current sustainable developmentindicators are reported at the EU and thecountry level, rather than organised by'territories' or natural reporting unit: it appearsthat there is a need for the geo-referenceddata.

Inherent features ofterritories

1. Likely to include predominately state indicatorsand measures that characterise territories in termsof their environmental assets and features;

2. Could include indicators of the current andpotential availability of ecosystem servicesprovided by the natural environment withinterritories;

3. Could include indicators of natural assets andnatural capital;

Indicators for these areas need to bedeveloped: they may be a result of the Eurecaproject.

4. Potential indicators could include the currentstatus and the potential of:

(a) visual attractiveness of regions Indicator currently not available

(b) conservation status of habitats and species EEA indicator CSI 007, threatened andprotected species: available only at the nationallevel.

(c) habitat diversity Not used currently; are the data available fromEUNIS database?

(d) high nature value farmlands This indicator does not appear available atpresent. However, information can be found inRural Development in the European Union Statistical and Economic Information Report2009. Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/agrista/rurdev2009/index_en.htm. Also, someagri-environment indicators could be relevant(though currently many of them are underpreparation/updating).Internet: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.

eu/portal/page/portal/agri_environmental_indicators/introduction; and the Eurostatpublication 'Agricultural statistics' on theInternet site: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-ED-09-001.

(e) Air quality. EEA has geo-referenced data.

5. Water quality. Data by water body may be available in nearfuture. Thus, they will be geo-referenced. Waterquality data, information / indicators at the EEAwebsite: www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water.

Concentration 1. Likely to include predominately indicators ofdrivers, pressures and state;

2. Could include indicators of trends in theconsumption of ecosystem services;

Table ES.3 Initial areas to monitor the environmental dimension of territorial cohesion
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/agrista/rurdev2009/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/agrista/rurdev2009/index_en.htmhttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/agri_environmental_indicators/introductionhttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/agri_environmental_indicators/introductionhttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/agri_environmental_indicators/introductionhttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-ED-09-001http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-ED-09-001http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-ED-09-001http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-ED-09-001http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/waterhttp://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/waterhttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-ED-09-001http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-ED-09-001http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-ED-09-001http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/agri_environmental_indicators/introductionhttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/agri_environmental_indicators/introductionhttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/agri_environmental_indicators/introductionhttp://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/agrista/rurdev2009/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/agrista/rurdev2009/index_en.htm



Executive summary

16

Potential key elementsof the environmentaldimension of territorialcohesion

Characteristics and types of potential indicatorsto evaluate the environmental dimension ofterritorial cohesion

Overview of possible indicator availability/source

Concentration (cont.) 3. Other potential indicators could include:

(a) extent of/change in green and agriculturalland in peri-urban areas and urban sprawl,

(b) extent of/change in green infrastructure,especially in urban areas,

(c) extent of/change in types of agricultural use,especially change from less to more intensiveuses,

(d) fragmentation of habitats (for example byurban areas, transport and energy networkdevelopment) e.g. ESPON fragmentationindex,

(e) number of inhabitants related to urbanisedsurface/urban density,

Data for the indicators above should beavailable from Corine land cover.

(f) levels of water and air pollution intensityby area,

Geo-referenced data should be available fromthe E-PRTR.

(g) water needs/consumption and water scarcityat regional or local level,

CSI 018, use of freshwater resources datamay be available only at the national level;WQ01c, water exploitation index same?)

(h) flood risks. e.g. ESPON's Flood endangered area andartificial areas available and geo-referenced

4. Municipal waste generation. CSI 016 available only at the national level?

Connecting territories 1. Likely to include predominately indicators ofdrivers, pressures and state;

2. Potentially, indicators of resource connectionsbetween and within territories (availability andinterdependences net importers/exporters, selfsufficiency), for example:

(a) water

(b) materials

(c) energy;

These indicators may not be available underdevelopment?)

3. Other potential indicators could include:(a) habitat connectivity (green corridors)

(b) presence of wildlife corridors of widerregional importance.

These indicators may not be available.

Cooperation (a) Likely to include predominately response indictors;

(b) One potential new indicator is being preparedby EEA/ETC-LUSI: this would measure jointadministrative work and governance, collaborativework in river basins but also cross borderagglomerations, mountain ranges, natural parks,sea basins, etc.;

(c) Could include indicators on public participation atdifferent territorial levels;

(d) Indicators of EU cooperation, including:

(a) funding for environmental projects andactions;

Some work at the national level shown in EEATechnical Report No 10/2009

(e) Integration of environmental concerns intospending in other sectors (e.g. funding with a'win/win' approach; and compensation actionsfor projects and programmes that are potentiallyharmful to the environment).


17/9617

Introduction


1.1 Objective of the study

With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on1 December 2009, territorial cohesion has become agoal of the European Union, along with economicand social cohesion as identified in the previous

EU treaty. The definition of territorial cohesion,however, is the subject of the ongoing discussion;but much of the discussion has focused on economicand social aspects, rather than the environmentaldimensions of the concept. It recognises therelevance of the economic and social aspects asissues of equal importance within the concept ofterritorial cohesion.

The main objective of this study is to undertakean analysis of the environmental dimensions ofterritorial cohesion and of the related EU policieswith the intention to provide contribution to

and support for processes like the EuropeanCommission's Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion(European Commission 2008a), revision of theEU budget (e.g. regarding Cohesion Policy) andthe work of ESPON (the European Spatial PlanningObservation Network) on territorial indicatordevelopment.

There are two main aspects to the study.

(1) Policy analysis: To describe and analyse thecontext of territorial cohesion and the territorial

dimension of environmental sustainability,where possible, illustrate the analysis bypractical examples at national, regional and locallevels.

(2) Characterisation and indicator analysis: Draw up afirst rough landscape characterisation tool basedon environmental and natural assets to supportthe development of potential indicators for theenvironmental dimension of territorial cohesion.

1.2 Priorities and approach

The focus of the study is set out below.

Firstly, in terms of thepolicy analysisdimension,the work includes the following elements.

1 Introduction: Background and aims ofthe study

(a) Conceptualisation: the consideration of the keyconcepts, processes and definitions as viewedwithin the policy context, focussing on theGreen Paper on Territorial Cohesion (EuropeanCommission 2008a) and EU budget revisions2009, and used as a framework for the study. This

sought to clarify the key concepts and questions,such as: what is the definition of territorial cohesionand what is the difference between territorial cohesion

policy, territorial development policy, spatial planning(including land-use) policy and territorial capital?

(b) Policy context: the context of the study wassupported by a relatively short investigation ofthe importance of incorporating territorial needs,as regards the environment/natural assets, intoCohesion Policy. The analysis is illustrated bysome examples.

(c) Analyse the integration of environmentalobjectives into territorial cohesion policy:

the study prioritises the consideration of thefollowing issues:(i) the principles of a territorial policy;(ii) territorial policies at a community and

national level examples, whether thoseare consistent with principles and futurechallenges/opportunities;

(iii) the integration of territorial cohesion intocommunity policies including Cohesion/Rural Development Policy and other sectoralpolicies. The explicit territorial dimensions/impacts and (potentially unintended)

characteristics/aspects they exhibit, includingthe impact of environmental directives. Thissought to investigate: How are the territorialcohesion instruments working? How areinstruments such as the environmental directives(e.g. directives on water and air quality)impacting territorial developments? How do EUinstruments with strong territorial implicationsbut non-territorial objectives capture the impactsof territorial developments on the environment?

(d) Examples to support the analysis: throughoutthe study, examples have been identified toillustrate the analysis. These focus on waterand water resource management, biodiversity(e.g. Natura 2000) and climate change adaptationin particular.



Introduction

18

Moreover, examples that have been sought illustratenational and/or regional territorial strategies thathave taken account of the territory's identity,specialisation and position in the EU and of the

impact of EU policies on the development of theterritory. Some more examples reveal how regionalpolicies and strategies for territorial developmentcan have a pivotal role in offering an integratedand space-based framework for the developmentand how they add value to EU Cohesion Policyand Lisbon action plans. Consideration has alsobeen given to the examples of linking nationaland regional territorial development strategiesto the national and the EU strategic frameworksfor cohesion, rural development and the Lisbonstrategy.

Secondly, in terms of the indicators analysis, thefollowing work has been undertaken:

(a) critical review of the currently used indicators

for territorial cohesion and Cohesion Policy(including ESPON indicators,);

(b) review of landscape and environmentalcharacterisations of territories; and

(c) review of a potential framework for indicatorsof the environmental dimension of territorialcohesion and of the availability of potentialindicators.

From the above analysis, conclusions are drawn onhow to use the findings to provide feedback on policyprocesses and, in particular, on territorial cohesion.


19/9619

Policy overview


Cohesion Policy oversees the spending of the threeEU funds:

(1) European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)supports programmes for regional development,economic change, enhanced competitiveness and

territorial cooperation;(2) European Social Fund (ESF)provides supportto anticipate and manage economic and socialchange;

(3) Cohesion Fundfocuses on transport andenvironmental infrastructure, energy efficiencyand renewable energy.

Other funding instruments include:

(4) European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation hasthe goal of overcoming obstacles to cross-bordercooperation, and functions on the basis of a

convention between national, regional and localadministrations;

(5) Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance replaced,in 2007, the financial instruments previouslyapplied to Turkey and the Balkans: PHARE,ISPA, Sapard, CARDS and the pre-accessionfinancial assistance for Turkey.

Together, these funding instruments accounted forabout 30 % of the EU spending in 2007 (1). Thus,different instruments have a series of different goals.Across all the Cohesion Policy-related programmes,

the main fields of investment are:

(a) knowledge and innovation (24 % of funds);(b) transport (22 %);(c) environmental protection and risk

prevention (19 %);(d) human resources (22 %).

Moreover, the overall objectives of CohesionPolicy are somewhat divided. The traditionalobjectives of Cohesion Policy have includedsupport for convergence and cohesion amongEuropean regions by supporting infrastructureand other projects that should enhance growth.

A more recent objective is to support the LisbonStrategy, launched in 2000, which has sought tomake the EU the most competitive economy by2010 though the renewed strategy, presentedin 2005, has focused in particular on 'growth andjobs'. In the current 20072013 cycle, at least 60 % ofcohesion spending in Objective 1 regions (poorest,or 'Convergence' regions) should be allocatedtowards meeting Lisbon objectives; this figure risesto 75 % for Objective 2 regions (competitivenessand employment regions).

While convergence and 'growth and jobs' are not too

far apart, the concept still creates a certain degree oftension (2). This has been reflected in the conclusionsof the Maribor Conference organised under theSlovenian Presidency:

Convergence should remain the primary focus ofCohesion Policy, giving priority to enabling areaslagging behind to catch up. Cohesion Policy shouldnot become overloaded with a whole range of policyobjectives. While strong commitment to the Lisbon

Agenda was rearmed, Cohesion Policy was felt tobe broader in scope (3). Another objective cited,

for example, in the main European legislationgoverning the ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fundfor the 20072013 cycle is the EU SustainableDevelopment Strategy.

A recent review of Cohesion Policy (4) performed byhigh-level experts for the European Commission,

2 Policy overview

(1) Ecorys (2008), A Study on EU Spending (prepared for the European Commission, Directorate General for Budget)

(2) See also: Milieu Consortium (2008), Territorial Cohesion analysis of environmental aspects of EU regional policy, Final Report

submitted to EEA, May 2008.

(3) Government of Slovenia (2008), Presidency Conclusions, Conference on the Future of Cohesion Policy (Maribor, 78 April 2008).Available at: www.svlr.gov.si/en/slovenian_presidency_of_the_council_of_the_eu/events/conference_on_the_future_of_cohesion_

policy/.

(4) Barca, F. (2009), An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy: A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and

expectations (prepared at the request of Danuta Hbner, Commissioner for Regional Policy).
http://www.svlr.gov.si/en/slovenian_presidency_of_the_council_of_the_eu/events/conference_on_the_future_of_cohesion_policy/http://www.svlr.gov.si/en/slovenian_presidency_of_the_council_of_the_eu/events/conference_on_the_future_of_cohesion_policy/http://www.svlr.gov.si/en/slovenian_presidency_of_the_council_of_the_eu/events/conference_on_the_future_of_cohesion_policy/http://www.svlr.gov.si/en/slovenian_presidency_of_the_council_of_the_eu/events/conference_on_the_future_of_cohesion_policy/



Policy overview

20

the Barca report, identified a series of problems,including the following:

(a) a deficit in strategy planning;

(b) a lack of a coherent, place-based territorialperspective;

(c) a lack of focus on priorities;(d) a lack of targets, indicators and information that

can allow an assessment of what works;(e) a remarkable lack of debate on results in terms

of the well-being of people for the focus isplaced, instead, on issues related to financialabsorption and financial irregularities.

The report sets out a series of recommendations,including a re-focusing of Cohesion spending,

identifies a series of core priorities, includinginnovation and climate change (both focusing oneconomic efficiency); migration and children (forsocial inclusion); and skills and ageing.

The Barca report also notes that news of financialirregularities can be a distraction from a deeperdebate on Cohesion spending. At the same time,such irregularities remain an important problem:the European Court of Auditors has found that in2008, 'at least 11 % of the total amount reimbursed[by Cohesion spending] should not have beenreimbursed' (5). These persisting irregularities (the

Court found similar problems in previous years)may play an important role in the debate on thefuture of the EU budget.

2.1 The EU budget review

The Barca report proposes a major reform ofCohesion Policy. This recommendation comes inthe context of the review of the EU budget, whosecurrent framework runs to 2013. The current debateis looking at options for the next cycle, which will

run for the period from 2014 to 2020 (6

).

The future of Cohesion Policy is a key element ofthe budget review, due to the fact that it accountfor a large portion of total spending. The othermajor spending area in the EU is the CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP), which accounted for an

even larger share 41 % of the budget in 2007.Just over three-quarters of CAP spending is usedto support the farmers (its first 'pillar', market andincome support), and most of the remainder goes

towards rural development (this is augmentedby the Member States' money that co-finances EUsupport) (7). While the CAP has undergone majorchanges in recent years, some Member States andstakeholders have called for further reform. Adiscussion of the future direction of the CAP istaking place alongside the EU's budget review.

At a 2008 conference on reforming the EU budget,several issues and themes have become clear:

(a) discussions on the CAP are likely to be the most

controversial;(b) the European Commissioner for the Budgetsuggested shifting rural development spendingto Cohesion Policy.

(c) the need for a radical reform of the CAP wasvoiced in a separate venue, where it was alsosaid that the current system of farm supportsshould be phased out over the long term which could be in the next budget period,or perhaps even afterwards (e.g. 2021 andbeyond) (8).

While the review is to be completed in 2010, political

discussions on the future EU budget will startthen. These may prove difficult; agreement amongMember States for the 20072013 cycle was reachedonly in the course of the year 2007.

2.2 The EU Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy

Another key element is or could be the EU'sSustainable Development Strategy (SDS). TheEuropean Council adopted the EU Strategy for

Sustainable Development 'A Sustainable Europefor a Better World' at Gothenburg in 2001. In June2006, the European Council adopted a Renewed SDSfor an enlarged EU, building on the Gothenburgstrategy (European Council, 2006). It identifies fourkey objectives: environmental protection, social

(5) European Court of Auditors (2009), 'Annual reports concerning the financial year 2008' (published in the Official Journal of the

European Union, 10 November 2009).

(6) For example, the European Commission held a conference entitled 'Reforming the budget, changing Europe' on 12 November 2009

(see Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/reform/index_en.htm).(7) Ecorys (2008), A Study on EU Spending (prepared for the European Commission, Directorate General for Budget).

(8) Adelle. (2008), European Commission Conference on Reforming the Budget CAP Proves the Most Controversial Topic, IEEP.

Available at: http://cap2020.ieep.eu/2008/11/14/european-commission-conference-on-reforming-the-budget-cap-proves-the-most-

controversial-topic.
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/reform/index_en.htmhttp://cap2020.ieep.eu/2008/11/14/european-commission-conference-on-reforming-the-budget-cap-proves-the-most-controversial-topichttp://cap2020.ieep.eu/2008/11/14/european-commission-conference-on-reforming-the-budget-cap-proves-the-most-controversial-topichttp://cap2020.ieep.eu/2008/11/14/european-commission-conference-on-reforming-the-budget-cap-proves-the-most-controversial-topichttp://cap2020.ieep.eu/2008/11/14/european-commission-conference-on-reforming-the-budget-cap-proves-the-most-controversial-topichttp://ec.europa.eu/budget/reform/index_en.htm


21/96

Policy overview


equity and cohesion, economic prosperity andmeeting the EU's international priorities.

The Strategy includes territorial cohesion among

its social goals, and a recent European Commissiondocument defines territorial cohesion in terms ofeconomic and social inclusion (9).

The renewed SDS also identified seven prioritychallenges:

(a) climate change and clean energy;(b) public health;(c) sustainable consumption and production;(d) sustainable transport;(e) conserve and management of natural resources;

(f) social inclusion, demography and migration;(g) global poverty and sustainable developmentchallenges.

The European Commission's 2007 progress reporton implementation of the strategy cited the ERDFand the Cohesion Fund as key financial instrumentssupporting developments in these areas, andnotably climate change (receiving EUR 9 billion inthe period of 20072013) and sustainable transport(EUR 36 billion).

2.3 Other relevant policy discussions

In addition to the three areas highlighted above,ongoing discussions on other policies will also

influence the debate on territorial cohesion. Theseinclude the following policy areas and issues:

(a) how to implement the recommendation of theGreen Paper on Maritime Policies;

(b) the development of the 7th Environment ActionProgramme of the EU;

(c) the reform of Transport Policy after the year2010;

(d) Research and Innovation Policy;(e) the future CAP with its 'greening' of second

pillar, its adaptation to climate change and more

attention given to biodiversity.

Section 4 of the EU's Neighbourhood Policyreviews a few key areas in further detail, includingCohesion Policy, the CAP and EU energy andtransport policy.

(9) European Commission (2007b), Progress report on the European Union sustainable development strategy in 2007 (Commission

Staff Working Document).


22/96The territorial dimension of environmental sustainability22

The territorial dimension of Community policies

3 The territorial dimension of Communitypolicies

This section considers the territorial dimension ofCommunity Policy and, in particular, the degree towhich the environmental dimensions of territorialcohesion are integrated within key policy areas.

It considers in turn:

(1) An overview of EU policy areas:which of themain EU policy areas have an explicit or implicitterritorial dimension?

(2) An assessment of major EU policy areas: asregards the EU policy areas and instrumentswith strong territorial implications(e.g. Cohesion Policy, agriculture and ruraldevelopment, energy and transport), to whatextent do they incorporate the environmentaldimensions of territorial cohesion?

(3) An assessment of key environmental policies:of a selection of key environmental directives

affecting territorial development (e.g. WaterFramework Directive, Habitats Directive, FloodsDirective and Climate Change Adaptation WhitePaper), to what extent do they incorporatethe environmental dimensions of territorialcohesion?

The section seeks to present a preliminary analysisof the extent to which current EU policies havea territorial dimension and territorial impacts and the extent to which they address issuesof environmental sustainability. The section

makes a similar analysis of key areas of the EUenvironmental policy. The chapter also highlights asmall set of initial examples of 'good practice' thathave been identified at the Community level and onthe national scales.

3.1 Overview of EU policy areas

3.1.1 Initial overview across internal policy areas

A broad range of EU policy areas have either anexplicit or implicit territorial dimension, as well asclear territorial impacts.

Table 3.1 sets out the main internal EU policyareas (10) and identifies which of those have anexplicit or implicit territorial dimension. Manypolicy areas include policies that explicitly seek toaddress regional disparities and provide supportfor disadvantaged regions. Other policy areas may

not explicitly address territorial issues, but may,due to the nature of the interventions they use,lead to some inevitable regional differentiation inimplementation, which could be interpreted as aterritorial dimension.

Areas that have an explicit territorial dimension:

(1) employment, social affairs and equalopportunities;

(2) energy and transport;(3) environment;(4) maritime affairs and fisheries;

(5) regional policy;(6) agriculture and rural development.

The following policy areas address territorial issueseither indirectly or as a result of their very nature oftheir focus:

(1) education and culture;(2) enterprise and industry;(3) information society and media;(4) justice, freedom and security;(5) research.

On the basis of this analysis, it has been concludedthat the following policy areas do not include anysignificant explicit or implicit territorial dimension:

(1) competition;(2) economic and financial affairs;(3) health and consumers;(4) internal market and services;(5) taxation and customs union.

This brief review of the potential territorialdimension of EU policies areas indicates that themajority of the key EU policy areas have an explicit

(10) The list is based on the policy areas identified on the European Commission's web site. Areas of external policy are not included. For

further information, see Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/policies/index_en.htm.
http://ec.europa.eu/policies/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/policies/index_en.htm


23/96



Table 3.1 Potential territorial dimensions of EU policy areas

Policy area (dg) Territorial dimension

Agriculture and ruraldevelopment (a) no explicit territorial dimension to CAP subsidies, but the activities (includingland management) will strongly affect territories across the EU,

(b) Rural Development Policy focuses on rural areas and on 'disadvantaged regions';some MS have delegated management to regions.

Competition (a) no explicit territorial focus (may have some influence in that it reviews regionalaid to ensure that key programmes are focused on disadvantaged regions).

Economic and financialaffairs

(a) no explicit territorial focus.

Education and culture (a) not a focus, but cultural diversity, dialogue and exchange are among the goals.

Employment, socialaffairs and equalopportunities

(a) European Employment Strategy seeks to support skills, especially indisadvantaged regions,

(b) supports the European Social Fund (one of the Structural Funds) as well as otherfunding programmes such as PROGRESS.

Energy and transport (a) Transport Policy seeks to ensure connections among EU regions and alsosupports cooperation and projects in areas such as urban transport,

(b) Energy Policy promotes the development of renewable energy and energysystem connections across the EU,

(c) supports Trans-European Networks (TEN) for energy (e.g. electricity and gastransmission projects) and transport, including highways, roads, maritime andinland waters, combined transport and air.

Enterprise and industry (a) not a focus, but operates the Enterprise Europe Network with centres for SMEsacross the EU.

Environment (a) an explicit element of several areas of Environmental Policy. These areas areexpanded in Table 3.2, below.

Maritime affairs andfisheries

(a) Maritime Policy focuses on coastal zones, regions and European seas; coastalregions have some role in its implementation.

Health and consumers (a) no explicit territorial focus.Information society andmedia

(a) one aspect is the promotion of high-speed Internet access across the EU, thuspromoting connections.

Internal market andservices


Justice, freedom andsecurity

(a) includes policies on migration and border issues, which affect border regions(both land and sea).

Regional policy (a) focus on territorial policies.

Research (a) Research Policy, including the European Research Area, promotes cooperationamong researchers across different parts of the EU.

Taxation and customsunion


or indirect territorial dimension, with only a smallnumber of policy areas having no territorial focusat all.

3.1.2 Key areas of EU Environmental Policy

Table 3.2 sets out the main policy areas within theEuropean Commission environmental arena andidentifies which of those have an explicit or implicitterritorial dimension.

The analysis presented in Table 3.2 indicates that,among the European Commission's environmentpolicy areas only Chemicals Policy lacks an explicitterritorial dimension. In all other policy areas there

are both explicit and implicit territorial dimensionsand in each case a number of examples can beidentified. The examples presented in Table 3.2should not to be considered exhaustive. They areintended to illustrate territorial dimensions ofeach policy area. Another aspect of the EuropeanCommission's environment policy areas indicated inTable 3.2 is that many policy areas are overlappingin scope, for example, policy related to climate haskey overlaps with policies relating to water, natureand biodiversity.

Climate, nature and biodiversity, water and airpolicy areas all have strong territorial dimensions.Important examples are as follows.




24

(1) The White Paper on adapting to climate changeexplicitly recognises that since impacts of climatechange will vary by region and that certainareas will be more vulnerable than others,

many adaptation actions will need to be carriedout nationally, regionally and across borders(European Commission, 2009a).

(2) The Habitats and Birds Directives led toestablishing the Natura 2000 network. Inaddition, nature and biodiversity policy areapromotes green infrastructure, ecologicalconnectivity and maritime strategy/policy, whichare all territorial in focus.

(3) Planning and management at the river basinlevel and the management of groundwaterat risk have been introduced by the Water

Framework Directive.(4) The new Air Quality Directive requiresthat Member States should identify zones/agglomerations as the basis for air qualityassessment and management.

As regards waste, soil and noise policy areas, theterritorial dimensions are less strong, though all of thesehave both explicit and implicit elements, for example:

(1) the transportation, treatment and safe disposalof waste and the use of waste as a resourceunder Waste Directives;

(2) the identification and remediation ofcontaminated sites and soils under the SoilThematic Strategy (11);

(3) the development of strategic noise maps andaction plans for specific noise sources andagglomerations under the Environmental NoiseDirective.

3.1.3 EC Impact Assessment requirements

The previous two sections have reviewed existingareas of EU policy. However, policy development

is a dynamic and ongoing process and new policiesand legislation are being developed and adopted allthe time. All proposals for new European policiesand legislation, as well as amendments to existingones, must be assessed for their economic, social andenvironmental impacts, in line with the EuropeanCommission's Impact Assessment Guidelines ofwhich the latest version was published in 2009(European Commission, 2009b).

The main objective of impact assessment is toimprove the quality, effectiveness and efficiency

of Commission's proposals, to ensure that policyis more consistent and transparent and to improveand simplify the regulatory environment. The ideais that, through impact assessment, proposals do

not only tackle the problem they aim to solve, butalso take into account side effects that may influenceother policy areas. In so doing, the procedure isregarded an aid to political decision making, not asubstitute for it.

The Impact Assessment procedure is introduced bymeans of a gradual process that allows Commissionofficials and organisations to grow with it. Newguidelines, having been issued in the years 2005 (12)and 2009 (13), serve as an indication of the progressand further evolvement of the Impact Assessment

procedure since its introduction in 2002.

According to the Impact Assessment Guidelines, anumber of following questions have to be answered.

(1) What is the nature and scale of the problem, howis it evolving, and who is most affected by it?

(2) What are the views of the stakeholdersconcerned?

(3) Should the Union be involved?(4) If so, what objectives should it set to address the

problem?(5) What are the main policy options for reaching

these objectives?(6) What are the likely economic, social and

environmental impacts of those options?(7) How do the main options compare in terms of

effectiveness, efficiency and coherence in solvingthe problems?

(8) How could future monitoring and evaluation beorganised?

In terms of the actual design of policy, the fifthquestion is most critical. Here, the full array ofpossible policy instruments should be laid on the

table. Answering Question 6, obviously, is the core ofan Impact Assessment procedure. Here a three-stepprocedure has to be followed, in which every stepis meant to sharpen the focus of the actual ImpactAssessment and to deepen the assessment.

Step 1: Identification of economic, social andenvironmental impacts of a policy, why theyoccur and who is affected.

Step 2: Qualitative assessment of the moresignificant impacts.

Step 3: In-depth qualitative and quantitative analysisof the most significant impacts.

(11) European Commission (2006a).

(12) Impact Assessment Guidelines', SEC(2005)791, 15 June 2005.

(13) Impact Assessment Guidelines', (European Commission 2009b) SEC 92, 15 January 2009.


25/96



Table 3.2 Potential territorial dimensions of environmental policy areas within the

European Commission

Areas of environmentalpolicy

Examples of territorial dimensions

Climate

Key overlaps:

(1) water(2) nature and biodiversity

(a) The White Paper on adapting to climate change (April 2009), which notesthat since impacts will vary by region, and certain areas (e.g. coastal zones,mountains and flood plains) will be particularly vulnerable, many adaptationactions will need to be carried out nationally and regionally. The White Paperalso proposes that the EU should play a role in support efforts to addresscross-border issues. White paper explicitly seeks to increase resilience ofagriculture and forests, biodiversity, ecosystems and water.

(b) A European Commission Staff Working Document (European Commission2009f) recognises the importance of incorporating adaptation in theimplementation of water legislation, and the benefits of planning and actingat a river-basin district level.

(c) European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) II working group is alsoconsidering regional planning, renewable energy infrastructure, StructuralFunds and national strategies for mitigation and adaptation. These elementsare likely to have a territorial dimension.

(d) Climate change research activities seek to promote cooperation betweenresearchers across the EU. This is intended to be international (external) aswell as internal.

Nature and Biodiversity

Key overlaps:

(1) climate impacts andadaptation

(2) water

(a) Explicit territorial focus. The Habitats and the Birds Directives led to theestablishment of the Natura 2000 network through the identification ofSpecial Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs)respectively.

(b) Outside Natura 2000 sites, nature and biodiversity policy area promotesgreen infrastructure, ecological connectivity, marine strategy and maritimepolicy. All of these elements have an explicit territorial focus. Specificguidance and action plans have been developed, such as the Guidance onthe maintenance of landscape connectivity features of major importance forwild flora and fauna, and the Biodiversity Action Plan: Halting the loss ofbiodiversity by 2010 and beyond (2008).

Waste

Key overlaps:

(1) water(2) air(3) soil

(a) The Waste Framework Directive and Directives on Waste Incineration and theLandfill of Waste have implicit territorial dimensions, particularly in relation tothe transportation, treatment, safe disposal and use of waste as a resource.

(b) The Waste Framework Directive requires that Member States should drawup waste management plans. Article 28(1) states that Member Statesshall ensure that competent authorities establish 'one or more' wastemanagement plans. This allows Member States to draw up regional planswhere appropriate.

Water

Key overlaps:

(1) climate impacts andadaptation

(2) nature and biodiversity(3) nitrates

(a) Measures proposed by the Water Framework Directive (WFD) are explicitlyterritorial in nature, for example the use of river basins as a key planningunit, and managing groundwater at risk, etc.

(b) Marine Strategy Framework Directive is explicitly territorial in that itestablishes European Marine Regions on the basis of geographical andenvironmental criteria.

(c) The Floods Directive requires the development of national flood risk maps

and management plans, based on an assessment of flood risks at theriver-basin district level and in associated coastal zones. In some cases,cross-border flood risks will also be important.

(d) Bathing Water and Drinking Water Directives have no explicit territorialdimension; however, both have implicit territorial dimension in relation tocontrolling sources of water pollution.

(e) The Urban Waste Water Directive has an explicit territorial dimension in thatit requires that Member States should identify and protect sensitive areas/catchment areas from discharge of urban waste water.

(f) The Nitrates Directive requires that Member States should designateterritories draining into waters that are or could be affected by high nitratelevels or eutrophication as vulnerable zones. Austria, Denmark, Finland,Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands andSlovenia decided to provide the same level of protection to their entireterritory, rather than designate nitrate-vulnerable zones.

Air

Key overlap:

(1) transport

(a) The new Air Quality Directive includes explicit territorial dimension inestablishing procedures for assessment of air quality; it requires thataccount should be taken of populations and ecosystems exposed to airpollution, and that each Member State should identify zones/agglomerationsas the basis for air quality assessment and management.




26

(8) soil quality or resources, including the lossof soil through urbanisation (this basicallyaddresses land use; the background is formed bythe Soil Framework Directive, proposed in 2004but eventually rejected in the EP);

(9) effects on land use mainly in terms of utilisinggreenfield sites and the divide between rural andurban areas (this is a classic core issue of spatialplanning);

(10) waste production, generation and recycling(there are obvious links with land use here).

All questions in the Impact Assessment Guidelinestable address single issues (see Annex 3). There areno questions that would address multi-dimensionalspatial concerns. An integrating spatial element, likeaccessibility, seems to be missing. As the EU does nothave an integrated, comprehensive spatial planningstrategy, it is reasonable to believe that this is thereason for leaving out integrated spatial planningconcepts of the Impact Assessment Guidelines.

It should be noted that the questions that areterritorially relevant were already part of the previous2005 Guidelines, partially revised in 2006 with theexception of the notion of cultural heritage (14).

To what extent are territorial dimensions likely tobe included in the assessments of new policy andlegislative proposals?

The European Commission's new guidelines do notspecifically mention territorial cohesion; however,they do refer to 'regional' issues among those thatmay require attention in an impact assessment.

Areas of environmentalpolicy

Examples of territorial dimensions

Soil

Key overlaps:

(1) water(2) nature and biodiversity(3) chemicals(4) waste(5) agriculture

(a) The Soil Thematic Strategy calls on Member States to identify and remediatecontaminated sites. Implicit territorial dimension, but relates to specific sitesonly.

(b) Com(2006) 232 final, the proposal for a Soils Directive (EuropeanCommission, 2006a), recognises the transboundary effects of soildegradation (such as downstream damage to infrastructure due to sedimentseroded in another region / country upstream). The proposed directive wouldseek to establish a framework for the protection of soil, which would enableMember States to identify the appropriate measures at the most appropriategeographical/ administrative level.

Chemicals

Key overlaps:

(1) agriculture (pesticides)(2) waste

(1) No explicit territorial dimension.

Noise

Key overlap:

(1) transport

(a) The Environmental Noise Directive has explicit territorial dimension, in that itrequires that competent authorities should develop strategic noise maps and

adopt action plans for specific noise sources (e.g. major roads and airports)and agglomerations.

Many of the questions guiding the ImpactAssessment process are related to territorialinterests. In Annex 3, the guidelines for impactassessments list questions regarding economic,social and environmental impacts that alrea

Documents

Territorial Dimension of Environmental Sustainability