salzbourg, 13th march 2005 joaquín farinós dasí university of valencia espon 2.3.2 governance of...
TRANSCRIPT
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