1. From policy debates to territorial indicators1
ETMS
From policy debates to territorial indicators
Alexandre Dubois & Johanna Roto
Nordregio
TPG meeting, Barcelona, 6-7 May, 2013

2. Monitoring what?
A monitoring system needs to provide statistical information “in context”:
More than managing a database
More than providing ‘bare’ maps and figures
In ESPON ’in context’ means to inform the stakeholders with the key development trends related to:
the different types of regions and territories that constitute Europe (and by now we all know that they face different challenges and enjoy varying opportunities)
the different policy debates that steer the work of policymakers at different levels, from the EU to the regional/local.
The added-value of the ETMS resides in its ability to pertinently combine these dimensions 2

3. The policy point of departure3

4. This simple approach has be used again, again and again in previous ESPON proejcts. IT seems that we have reached the end of what is achievable with this simple line of thought.
We do not have to redo in ETMS what others have done well in previous projects. This would definitely not be satisfying for us, and not a good way to use public money…
What the ETMS need to do is to recombine the wealth of territorial information that has been gathered by projects with a strong territorial focus, such as FOCI, Geospecs… in order to put at the forefront the monitoring of the territorial dimension of socio-economic changes (past, present and future) taking place in Europe.
Our (simple) approach 4

5. Looking in the policy documents when the territorial is implictly or explicitly referred to.
We believe stakeholders usually think in terms of territories than in terms of purely thematic aspects. Usually they have in their mind the ’image’ of the territory they are interested in, but most of the time are not aware of that themselves.
For instance, with the theme of ’innovation’, most of the stakeholders will think ’metropolis’ or ’Stockholm’ that thinking of it in a truly pan-European way.
Some themes are more pertinent to monitor in certain regions than in others. For instance, air pollution, being an important theme in EU policymaking, refers mostly to urban regions and not to SPA.
Our new approach 5

6. SMART monitoring We need to compare what is comparable!
Smart monitoring=Benchmarking what is comparable. Not comparing Sweden’s Norrland with London, but rather comparing it with Scotland’s Highlands & Islands.
SMART monitoring
We need to compare what is comparable!
Monitoring system should benchmark the development of regions , cities and territories vis-à-vis similar types of regions
In these troubled times, policymakers and stakeholders need to be provided with empirical territorial evidence that make sense for the elaboration of national, regional and lcoal development strategies. 6

7. Four territorial entry-points
In the matrix, the cells that are filled in are the ones for which a specific theme is related to a specific kind of region or territory-
Four territorial entry-points 7

8. Core and ’native’ indications
Example of entrepreneurship: in rural areas, the focus is on new firms in agriculture; in costal and island regions, the focus may be more on aquaculture; in mountain regions, on tourism
Also social exclusion may take different forms in urban or rural regions
Breaking down ’generic’ indicators at different detailed geographical scales and using ’native’ indicators that actually measure a specific phenomenon for a specific type of territory.
Also – How much shall we focus on indicators only – and how much needs to be explained? i.e. a region as value 4.5; is that a good or bad result – the result can be good for some regions and bad for others; depending on their territorial context and level of ’development’. Therefore short storylines or interpretations of the indicators/maps are needed
Core and ’native’ indications
‘Core indications’ are the themes that are mentioned as of importance for several types of regions and territories.
However, for different types of territories, this core indication may be measured in different ways, i.e. with a different combination of statistical indicator, statistical units and coverage, or even statistical analytical methods.
The aim is to monitor what is deemed as a pertinent indication of development for different types of territories or regions in Europe.
Territorial monitoring ≠ ‘regional policy’ monitoring
It is at the same time more complex (beyond the monodimensional ‘all-NUTS 2 approach’) and more pertinent for policymakers and stakeholders. 8

9. Preliminary results
Policy review: the territorial dimension is weak… or hidden very well
Action: the ETMS needs to engage in the debate and bring it more clearly to the forefront
ESPON review: different projects all seem to end up with the same set of Eurostat indicators, the most detailed level usually being NUTS-2
Action: recycling is good, but the ETMS should break the pattern by bringing in the territorial perspectives developed in ‘truly’ territorial projects such as FOCI, Geospecs, TOWN…
Stakeholder engagement: we need to be pragmatic and carefully chose what and when to engage with them (time and resource efficient for ALL parts)
How do we transfer the empirical evidence to the end user. Bare maps, facts and figures. The ‘ESPON-added-value’ lies on the interpretation of statistical trends from a territorial perspectives: combination of texts illustrated by figures and maps may be more appropriate- 9

10. Policy review enabled to fill in the matrix
Policy review enabled to fill in the matrix. As you can see not all cells are filled in, because not all combination of territories and themes actually make sense. (should we monitor the development of agriculture in Inner London?)
The review of ESPON projects enable to identify how the indicators that have been used to measure each exisitng combination.
Preliminary results 10