1. Salzbourg, 13th March 2005 Joaquín Farinós Dasí University of Valencia ESPON 2.3.2 GOVERNANCE OF TERRITORIAL AND URBAN POLICIES FROM EU TO LOCAL LEVEL

2. 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

3. Indicators Domain State (S) Economy (E) Civil Society (CS) Space (T) Structure (S)ISSIESICSSITS Process (P)ISPIEPICSPITP Domains and Features of Governance represented by indicators

4. 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”

5. 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 challenge C6 - advanced

6. Multi-level Governance: States groups

7. 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: Policies Classification in ECSP ESPON Project 2.3.2 Classification

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Incremental Process to Governance Practices Territories Levels Sectoral Policies Groups, Citizens Cooperation Accountability, Coord. – Coop. Openness, Information Coherence TERRITORIAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT T1 GOVERNANCE T2 GOVERNMENT T3… GOVERNANCE T4… Tn Formal (rules) Informal (soft) Adapted (Formalisation) ProgressiveProgressive ProgressiveProgressive RadicalRadical RadicalRadical Top Down Bottom Up ‘Elite’ Governance Participative Gov.

15. 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

16. Thank you for your attention!! Ximo Farinós University of Valencia Joaquin.Farinos@uv.es