Challenges and possibilities to implement the Territorial ...

Challenges and possibilities to implement the Territorial Agenda

RADVÁNSZKI Ádámsenior planner-analyst

VÁTI Public Non-profit Company, Hungary

Bruxelles, 29th May 2008

Perspective from a new Member State: Hungary

A new member state perspective• Post-socialist member states: rapid changes

– Within 15 years from a closed, centrally planned economy to the common market

– Challenges: economic, institutional, democratic, integration• New perspectives in European Spatial Planning • Our role in the preparation phase:

– Member state with full rights– Hungarian participation in drafting– VÁTI – Background institute of the Ministry responsible for

spatial development – operational analytic and planning functions

Fundamental structures• Overwhelming and increasing weight of the capital

metropolitan area• Former industrial towns: NE-SW axis

– Some could find new investors, others in crisis– Accessibility is a key factor

• Traditional agricultural market towns, giant villages and homesteads on the Great Plain: agricultural functions/crisis areas

• Microvillages on North-eastern and South-western peripheries: – dual problem – ageing and depopulation or rural ghettos, territorial

exclusion

Territorial cohesion: between regions?Country

(number of NUTS 2 units)

Weighed relative

deviation (%, 1995)

Weighed relative

deviation (%, 2004)

Difference (convergence/div

ergence)

Slovakia (4) 41,9 46,0 4,1Czech Republic (8) 25,9 39,4 13,5

Hungary (7) 29,3 38,8 9,5United Kingdom (37) 30,4 36,5 6,1

Belgium (11) 36,5 36,4 -0,1Romania (8) 22,9 32,9 10,0Bulgaria (6) 21,5 29,7 8,2France (26) 27,1 27,3 0,2

Italy (21) 27,1 26,8 -0,3Greece (13) *23,3 26,6 3,3Portugal (5) 24,5 25,9 1,4Poland (16) 16,5 24,1 7,6

Germany (39) 22,6 22,8 0,2Austria (9) 23,8 21,7 -2,1Spain (19) 21,3 20,6 -0,7Sweden (8) 14,8 20,0 5,2Ireland (2) 17,2 17,6 0,4Finland (5) 14,8 16,2 1,4

Netherlands (12) 12,3 13,7 1,4

Country(number of NUTS 3 units)

Weighed relative

deviation (%, 1995)

Weighed relative deviation (%, 2004)

Difference (convergence/di

vergence)

Latvia (6) 37,9 58,0 20,1United Kingdom (133) 44,2 49,8 5,6

HUNGARY (21) 40,4 49,7 9,3Poland (45) *47,5 46,9 -0,6Slovakia (8) 42,8 46,7 3,9France (100) 43,7 44,9 1,2Estonia (5) 32,4 44,8 12,4

Germany (439) 39,9 41,7 1,8Bulgaria (28) 33,1 40,8 7,7

Czech Republic (14) 26,1 39,5 13,4Belgium (43) 39,4 38,8 -0,6Romania (42) 28,8 36,8 8,0Greece (13) 27,3 29,8 2,5Italy (103) 29,0 28,9 -0,1

Austria (35) 30,1 28,5 -1,6Ireland (8) 22,4 27,9 5,5

Lithuania (10) 13,6 27,6 14,0Slovakia (12) 22,3 25,7 3,4Denmark (15) 22,2 24,4 2,2Finland (20) 19,8 22,9 3,1

Netherlands (40) 20,4 22,8 2,4Spain (52) 22,0 21,2 -0,8

Sweden (21) 15,0 19,9 4,9Portugal (30) 17,1 17,5 0,4

Malta (2) *5,9 6,0 0,1

Territorial cohesion: within regions?

The hidden challenge: microregions territorially excluded

• Groups excluded from socioeconomic processes concentrated in rural ghettos

• Rural population + those who cannot afford urban life

• Severe segregation – social groups distant from each other in space

• High natural growth rate, low education level• Integrated solutions needed

Strengthening Regional Identities, Making Better Use of Territorial Diversity

• Regional and local identities, diversity of regions, towns and villages

• NUTS 2 regions not adequate for building identities

• Making better use of– Natural assets– Cultural assets

• Ethnic, national minorities• Traditional settlement

structures• Cross-border regions

Polycentric Development and Innovation through Networking of City Regions and

Cities• Metropolitan regions developing at

a high pace• Possibility to counterweight core

areas– Pentagon– Capital regions of NMS

• Building networks– Cross border dimension– Revival of traditional socioeconomic

relations?

New forms of partnership, territorial governance between Rural and Urban Areas

• Also in the National Spatial Development Concept

• Primary theme of the Settlement Network Development Concept: town and catchment area compose an integrated unit

• Integrated public service provision on microregional level

• Challenges in the fragmented administrational system

• National policy vs. diversity

Regional Clusters of Competition and Innovation

Regional competitiveness poles defined in 2005– Definite goal of national economic development policy– Question: what role is achieved with new border conditions? Are these the

counterpoles of Budapest or rather Bratislava, Košice, Cluj Napoca, Oradea, Timisoara?

Debrecen: „industrialisation of knowledge” Miskolc: „Technopolis” renewable, alternative energies),Szeged: „Biopolis”Pécs: „the quality life pole”Győr: „Autopolis”Székesfehérvár and Veszprém: ICT, mechatronics

Strengthening and Extension of Trans- European Networks

• Increases the macro-scale accessibility of regions• What happens to those excluded from these

corridors?• Sustainability, efficiency factors?

– road vs. rail development• Hungary: fast development of motorways

– some with shifted expenditure in form of Public Private Partnership

– changes spatial structure fundamentally

• Increased risk of extreme weather conditions

• Major challenge: water management– floods– drought

• Cross-border, transnational approach required

• Example of integrated approach: the Tisza river management

Trans-European Risk Management, Impacts of Climate Change

Strengthening of Ecological Structures and Cultural Resources as Value Added for

Development

• Wise management of natural resources

– ecotourism– local renewable energy supply

• Strengthening local identities– built heritage– traditions

• Challenge: how to find the balance between preserving depopulating villages and economic efficiency?

• How to find balance between converging to Western- Europe and decreasing disparities within the country?

• What are the territorial aspects of the reforms of public service system and administration?

• How to find solutions to changing demographic structures?

• How to ensure territorial inclusion?• What effects will the changes of border conditions

have on territorial structures?

How to revise the Territorial Agenda of the EU?

Future challenges

Thank you for your kind attention.

[email protected]

+ 36 30 4883594