Transcript Workshop 1 - Polycentric and balanced territorial development

ESPON Internal Seminar 2013
“Territorial Evidence for Cohesion Policy 2014-2020
and Territorial Agenda 2020”
Workshop 1 - Polycentric and balanced territorial development
Growth Poles in South East Europe main findings for Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 and Territorial Agenda 2020
Ioan Ianos
Some particularities of the analysed space
- The poorest part of European Union;
- Economically, the most fragmented one;
- Huge decay between capital region and the rest of the
country (excepting Greece);
- Weak cooperation culture between basic administrative
units;
- Less territorial cohesion;
- Few major cooperation projects between SEE countries;
- Strongly touched countries by the actual economic and
financial crisis.
2
Guiding questions
1. What is the role of Bucharest, Sofia and Athens in the European
polycentric network?
2. What is the accessibility of these cities and can it be improved?
What is the efficiency of European transport corridors?
3. What are the main drivers for competitiveness in the three capitals?
Do metropolitan areas play an important role as drivers for
competitiveness in the region?
4. What are the key policies and measures that can be taken to
support an emergence of a competitive area concentrated on the
Bucharest- Sofia – Athens axis?
3
A sketch of interactions highlighted by EU 2020
Strategy and TA 2020
4
5
Main findings – Bucharest, Sofia and Athens as main
regional drivers of competitiveness (1)
1. Huge human potential in research and development, and a
very low level of expenditure dedicated to this sector,
especially in the case of Romania and Bulgaria. The share
of this expenditure is far below the EU average and far away
from the target set at the national level through the 2020
Strategy;
2. The three capitals represent true nationwide "islands of high
technology and innovation". Significant cooperation between
them is missing;
3. All the capitals are the most creative and innovative cities in
their countries;
6
Main findings – Bucharest, Sofia and Athens as main
regional drivers of competitiveness (2)
4. By their territorial power, each capital is a core of a sub-regional
urban networks (SEE level);
5. More or less, competitiveness potential of each capital was
touched by the present day crisis;
6. Bucharest and Sofia, especially, have limited the
competitiveness of own regions;
7. Increasing the competitiveness of the three capitals, important
land use change were registered.
7
8
Main findings – Increasing the competitiveness by pushing the
regional cooperation
1. Promoting Bucharest-Sofia-Athens triangle as a driver for the main
economic growth area in South-Eastern Europe;
2. Diminishing the current cooperation difficulties between three cities:
-
Different specific evolution pattern;
Lack of regular contacts, between municipalities and countries;
Relative large distance between the three capitals;
Linguistic barriers;
3. Valorising the important trilateral cooperation potential;
4. Higher valorization of the existing potential of the three capital’s
hinterlands;
5. Promoting the regional endogenous development (by cooperation) as
antidote to financial and economic crisis
9
10
Main findings – A better
cooperation by improving
accessibility and connectivity
a) Few
regional
connections
between the three capitals in
comparison with the links of each
with European Core;
b) General orientation of the most
important trans-European corridors
from the West to East;
c) Lack of a North-South transBalkan corridor (high speed
railway and motorway);
d)Internal connectivity is poor in
terms of public transport system
concerning the relations between
the
metropolis
and
the
metropolitan areas in the case of
Bucharest and Sofia, and much
better in the case of Athens;
12
Main findings – Valorisation of the “hub” role of the three capitals
for a policentric and balanced development of SEE area
1. Attenuation of the hypertrophy trends and of the “predator”
behaviour of each capital (especially Bucharest and Sofia),
promoting other cities from the up segment of national
hierarchies;
2. Restructuring the relationships between the core city and
each metropolitan region, sustaining the development of the
small and medium-sized towns;
3. Increasing of the creative potential of the tiers cities, using
different national and European Programms;
4. Valorising the new opportunities offer by Danube Strategy to
push the cooperation between twin Danubian towns;
5. Increasing the accessibility of other cities to the European
network of motorways and high-speed railways.
13
A high efficiency of South East-European polycentric
network supposes:
a) Restructuring of the relationships between each
Core City and it surroundings;
b) Improving the role of European corridors for a better
connection of Bucharest, Sofia and Athens, adding
trans-Balkan one or a targeted development of the
main ramifications;
c) Depicting a better cooperation and to valorise the
possible increasing role of Istanbul, as a megacity, in
this area.
d) Discovering the role of these capitals in an extended
urban system, taking into account the member and
asociate states to European Union.
14
15
16
SEE could become an emergent peripheral area of EU!
Few elements to discuss, Now, about this kind of
area in SEE!
Bucharest and Sofia are growth engines only for their
countries!
Athens, being more developed, but strongly affected
by the crises, cannot create and sustain alone an
emerging area in this part of the EU.
BUT
Some signs and progresses exist, encouraging an
efficient cooperation, and implicitly the genesis
an emergent area in this peripheral space of
EU.
17
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
KIND ATTENTION!
18
Findings for key questions
A. What are key questions connected with
Territorial Agenda 2020?
1. What is the stage of building a South Eastern periphery
of EU as an emergent area?
2. How could be implemented an efficient polycentric
politicy in SEE, diminishing the “territorial egoism” of the
three capitals?
3. Are the three capitals the main drivers for
competitiveness in SEE?
4. What kind of development policy could be promoted to
support an emergence of a competitive SEE area?
19
Findings for key questions (2)
B. Findings by answer’s categories
1. The embryos of a new emergent area of EU in the SEE:
 Challenges:
- Bucharest –Sofia Athens triangle, as a driver for the main economic growth in SEE;
- Diminishing of the cooperation difficulties:
- Different independent evolution;
- Lack of regular contacts;
- Relative large distance between the three capitals;
- Linguistic barriers;
- Higher valorization of the existing potential of the three capital’s hinterlands;
- Huge cooperation potential but few cooperation results
- Regional endogenous development as antidotefinancial and economic crisis

-
Opportunities
NATO integration;
European Union integration;
Geopolitical potential
20
Findings for key questions (3)
2. Diminishing the “territorial egoism” of the three capitals by applying an
efficient polycentric policy
 Challenges:
- Excessive centralization of the economical, political and innovative power is a
sign of a kind of “egoism”!
- Hypertrophy trends and the “predator” behavior of thecapitals, and especially
Bucharest and Sofia, inside of their national settlement systems;
- Increasing of the creative potential of the tiers cities;
- High aggression against rural communities from suburban and periurban areas;

-
Opportunities:
European corridors and a better connection between regional urban network;
“Hub” role of the three capitals inside of SEE urban network;
The existing of the European transnational programmes.
21