Strategies for Integrated Spatial Development of the Central European, Danubian, and Adriatic Region

By Ivan Illes, Jens Kurnol, Julia Spiridonova, Andreas Strade

Initial Situation

The countries of Central and Southeast Europe are faced with the difficult task of coping with the challenges created by the transformation from a centrally planned society to a market-controlled society as well as with the increasing integration into the structures of the European Union. The experience of the past 10 years shows that this doesn't remain without impacts on the spatial structures and developments in the affected countries, but also in the neighbouring EU Member States Germany, Greece, Italy, and Austria.

Against this background the German Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning (BBR) has initiated the project Vision Planet together with the Federal Chancellery of the Republic of Austria in 1997. (2)

In collaboration with the ministries responsible for spatial planning and with policy-related research institutions from 10 other Central and Southeast European countries, and supported by the European Union, following aims were pursued:

• Increased attention for questions concerning spatial development in the countries of Central and Southeast Europe;
• Improvement of the mutual understanding of spatial development policy between spatial planners of the participating countries;
• Development of a common reference framework for future cooperation (in spatial development policy as well as with sectoral policies).

Policy Approach

Despite its shared history, the Central and Southeast European region isn't quite characterised by a developed tradition of bi- or multilateral co-operation. This is also true for spatial development policy, which is faced with the additional problem that in many participating countries its instruments and institutions are still in the early stages of formation. The initiative started as a bottom-up process from the working level and was not based on a decision between state governments. Accordingly, the project was designed with an orientation towards communication and processes.

The tasks within the project were dealt with in two parts:

• Elaboration of visions and strategies for spatial development policy
• This concerned the concrete development and formulation of a common document by the so-called Working Team, which brought together spatial planning experts, either directly from the national administrations or nominated by them.
• Dialogue on spatial planning in an institutional network
• This dialogue in the so-called Project Panel has initiated a structured exchange of information and opinions and has simultaneously supported the work of the Working Team. The Project Panel brought together representatives from the national ministries responsible for spatial planning. The seminars of the Project Panel were open to the members of the Working Team, so that a continuous thematic exchange took place.

The so-called Vision Document, one of the first outcomes of the projects, consists of two parts:

• the first part, the "Guidelines and Policy Proposals" (GPP), defines the principal objectives, perspectives, and options of spatial development policy in the region, without detailed description of the situation and without detailed explanation and justification of these policies;
• the second part, the "Background Report" serves to explain and to provide a basis for the strategies defined in the "Guidelines and Policy Proposals."

The Project Area

The Vision region represents 7 percent of the European land surface (or 23.4 percent not including Russia) with a population of 197 million (26.5 percent of the population of Europe). It is made up of 18 European countries, 13 in full (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Yugoslavia) and five in part (Austria, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the Ukraine) (cf. Map 1).

Huge differences in the social, economic and geographical situation characterise this region:

• The level of economic development differs enormously. Some of the most developed regions of Europe are located here (like Vienna, Baden-Wurttemberg, Bavaria, Emilia-Romagna), but the least developed areas of Europe (Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia) are to be found here, too. Differences are huge even within the eastern part of the Vision region.
• The economic and employment structure also differs very much. In some eastern Vision countries the percentage of the population employed in agriculture is now comparatively low as in Bavaria, Italy and Austria (4 to 7 percent), whilst in other countries it is quite high (25 to 40 percent) and has even increased in recent year.
• The same applies to the demographic figures. The countries with the highest (Albania, Macedonia) and with the lowest (Italy, Germany) birth rates in Europe are in the Vision region.

Despite this extreme diversity, there are still important features which all countries have in common, and which call for a collective effort to shape the future spatial development of this area:

• One is the stormy 20th century history, a history all the countries of the region share. To mention but one feature of this history: the length of the continental borders of the region is 16,000 kilometers. Of this, only 420 kilometers have remained unaltered during the 20th century, i.e. where neither the border line nor the name of the neighbouring country changed. Border regions in the Vision region constitute a substantially larger part of the total area (61.7 percent) compared to the respective share in the European Union (21.5 percent). More than 56 percent of the total population live in border regions (EU: 15 percent). One reason for this difference is that Vision countries are — as an average — smaller. This is connected with another characteristics of the area: Vision countries have substantially more neighbours (four on average) than EU member countries (two). This makes neighbouring relations more complex and multifold.
• One element of internal cohesion is the network of relatively intensive economic and trade relations within the region. Despite having belonged to different economic blocks for a long time, economic relations never ceased between the two halves of the Vision region and gathered momentum very quickly after the political change. Today, the percentage of internal Vision region trade is higher than 50 percent in 12 of the 18 Vision countries. Even in countries where this is not the case at national level (Germany, Italy, Ukraine), the participating regions have much more intensive links with the Vision region.

The Spatial Development Perspective

Taking into account the determining effect of existing structures and the limited availability of economic resources, development will take place largely within the present framework of spatial structures. Radical spatial shifts in regional and settlement structures are not to be expected during the next one or two decades, changes will take place rather within the internal structure of regions and settlements.

The common spatial development perspective for the Vision region comprises policies in five different fields of activity:

1. Improving the spatial structure
2. Shaping the development of settlements and cities
3. Transforming rural areas
4. Developing transport and telecommunication
5. Protecting the environment and managing the natural and cultural heritage

The improvement of the spatial structure can be focused on five main tasks:

• dealing with emerging regional disparities within the framework of a comprehensive regional policy, by focusing efforts on areas lagging behind in development or in a serious structural crisis, but without endangering the development of leading dynamic regions, the latter being the carriers of national growth and competitiveness, which is vital for the countries of the Vision region;
• establishing a new rural-urban relationship in order to ensure integrated development, structural change and improvement of service provision in urban centres and their surroundings;
• mitigating drawbacks and disadvantages caused by peripheral situations, by opening more border crossings, by intensifying cross-border co-operation and by proper improvement of the transportation networks;
• diversifying the economic and employment structure of monocultural agricultural areas and one-sided "company towns" by promoting small and medium sized enterprises, by utilising endogenous resources and by combining different measures of economic policy;
• facilitating better access to knowledge and information in all areas through better location and profile of educational and cultural and research institutions, by networking these institutions and by utilising up-to-date information technology.

A dynamic urbanisation process took place in most countries of the region during the last decades. The percentage of the population living in larger cities is quite similar in the western and eastern halves of the region. The development of eastern cities was, however, determined primarily by administrative functions and industrialisation, service functions played a secondary role. Furthermore, in several countries, smaller centres are lacking or they are not sufficiently developed. Their development should be one of the priorities of the coming years. The overly hierarchical system of cities and settlements should be loosened and more differentiated, multipolar or polycentric systems should develop with specialisation and division of labour between cities within countries but even between countries as well. The internal structure of most cities is in the process of rapid transformation. The function of downtown districts, of the urban-rural fringe and of large housing estates is changing rapidly. Several cities are unprepared for these unexpected and uncontrolled developments. The dangers of uncontrolled urban sprawl, congestion and social segregation are imminent. New types and instruments of urban management and planning, new initiatives in housing policy are needed to meet these new challenges.

The extent and percentage of rural areas is—again—more or less similar in the western and eastern halves of the Vision region. Major differences lay in the share of agricultural employment and in the development level of infrastructure in rural areas. Agricultural employment in some Vision countries is high and has even increased in recent years. Rural employment restructuring is unavoidable but cannot be implemented without simultaneous internal restructuring of rural settlements, of rural land use, nor without developing rural infrastructure networks. It is one of the biggest challenges Vision countries will face during the next decades. Comprehensive national rural development strategies should be drawn up and implemented, including economic, social, and environmental aspects.

Increasing efforts to develop international transportation networks are common characteristics in all Vision countries. Priority has been given everywhere to construction of multimodal transport corridors, to better connection of national transport networks with those of neighbouring countries and to better compliance with environmental standards in transport development. Development of these networks should be carried out in accordance with the principal objectives and processes of spatial development. The primary task is to construct transport connections between the eastern and western halves of the Vision region, neglected until now. At the same time, however, existing transport infrastructures within the eastern part of the Vision region should be improved, where recovering economic relations require efficient rail, road, maritime or telecommunication connections. Accessibility for the majority of the population of the respective countries is to be ensured by improving or developing transportation facilities within smaller regions (secondary networks). Maintaining or improving public transport systems plays an important role here. Transversal connections should transform the overly hierarchical and centralised system of transport networks. At present, the most dynamic economic sector in the Vision space is telecommunication. Central and south-east European countries have the advantage of being late starters in applying the most up-to-date technologies in their telecommunication systems. Modernisation and development of telecommunications infrastructures offer big market opportunities and are quite attractive for foreign investors. As in most countries within the EU, "teledensity" in the Vision region is still lower outside the urban centres. It is important that governments address this territorial aspect of the development of infrastructures and of the transition to the "Information Society." Access to modern telecommunication infrastructures and services in all parts of the territory is a prerequisite for economic and social development. Technical and economical (affordability) aspects are relevant fields of intervention to reduce the risk that economic and social disadvantages accumulate in sparser populated areas. The recent achievements must be utilised as a competitive advantage in the future spatial development of the Vision countries, e. g. for rural development or for attracting service industries. Spatial development policy should contribute to this aim by raising awareness of and by supporting regional actors in making use of these opportunities.

The environmental situation in eastern Vision countries has improved substantially over the last decade. Emission of most pollutants decreased due to a decline in production but also due to restructuring and environmental measures. There is, however, the legacy of the past to tackle the accumulated damage to the environment, to clean up derelict open-cast mines, industrial sites, rubbish dumps. Additionally, new dangers have emerged, especially in rural areas. The conditions for the protection of newly privatised forests and nature conservation areas are not yet fully clarified, the maintenance of large scale water supply and sewage networks is not adequately ensured. Environmental authorities have to cope with the task of monitoring the increased number of smaller but more dispersed pollution sources. National environmental plans of action should be drawn up, setting qualitative as well as quantitative targets and providing a framework for new types of regulations and procedures. Environmental impact assessments should be made compulsory for larger development projects. The network of national parks is well established in the region. Improvement is necessary, however, with regard to protecting them and in enforcing regulations. Less developed, however, is the network of protected landscapes in the eastern Vision countries. Protected areas are fragmented, they consist usually of isolated smaller spots, and rarely form ecological corridors. Furthermore, the most valuable natural ecosystems are to be found in border areas where a common — or at least co-ordinated — form of regulation and maintenance would be highly desirable. The region has a rich cultural heritage and comprises a variety of cultural landscapes. Monuments of most European cultural and art epochs can to be found here. Nowhere in Europe is there such a richness of folkloric arts and rural architecture. The protection of the cultural heritage should be based both on cultural and economic considerations. In all countries of the region, legal and professional arrangements are needed to preserve respect for and the memory of all nations and nationalities, ethnic and religious groups. Co-ordinated transnational interventions aimed at enhancing "cultural routes" should ensure the uniqueness of each different community.

Scenarios for further development of the region

Besides monetary union, the European Union is facing two challenges: (1) the reform of the internal structures, mechanisms and policies of the community and (2) the accession of several eastern European countries. To manage these challenges simultaneously, vision and determination are needed. The determination at high political level is there to implement both tasks. At the same time, however, the resistance against some internal reforms, the difficulties to reconcile opposing interests within the community are giving rise to political intentions to delay, postpone, narrow down and perhaps foil the eastern enlargement. If the efforts aiming at internal reform will succeed, then, certainly, the obstacles of eastern enlargement could and would be also removed. If, on the other hand, internal reforms fail, there is still an option to implement enlargement, rather as an act of politics, with a series of incomplete and contradictory solutions, with restrictions and derogations on both sides. And, of course, there exist the possibility (threat) of failing in both efforts. At present, one cannot, with certainty, predict which outcome would prevail, not even what probability can be assigned to the individual outcomes. In the scope of the Vision document three possible scenarios were sketched. What we were interested in, are the spatial impacts of the different scenarios, especially in the Vision region.

Scenarios of Eastern Enlargement and Their Impact on the Vision Region's Spatial Structure

Implementation

For the first time, the project has opened the already established co-operation in spatial planning in Western Europe (or the European Union) to the countries of Central and Southeast Europe. Furthermore, it has led to increased co-operation between these states themselves.

The Vision document constitutes a basis for the further development of national spatial development concepts (which the candidates for accession to the EU have engaged themselves to prepare). It thus makes a tangible contribution to the co-ordination of so-called pre-accession instruments (such as PHARE and ISPA) at national level and contributes to a more efficient use of these EU funds.

In addition to the national level and private agencies, international financial institutions influence spatial development considerably through their investments. Therefore, in spring 2000, the results of the project were presented to agents in international organisations such as the European Commission, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development or the World Bank, in order to determine points of contact and possibilities for co-operation. The common positions of spatial planners in this part of Europe reached in Vision Planet can contribute to achieving a greater coherence in the activities of these institutions.

Dr. Julia Spiridinova is Head of Department at the National Centre for Regional Development, Sofia, Bulgaria; Dr. Ivan Illes with the Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary. Jens Kurnol and Andreas Strade are project co-ordinators at the Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning, Bonn, Germany. The authors would like to thank their colleagues in the Working Team for their invaluable specialised and personal support.

Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning

Am Michaelshof 8, 53177 Bonn, Germany

Mr. Jens Kurnol

Fax: +49 1888 401 2260

jens.kurnol@bbr.bund.de