Territorial cohesion under the looking glass: Synthesis paper about the history of the concept and policy background to territorial cohesion

Concepts change depending on who uses them. First discussed by the Assembly of European Regions, Barnier invoked territorial cohesion in lieu of spatial planning for which Member States denied the Community a proper role. This against the backdrop of a European construct that casts Member States represented on the Council and the Commission into different roles. Also, depending on their makeup and tradition, the attitudes of countries differ. France has affinity with Brussels, seeing opportunities for a kind of aménagement du territoire: the formulation of strategic spatial frameworks for EU policies. The Netherlands and Germany share a tradition of land-use regulation but Dutch national planning is about broad policy and sector coordination, bringing it closer to the French model. From the beginning of European integration it was recognised that integrating markets would require regional policy to counteract imbalances, but Member States were reticent about a Community role in this. The Commission kept on studying the issues. With the 1970s enlargement, it became necessary to compensate the UK for the little use it had for the CAP. A regional policy only in name, paybacks to national budgets for assisting them with their regional policies was the solution. Delors introduced a programmatic approach to what was now called cohesion policy. This is when a French-Dutch initiative put a spatial framework à la française on the agenda, leading with ups and downs in 1999 to the intergovernmental ESDP. Subsequently, the Commission ceased supporting intergovernmental spatial planning. Under the territorial cohesion heading, the Constitution promised a role for the EU, forcing Member States to reconsider their positions. The present context is shaped by the Lisbon Strategy and the ups and downs of the Treaty of Lisbon. So is the evolving Commission position, with the Green Paper its latest initiative. In the consultations, the EP, EESC and CoR are supportive, and so are the AER, CPMR, AEBR. Of the sample of Member States reactions studied, France is supportive while Germany and the UK keep their distance. Managing the review of the Territorial Agenda, Hungary sees territorial cohesion policy as close tospatial planning, but nevertheless has no problem with an EU role. Poland is supportive, too, but draws a line between territorial cohesion policy and spatial planning as an exclusive matter for the Member States. Professional voices are supportive, too. A road map must take into account the Lisbon Treaty, the coming of the next Commission and the Financial Framework discussions.