1 / 18

European Integration: Past , Present and Future

European Integration: Past , Present and Future Innovative Spatial Planning Instruments and their Contribution to European Integration A Case Study of a Border Region in Northern Bavaria Michael Seidel Waterloo, Ontario, May 1, 2010. Need for new spatial planning instruments.

kasimir-hodge
Télécharger la présentation

European Integration: Past , Present and Future

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. European Integration: Past, Presentand Future Innovative SpatialPlanning Instruments andtheirContributionto European Integration A Case Study ofa Border Region in Northern Bavaria Michael Seidel Waterloo, Ontario, May 1, 2010

  2. Need fornewspatialplanninginstruments • The fall of the iron curtain and the need for rapid change of border regions (1989), • The Single European Market (1993), • The opening of the European Union for countries of central and eastern Europe (2004), • Serious challenges caused by structural change, mainly internationalization and globalization, • Rising regional disparities, • Budget constraints called for an effective use of increasingly scarce resources in all member states.

  3. New national planninginstrumentsandtheirinterfaces • Euroregionsascross-bordercooperations • Permanent structuresintendedto promote integration on bothsidesoftheborder • Supportedby European Parliamentsincemorethan 30 years • In thefocusofthenewobjective 3 (former INTERREG community initiative)

  4. Borderregions in thefocusofthe European Union

  5. Towards a multi-levelarchitectureofspatialplanning • Central planningunabletoprevent regional disparities • Towards a multi-levelarchitectureofspatialplanning • From top-down tobottom-up philosophy

  6. Figure 1: Breakdown of finances by priority axis New instrumentsincluded in EU support Operational Czech Republic Cross borderprogramme (INTERREG IV)

  7. Case study High Franconia: a region in a blind spot

  8. Status quo after the fall oftheironcurtain • Bad image („bavarianSiberia“, „poorhouseof Bavaria“, borderregion, „no-man‘s –land“), nobranding • „Regional mind-set“: passive and defensive • Lack ofcooperationbetweenfirms, countiesandtowns • Monostructure: „oldfashioned“ industry-portfolio • Highestunemployment-rate in Bavaria • Brain drain: lossofyoung, qualifiedpeople • Demographicsituation: lossofpopulation

  9. Implicationsofthedivision: lossofpopulation

  10. Implementing regional marketingandmanagement • Defining a regional platform: thecityof Hof togetherwiththecountiesof Hof and Wunsiedel • Choosing a functionalregion, not an administrative one • Re-designing a region: High Franconiainsteadof „North-East-Upper-Franconia“ • SWOT-analysis • Branding strategy, financialsupportby EU-EFRE-funds

  11. Comparativecostadvantages

  12. Business location marketing – promoting core competencies and clusters • Logistics – gateway to middle and eastern Europe • IT, call center and back office • Automotive industry • Fostering regional entrepreneurship

  13. EUREGIO EGRENSIS: German-Czech cross-borderplatform • From 2007 – 2013 supportby INTERREG IV: € 4 million • Successfulprojects: • Education:languagecourses, pupilsexchangeprogramme, • Thematicevents: cross-bordergardenshow, • Project „Goodneighbourhood“: informationcampaigns, interculturalworkshops • Effects: • Success in seeking, establishingandstabilizingcontacts • Cultural awareness on bothsidesoftheborder • Committmentaboveaveragetoachievecommonlyestablishedgoals

  14. East-Western business competence center • Developingtheeast-western businesscompetencecenter • One-stop-competenceforbusiness in Central Europe • ReinforcestheattractivenessoftheBavarian-Czech borderzone • Increasedeconomicalcross-bordercooperation

  15. Conclusions I: Added value of innovative instrumentsfor European Integration • European andpolitical added value • Institutional added value • Socio-economic added value: • Synergies, e.g. in researchanddevelopment • Economiesofscale via newmarkets • Exchange ofbestpracticesandexperiences • Cross-borderspin-offs • Socio-cultural added value

  16. Conclusions II • Bottom-up-basednewinstrumentscanhelp rural regionstokeeppacewiththemetropolitanareas • The innovative, bottom-up-basedapproachcontributestomakingregionsmore intelligent and flexible • New instrumentsrecommendedforimplementation all overthestatebyBavarianGovernment • Multi-level-architecturegivesregionsandmunicipalitiesmorebargainig power vis-à-vis thecentralstate

  17. Conclusions III: requirementsforsuccessfulimplementation • Using EU- orgovernmentgrantsisonly a startingpointand not sufficientforsuccess • Need of professional andconsistentstrategyandmarketing-mix • Functionalregions fit betterthan administrative ones • Need ofcommitment: regional politicians must beorbecometeam-players • Need ofpatience: changing regional mindsetsmaytakemore time thanchanginginfrastructureandeconomy

  18. Conclusions IV: unsolvedquestions • Regional initiatives underpublicor private law? • Inflationaryfoundingofnewinstruments in a regionmaycause: • Overlap • Double expenditures • Over-complexity • Fragmentation • Problems ofintegration • Desireforevaluation: Ifyoucan‘tmeasureit, youcan‘t manage it“.

More Related