Workshop 1 - Polycentric and balanced territorial developmentGrowth Poles in South East Europe -

main findings for Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 and Territorial Agenda 2020

Ioan Ianos

ESPON Internal Seminar 2013

“Territorial Evidence for Cohesion Policy 2014-2020and Territorial Agenda 2020”

-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.

Some particularities of the analysed space

2

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?

Guiding questions

3

4

A sketch of interactions highlighted by EU 2020 Strategy and TA 2020

5

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;

Main findings – Bucharest, Sofia and Athens as main regional drivers of competitiveness (1)

6

7

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.

Main findings – Bucharest, Sofia and Athens as main regional drivers of competitiveness (2)

8

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

Main findings – Increasing the competitiveness by pushing the regional cooperation

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 trans-Balkan 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

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.

Main findings – Valorisation of the “hub” role of the three capitals for a policentric and balanced development of SEE area

13

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.

A high efficiency of South East-European polycentric network supposes:

14

15

16

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.

SEE could become an emergent peripheral area of EU!

17

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR

YOUR

KIND ATTENTION!

18

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?

Findings for key questions

19

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

Findings for key questions (2)

20

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 the capitals, 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.

Findings for key questions (3)

21