Subtitle:

Przegląd Geograficzny T. 93 z. 4 (2021)

Publisher:

IGiPZ PAN

Place of publishing:

Warszawa

Description:

24 cm

Abstract:

The main objectives of the research carried out were identification of the strength of – and trends characterising – the impact of EU law and policy on spatial planning and territorial governance in Member States, in relation to selected environmental issues; as well as an attempt to determine geographical regularities. The first issue analysed issue concerned the impact of EU environmental law on Member States’ spatial planning, while the second sought to demonstrate the importance of major EU policies in relation to their environmental objectives. A third aspect saw impact (“clout” ) assessed and trends identified where two environmental priorities under EU policies were concerned, i.e. (I) the strengthening of ecological structures and cultural resources as added value for development, (II) sustainable growth – promoting a more resource efficient, greener and more competitive economy. Most attention was paid to the top-down impact of the EU on spatial planning and territorial governance, though studies als sought examples of bottom-up and horizontal influence as signalled by national experts. This article is based on the results of the ESPON COMPASS project entitled: Comparative Analysis of Territorial Governance and Spatial Planning Systems in Europe. Analysis of the very extensive questionnaire material available, as well as the results of the case studies, resulted in an acknowledgment that the top-down influence determines the impacts of EU environmental law and policy on Member States’ spatial planning. In sum, that impact of the EU environmental law was identifiable as quite strong at all levels of planning. Indeed, trends for an increasing influence applied to the vast majority of countries. There were three regularities identified in this respect: (I) it is a strong impact and increasing clout that prevail to a significant degree among EU-15 countries, (II) a constant impact is characteristic for the vast majority of the Nordic countries, and in both cases is mainly an aspect of countries caring for the quality of the environment, (III) the greatest variation in terms of the strengths and irections of impact can be identified within the group of post-communist countries, even as there is a prevalence of upward trends noted in these countries. Among the EU environmental regulations exerting the greatest impact on the spatial planning and territorial governance of the Member States, the ones highlighted most frequently were the Directives on environmental assessments (EIA and SEA), as well as the so-called Habitats and Birds Directives. In seeking to summarise the strength of impact of the selected EU environmental policy priorities on Member States’ spatial planning and territorial governance – as well as the trends for that impact – the largest group of countries pointed to an upward trend and a moderate impact. However, results obtained offered no basis for the identification of clear regularities However, the Europeanisation of environmental law and policy was shown also to have a significant impact on the Europeanisation of environmental spatial planning. It also proved possible to demonst ate how spatial planning, although constituting a reserved domain of each country, is actually the most Europeanised of all environmental issues. With regard to the top-down impact of environmental law, i.e. that exerted from the EU level down to the spatial planning and territorial governance of the Member States, the adoption of the acquis communautaire is to be indicated as the main reason for the significant impact. Equally, when it came to the impact of environmental policy, it was usual for a strong link with Cohesion Policy to be identified. The article also offers recommendations regarding the development of a more-effective connection between Cohesion Policy and spatial planning and territorial governance, in the sphere of the protection and strengthening of countries’ natural and cultural heritage.

References:

Baran, M. (2016). Pozwolenie zintegrowane jako przykład europeizacji reglamentowanego korzystania ze środowiska (zarys problematyki). Rocznik Administracji Publicznej, 2, 243‑271. https://doi.org/10.4467/24497800RAP.16.001.5094
Böhler, R. (2011). European Union Leadership in Global Environmental Politics, Munich, GRIN Verlag. Pobrane z: https://www.grin.com/document/376549 (14.02.2021).
Börzel, T. & Risse, T. (2000). When Europe hits home: Europeanization and domestic change. European Integration Online Papers, 4(15).
Börzel, T. (2007). Environmental policy. W: P. Graziano & M.P. Vink (red.), Europeanizatio: New Research Agendas (s. 226‑238). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Börzel, T.A. & Buzogány, A. (2019). Compliance with EU environmental law. The iceberg ismelting, Environmental Politics, 28(2), 315‑341. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1549772
Bradley, J., Brodzicki, T., Ciołek, D., Komornicki, T., Mogiła, Z., Szlachta, J., Zaleski, J. & Zaucha, J. (2017). Territorial Cohesion: A missing link between economic growth and welfare. Lessons from the Baltic Tiger. Gdańsk: Uniwersytet Gdański Katedra Makroekonomii.
Braun, M. (2014). Europeanization of Environmental Policy in the New Europe: Beyond Conditionality. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315581064
Camagni, R. (2008). Regional Competitiveness: Towards a Concept of Territorial Capital. W: R. Capello, R. Camagni, B. Chizzolini & U. Fratesi, (red.) Modelling regional Scenarios for the Enlarged Europe. European Competiveness and Global Strategies (s. 33‑49). Berlin: Springer.
Churski, P. (2018), Podstawy zintegrowanego planowania rozwoju. W: B. Kołsut (red.), Czynniki i kierunki rozwoju gminy Powidz (s. 9‑13). Ekspertyzy i Raporty IGSEiGP, 2, Poznań: UAM. CoE. (2000).
CoE. (2000). Council of Europe Landscape Convention. Florence. European Treaty Series - No. 176. Council of Europe. Pobrane z: https://rm.coe.int/16807b6bc7 (17.02.2021).
Cotella, G. & Janin Rivolin, U. (2011). Europeanization of Spatial Planning through Discourse and Practice in Italy. disP - The Planning Review, 47(186), 42‑53. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2011.10557143
Cotella, G. & Janin Rivolin, U. (2019). The Europeanisation of territorial governance and spatial planning: a tool for analysis. W: Scientific Report: Building the next generation of research on territorial development (s. 50‑56). ESPON EGTC. Pobrane z: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336021998_The_Europeanisation_of_territorial_governance_and_spatial_planning_a_tool_for_analysis (12.02.2021).
Cotella, G. (2012). Central and Eastern European Actors in the European Spatial Planning Debate. Time to Make a Difference? Europa XXI, 22, 21‑36. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2012.22.2
Cotella, G. (2018). Editorial: EU cohesion policy and domestic territorial governance. What chances for cross-fertilization? Europa XXI, 35, 5‑20. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2018.35.1
Cotella, G. (2020). How Europe hits home? The impact of European Union policies on territorial governance and spatial planning. Géocarrefour, 94(3). https://doi.org/10.4000/geocarrefour.15648
Cotella, G., Janin Rivolin, U. & Santangelo, M. (2016). Transferring 'good' territorial governance across Europe: opportunities and barriers. W: P. Schmitt & L. Van Well (red.), Territorial Governance across Europe. Pathways, practices and prospects (s. 238‑253). London & New York: Routledge.
Degórska, B., (2007). Key problems in the relation between the environment and spatial development in Poland, European Spatial Research and Policy, 14(2), 53‑81.
Degórska, B. (2007). Rola środowiska przyrodniczego w zagospodarowaniu polskiej przestrzeni a ekologiczna polityka Unii Europejskiej, W: T. Markowski & A. Stasiak (red), Rola polskiej przestrzeni w integrującej się Europie (s. 133‑168), Biuletyn, KPZK PAN, 233.
Degórski, M., & Degórska, B. (2022). Sustainable Regional Development: Environmental Practices. W: M. Mishra, R.B. Singh, A.J. Lucena., & S. Chatterjee (red.), Regional Development Planning and Practice. Advances in Geographical and Environmental Sciences (s. 3‑31). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5681-1_1
Degórski, M. (2011). Środowisko przyrodnicze jako kreator atraktorów oraz czynnik rozwoju i wzrostu lepkości regionu. W: W. Maik, K. Rembowska, A. Suliborski (red.), Geografia regionalna - scalanie i synteza wiedzy geograficznej (s. 83‑92). Podstawowe Idee i Koncepcje w Geografii, 6.
Degórski, M. (2012). Integrowanie systemu przyrodniczego z systemem społeczno-gospodarczym podstawą nowoczesnego zarządzania regionem. Przestrzeń i Regiony, 1, 7‑32.
Delreux, T. (2012). The EU as an actor in global environmental politics. W: A. Jordan. & C. Adelle (red.), Environmental Policy in the European Union: Contexts, Actors and Policy Dynamics (s. 287‑305). London and Sterling: Earthscan. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203109823
Drzazga, D. (2015). Współczesne wyzwania stojące przed planowaniem przestrzennym w świetle paradygmatu zrównoważonego rozwoju, Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Oeconomica, 2(313), 77‑193. http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/0208‑6018.313.12
Dühr, S., Stead, D., & Zonneveld, W. (2007). The Europeanization of spatial planning through territorial cooperation. Planning Practice and Research, 22(3), 291‑307.EEA, (2011). Green infrastructure and territorial cohesion: The concept of green infrastructure and its integration into policies using monitoring systems. Luxembourg: EEA Technical Report No 18/2011. Pobrane z: https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/publications/green-infrastructure-and-territorial-cohesion (17.02.2021).
ESPON COMPASS. (2018). Comparative Analysis of Territorial Governance and Spatial Systems in Europe, Final Report, ESPON EGTC. Pobrane z: https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/1.%20COMPASS_Final_Report.pdf (21.02.2021).
ESPON COMPASS. (2018). Comparative Analysis of Territorial Governance and Spatial Systems in Europe. Final Report, 2, Methodology, ESPON EGTC. https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/3.%20Volume_2_Methodology.pdf (14.02.2021).
ESPON COMPASS. (2018). Comparative Analysis of Territorial Governance and Spatial Systems in Europe, Final Report - Additional Volume 3, Phase 1 Questionnaires. ESPON EGTC.
ESPON COMPASS. (2018). Comparative Analysis of Territorial Governance and Spatial Systems in Europe Final Report - Additional Volume 4, Phase 2 Questionnaires. ESPON EGTC.
ESPON COMPASS. (2018). Comparative Analysis of Territorial Governance and Spatial Systems in Europe, Final Report - Additional Volume 6, Case Studies Report. ESPON EGTC. Pobrane z: https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/7.%20Volume_6_Case_Studies.pdf (23.03.2021).
ESPON COMPASS. (2018). Comparative Analysis of Territorial Governance and Spatial Systems in Europe. Final Report - Additional Volume 7, Significance and role of European territorial governance. ESPON EGTC. Pobrane z: https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/8.%20Volume_7_Europeanisation.pdf (25.03.202).
EU. (2001). A sustainable Europe for a better world: A European Union strategy for sustainable development (Commission's proposal to the Gothenburg European Council), Communication from the Commission, COM(2001)264 final, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Pobrane z: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52001DC0264 (15.12.2020).
EU. (2007). Territorial Agenda of the European Union: Towards a More Competitive and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions. Agreed at the Informal Ministerial Meeting on Urban Development and Territorial Cohesion. Pobrane z: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/what/territorial-cohesion/territorial_agenda_leipzig2007.pdf (12.12.2020).
EU. (2010). Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Communication from the Commission, COM/2010/2020 final, Brussels: Brussels: European Commission. Pobrane z: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/? uri=CELEX: 52010DC2020&from=EN (15.12.2010).
EU. (2011). Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The Economic andSocial Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2011)244 final. Brussels: European Commission. Pobrane z: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/? uri=CELEX:52011DC0244&from=EN (4.01.2021).
EU. (2011). The Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020: Towards an Inclusive, Smart and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions. Agreed at the Informal Ministerial Meeting of Ministers Responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development. Pobrane z: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/what/territorial-cohesion/territorial_agenda_2020.pdf (10.12.2020).
EU. (2013). Green Infrastructure (GI) - Enhancing Europe's Natural Capital, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2013)249 final, Brussels: European Commission. Pobrane z: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html? uri=cellar:d41348f2‑01d5‑4abe-b817‑4c73e6f1b2df.0014.03/DOC_1&format=PDF (4.01.2021).
EU. (2021). 35 years of EU Environmental Impact Assessment. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Pobrane z: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/EIA_Directive_35_years.pdf (15.05.2021).
Faludi, A. (2006). From European spatial development to territorial cohesion policy. Regional Studies, 4 0 (6), 667‑678. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400600868937
Faludi, A. (2008). The Learning Machine: European Integration in the Planning Mirror. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 40, 1470‑1484. https://doi.org/10.1068/a39225
Faludi, A. (2010), Cohesion, Coherence and Co-operation. European Spatial Planning Coming of Age? London & New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203842324
Gløersen, E. & Böhme, K. (2011). Storylines on Territorial Cohesion. Stockholm. Nordregio News, 1, 9‑15. Pobrane z: https://archive.nordregio.se/Global/Publications/Publications%202011/Nordregio%20News/Issue%201%202011_final.pdf (25.04.2021).
Hajdú, Z., Hardi, T., Pámer, Z., Póla, P. & Perger, É. (2017). Case Study Report: Hungary. ESPON COMPASS, Hungary: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Institute for Regional Studies.
Haładyj, A., Rudnicki, M. & Sobieraj, K. (red.). (2011). Europeizacja prawa ochrony środowiska. Lublin: Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski.
Iwańska, B. (2014). Europeizacja prawa ochrony środowiska: wybrane zagadnienia. W: R. Hauser, Z. Niewiadomski & A. Wróbel (red.), Europeizacja prawa administracyjnego (s. 709‑741). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C. H. Beck, Instytut Nauk Prawnych Polskiej Akademii Nauk.
Janin Rivolin, U. (2012). Planning Systems as Institutional Technologies: a Proposed Conceptualization and the Implications for Comparison. Planning Practice and Research 27(1), 63‑85. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.661181
Jordan, A. & Adelle, C. (2013). EU environmental policy: Contexts, actors and policy dynamics. W: A. Jordan & C. Adelle (red.), Environmental Policy in the EU: Actors, Institutions and Processes (s. 1‑9). London & New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203109823
Kenig-Witkowska, M.M. (2012). Prawo środowiska Unii Europejskiej. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer business.
Knill, C. & Lehmkuhl, D. (1999). How Europe Matters. Different Mechanisms of Europeanization, European Integration online Papers (EIoP), 3(7). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.302746
Komornicki, T., Bednarek-Szczepańska, M., Degórska, B., Goch, K., Szejgiec-Kolenda, B. & Śleszyński, P. (2017). Case Study Report: Poland. ESPON COMPASS, Warsaw: Institute Geography and Spatial Organization, Polish Academy of Sciences.
Komornicki, T., Szejgiec-Kolenda, B., Degórska, B., Goch, K., Śleszyński, P., Bednarek-Szczepańska, M. & Siłka, P. (2018), Spatial planning determinants of Cohesion Policy implementation in Polish regions. Europa XXI, 35, 69‑88. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2018.35.5
Koulov, B. (2016). Sustainability of Europe's Mountains (Preface). W: Koulov, B. & G. Zhelezov (red.), Sustainable Mountain Regions: Challenges and Perspectives in Southeastern Europe (s. v-vii). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kozińska, A. (2011). Wdrażanie unijnego prawa ochrony środowiska w latach 2001‑2011. W: M. Rudnicki, A. Haładyj & K. Sobieraj (red.), Dekada harmonizacji w prawie ochrony środowiska (s. 101‑122). Lublin: KUL.
Krämer, L. (2013). The European Court of Justice. W: A. Jordan & C. Adelle (red.), Environmental Policy in the EU: Actors, Institutions and Processes (s.1‑9). London & New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203109823
Ladi, S. (2005). Europeanisation and Environmental Policy Change. Policy and Society. 24(2), 1‑15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1449-4035(05)70053-9
Lenschow, A., 2006, Europeanization of public policy. W: J. Richardson (red.), European Union: Power and Policy making (s. 55‑71). Abingdon: Routledge.
Luukkonen, J. (2015). Planning in Europe for 'EU'rope: Spatial planning as a political technology of territory. Planning Theory, 14(2), 174‑194. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1473095213519355
Medeiros, E. (2011). Territorial Cohesion: A Conceptual Analysis. Lizbona: Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning (IGOT) Alameda da Universidade. Pobrane z: https://3ftfah3bhjub3knerv1hneul-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/medeiros.pdf (13.11.2020).
Medeiros, E. (2016). Territorial Cohesion: An EU concept. European Journal of Spatial Development, 60. Pobrane z: https://archive.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/Refereed%20articles/refereed60.pdf (11.11.2020).
Medeiros, E. (2020). Fake or Real EU Territorialicy? Debating the Territorial Universe of EU Policies, EUROPA XXI, 38, 2020, 9‑31. http://doi.org/10.7.7163/Eu21.2020.38.4
OECD, (2001), Sustainable Development: Critical Issues. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264193185-en
Radaelli, C.M. (2004). Europeanisation: Solution or Problem? European Integration online Papers (EIoP), 8(16). http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004‑016a.htm
Rhinard, M., Kaeding, M. (2006). The International Bargaining Power of the European Union in "Mixed" Competence Negotiations: The Case of the 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(5), 1023‑1050. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2006.00672.x
Smas, L. & Lidmo, J. (2018). Case Study Report: Sweden. ESPON COMPASS, Nordregio.
UE. (2006). Odnowiona Strategia UE dotycząca Trwałego Rozwoju, Przegląd strategii UE dotyczącej trwałego rozwoju (EU SDS) - Odnowiona strategia, 10117/06, Bruksela: Rada Unii Europejskiej. Pobrane z: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10117‑2006-INIT/pl/pdf (19.11.2020).
Waterhout, B. (2008). The Institutionalisation of European Spatial Planning. Sustainable Urban Areas, 18. Delft: Delft University of Technology.
Wishlade, F., Yuill, D. & Mkendez, C. (2003). Regional policy in the EU: a passing phase of Europeanisation or a complex case of policy transfer? European Policy Research Paper, 50, Glasgow: University of Strathclyde, European Policies Research Centre.
Zaucha, J., Brodzicki, T., Ciołek, D., Komornicki, T., Mogiła, Z., Szlachta, J., & Zaleski J,. 2015, Terytorialny wymiar wzrostu i rozwoju, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Difin.
Zioło, Z. (2011). Wpływ światowego kryzysu na tempo wzrostu gospodarki i światowych korporacji, Prace Komisji Geografii Przemysłu PTG, 17, 9‑32.
Zito, A.R. (2005). The European Union as an environmental leader in a global environment. Globalizations, 2(3), 363‑375. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747730500377156
Zito, A.R., Burns, C. & Lenschow, S. (2019), Is the trajectory of European Union environmental policy less certain? Environmental Politics, 28(2), 187‑207. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1549779

Relation:

Przegląd Geograficzny

Volume:

93

Issue:

4

Start page:

555

End page:

585

Detailed Resource Type:

Article

Format:

application/octet-stream

Resource Identifier:

oai:rcin.org.pl:232816 ; 0033-2143 (print) ; 2300-8466 (on-line) ; 10.7163/PrzG.2021.4.4

Source:

CBGiOS. IGiPZ PAN, sygn.: Cz.181, Cz.3136, Cz.4187 ; click here to follow the link

Language:

pol

Language of abstract:

eng

Rights:

Creative Commons Attribution BY 4.0 license

Terms of use:

Copyright-protected material. [CC BY 4.0] May be used within the scope specified in Creative Commons Attribution BY 4.0 license, full text available at: ; -

Digitizing institution:

Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization of the Polish Academy of Sciences

Original in:

Central Library of Geography and Environmental Protection. Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization PAS

Projects co-financed by:

Programme Innovative Economy, 2010-2014, Priority Axis 2. R&D infrastructure ; European Union. European Regional Development Fund

Access:

Open