[Back]

B. Haselsberger:
"The everlasting importance of borders. Lessons from the Austrian-Italian border-area";
Talk: 23rd AESOP Congress 2009, Liverpool; 07-15-2009 - 07-18-2009; in: "Why can't the future be more like the past? Book of Abstracts", (2009), 23 - 24.

Given the extensive and increasing diversity of the European Union, the concept of "territorial cohesion" as a general policy objective seems increasingly unattainable. However, three factors demonstrate a raising demand for territorial co-operation. Firstly, the existence of state borders continues to have negative consequences for the immediately adjacent areas (Zonneveld, 2005). Secondly, today more than 32% of the European population lives in border-areas which comprise 40% of the European territory (Janssen, 2006). Thirdly, Europe is still confronted with the emergence of new state borders.
In broad terms, there seem to be two distinct views concerning territorial co-operation processes. The first is, in a figurative sense, a "top-down" perspective and deals primarily with the impact of European territorial policies on Member States. The second is more focussed on the internal co-operation between the different interests and objectives of each local territory, and may be characterised as "bottom-up" driven.
The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) has become an important policy document for spatial development in Europe, despite all criticism and shortcomings, and represents the pinnacle of a growing interest of (trans-national) spatial planning at the European scale (Adams, 2008; Faludi & Waterhoud, 2002; Kunzmann, 2006; Shaw & Sykes, 2004). The ESDP as well as other European documents, such as the Territorial Agenda, are tools that have indeed achieved an important position in the Europeanisation process. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that they are also leading to a degree of convergence/harmonisation of spatial planning in Europe from a top down perspective.
However, these top-down-level documents can never fully substitute territorial co-operation activities between areas at sub-European spatial scales, producing their own visions and strategies across their local borders (Fabbro & Haselsberger, forthcoming).
What hinders the process of trans-national co-operation and European spatial planning in general is the persistence of different planning traditions throughout Europe (Janin Rivolin & Faludi, 2005). A bottom-up planning process needs therefore to begin by recognising that different nations deal differently with similar spatial planning "issues" (CEC, 1997) in accordance with their own traditions and identities (Nadin & Stead, 2007). Nowadays trans-national co-operation often fails because of a shortfall of political interest, alongside the existence of deep structural deficiencies characterised by historical, linguistic and semantic barriers or, more generally, by cultural and natural diversities. In this sense reciprocal trust, and shared meanings and values become an essential "social capital" for pursuing trans-national co-operation activities (Haselsberger, 2008).
The example of the coterminous area comprising the Austrian Land Kärnten and the Italian regione autonoma of Friuli Venezia Giulia (FVG) constitutes a meaningful and concrete case. Although the two planning systems of Kärnten and FVG have been evolved in two completely different historical contexts and are currently belonging to two different legal families - differences at first glance - many similarities in the planning practice can be experienced on closer examination. Generally speaking, these two planning systems (in terms of generic functions and components, planning scales and procedures) are even much closer to each other than different planning systems within Italy. However, this raises the question why that little has been done up to now in terms of trans-national co-operation between Kärnten and FVG although the base, in the sense of the planning system and the distribution of competences in planning, is broadly similar.
The Austrian-Italian border-area provides an illuminating example for studying the difficulties and challenges of trans-national co-operation processes. It is the ambitious aim of this paper to explore the important (sometimes underestimated) meaning of "cultural assets" such as identity, tradition, language, cultural memory, in these complex environment, and to use that analysis to offer new insights to the everlasting debates on trans-national co-operation issues and border studies.

References:
ADAMS, N. (2008) Convergence and policy transfer: an examination of the extent to which approaches to spatial planning have converged within the context of an enlarged EU, in: International Planning Studies, Vol. 13(1), pp. 31-49.
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1999) ESDP European Spatial Development Perspective, Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Union. Luxembourg: CEC.
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1997) The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies. Regional development studies 28. Luxembourg: CEC.
FABBRO, S.; HASELSBERGER,B. (forthcoming) Spatial Planning Harmonisation as a Condition for Trans-national Cooperation. The Case of the Alpine-Adriatic Area, in: European Planning Studies.
FALUDI, A., WATERHOUT, B. (2002) The making of the European spatial development perspective. No materplan. London: Routledge.
HASELSBERGER, B. (2008): Co-operation beyond borders after the death of distance.
in: Regions No. 270, Regional Studies Association, Seaford, pp. 10-12.
JANIN RIVOLIN, U.; FALUDI, A. (2005) The Hidden Face of European Spatial Planning: Innovations in Governance, in: European Planning Studies, Vol. 13 (2), pp. 195-215.
JANSSEN, G. (2006) Europäische Verbünde für territoriale Zusammenarbeit, Berlin: LIT Verlag.
NADIN, V., STEAD, D. (2007) European models of society, planning systems and planning cultures, Paper presented at the AESOP 2007 Conference "Planning for the Risk Society", Naples.
KUNZMANN, K.R., (2006) Does Europe really need another ESDP? And if Yes, how should such an ESDP+ look like? in: L. PEDRAZZINI, ed al (Eds) The Process of Territorial Cohesion in Europe, pp 93-102, Milano: FrancoAngelo.
SHAW, D., SYKES, O. (2004) The Concept of Polycentricity in European Spatial Planning: Reflections on its Interpretation and Application in the Practice of Spatial Planning, in: International Planning Studies, 9(4), pp. 283-306.
ZONNEVELD, W. (2005) Expansive Spatial Planning: The New European Transnational Spatial Visions, in European Planning Studies, 13(1), pp. 137-155.

trans-national co-operation; borders; border-area; traditions; identities; Austria; Italy;