Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
would have been appropriate. This would, however, have required much more
attention to attractive and convincing 'packaging' of the document, including
catchy spatial images, yet during much of the process this was not part of the
discussion. What might have rescued the ESDP from becoming a 'paper tiger'
(Kunzmann, 1998b: 54) is the suggestion to link the emerging agenda on spatial
planning with the EU funding mechanism of Interreg, thus moving the document
more towards a 'programming' function aimed at co-ordination.
The ESDP process has shown that particular attention needs to be given to
working methods in a transnational spatial planning context without legal compe-
tence. A balance needs to be achieved between a member state taking the lead and
the equal involvement of all parties in the process. For the purposes of simplification,
one can distinguish an approach that requires an input from everybody in the final
policy maps (as was done for the French trend scenarios), and the situation where a
small group of experts take the lead in developing visualisations on which the wider
group can comment (as was done under subsequent presidencies). The first
approach has the benefit that every member of the group feels equally valued and
has some active participation in the content of the map, but at the same time this can
lead to policy maps that are a jigsaw of different definitions (for example 'urban area
of international significance') and concepts (for example 'gateway city'). Such a
jigsaw of fifteen different perspectives implies that national agendas are merely pro-
jected to a higher-level scale, but without actually challenging the 'spatial positioning'
skills of individual member states. Thus, it is almost impossible to compare the
information contained in such a map, as the same 'neutral' viewpoint has not been
applied to the European territory (which for example would attempt to represent the
size of small and large countries in relation to each other). The expert group
approach, in contrast, might lead to a comparable map which applies the same
standards and definitions across the territory,
9
yet can lead to geo-political sensitivi-
ties (i.e. the feeling of 'someone else drawing on our territory'). Such an approach
can easily be criticised for being non-democratic, for introducing a certain member-
state bias and thus leading to distortion. This demonstrates the overarching need for
transparency: to consider and share information on the data basis and categorisa-
tions used to demonstrate to members of the wider group how certain conclusions
on policy maps have been reached, as otherwise such an approach could result in
lack of trust in the mapped outcome and insecurity in the team.
The ESDP process has made it obvious that different countries look at maps
in different ways, and that different planning traditions and planning education had
a significant influence on the debates that took place in the CSD. In some coun-
tries a map is a 'plan', a blueprint of how things should be. In other countries more
indicative maps are used, that are not blueprints but 'target images' which are
intended as a framework for the co-ordination of actions but are not to be taken as
