II. TRANSNATIONALITY IN NATIONAL SPATIAL POLICY DOCUMENTS OF BSR COUNTRIES

The purpose of this chapter is to identify policy directions where consensus exists and, specifically, to analyse where transnationality plays an important role. National priorities concerning spatial development of individual countries in the BSR have been identified by national consultants reviewing relevant national policy documents (see Annex). Among these where national vision documents like "Denmark towards the year 2018" or "Sweden 2009 A Spatial Vision".

Furthermore, national sector plans have been consulted as regards transport, energy and environment.

Since this summary concentrates on the major issues relevant in the context of VASAB 2010+, some details may have been lost which can be relevant from the domestic perspective of the respective country.

The reviewed documents encompass a wide variety of policy statements in different fields and in different degrees of specification, from broad objectives to specific priority projects. This makes it sometimes difficult to highlight effective priorities.

Spatial policies in BSR countries pursue largely similar objectives. Therefore, examples given for one country are also valid for other BSR countries, though the focus may differ according to national circumstances.

>Overarching policy goal: sustainable development

All national documents set as their overall policy goal to promote sustainable social, economical and environmental development.

As an example, the Concept of the National Spatial Plan of Latvia (1998) sees as its task to facilitate the formation of co-ordinated regional policies, to ensure environment protection, to promote the rational use of territory and nature resources, to have a proper management and protection of nature and cultural and historic heritage, and to create conditions for an effective network of settlements and infrastructure.

The operationalisation of sustainable spatial development in BSR countries is discussed according to the main components of the spatial system: settlement system, infrastructure system, green system and planning system.

1. Settlement system

The following issues are consistently prioritised across BSR countries:

Maintaining and enhancing a balanced settlement system (the macro system):

• Support to areas suffering from peripherality and to rural areas.
• Support to national growth centres.
• Benefit from urban networking.

Structure of individual urban regions (micro system):

• Sustainable internal spatial structure of urban regions.
• Redevelopment of big housing estates.
• Conversion of derelict military and industrial sites.

Peripheral and rural areas

Norway, Sweden and Finland give priority to the stabilisation of peripheral centres, since these countries are characterised by long distances between settlements. Measures and development programmes range from transport issues to information and communication technology, always aiming at a stimulation of economic growth and services supply in these regions.

In Belarus, emphasis is given to the upgrading of road and communication infrastructure to link rural areas to major urban centres.

Estonia has developed a system of special target regions. These include rural areas in the south-east of the country. A co-ordinated innovation support system has been set up to strengthen innovative potentials in rural areas.

In the end of year 2000, the Finnish Council of State decided upon national land use guidelines which concern significant national interests such as a well-functioning urban structure, quality of the environment, transport and other major infrastructure networks, natural resources as well as natural and cultural heritage. According to the new Land Use and Building Act, these guidelines are implemented mainly through regional plans which are prepared by the Regional Councils. These plans are sanctioned by the Ministry of the Environment. International agreements and programmes can be implemented by these national guidelines. On the other hand, Finlands's national viewpoints may be integrated into such agreements through national guidelines. For instance national guidelines may be used to apply the policy options included in the European Spatial Planning and Development Perspective (ESDP) or the Vasab 2010 Plus Framework. Finland fosters transnational co-operation for example in the border areas of northern Finland and Russia to mutually strengthen towns along both sides of the border and benefit from synergy effects.

Germany stresses the need that small rural urban centres develop networks and to strengthen a restricted number of such centres (decentralised concentration). This shall be supported by corresponding infrastructure improvements linking regional centres together and achieving good accessibility between main centres of different regions.

Latvia stresses the importance of those rural areas having insufficiently competitive urban centres, which leads to out-migration to major urban regions.

Lithuania support to rural areas is based on the promotion of meat and milk production and the establishment of agro-services.

Norway's support schemes aim at attracting the younger generation to rural areas, developing skills of labour force and improving job opportunities.

In Poland attention is drawn to structural change, hidden unemployment and mass job losses in rural areas of northern, western and south-eastern Poland. Multifunctional development schemes are seen as an instrument, supplemented by measures to enhance the mobility of labour force, the creation of new jobs, and to strengthen the competitiveness of a existing job opportunities in respective regions.

National growth centres

Throughout the BSR, special attention is paid to national growth centres. In most BSR countries these are the national resp. regional capital areas. Such gravitation areas are considered to be vital for economic, social and cultural development. There strengthening is therefore stressed. But as these comparatively powerful regions cause a drainage of population and services from other areas, the need for counterbalancing measures is also pointed out.

Besides the capital regions, particularly in major BSR countries, other urban regions of specific importance are emphasised: Belarus - urban regions along the trans-European corridor no.2 with Brest, Baranovichi, Borisov and Orsha; Estonia - Tartu; Lithuania - Kaunas Sweden - Malmö, Gothenburg. Poland - Cracow, Poznan, Gdańsk-Sopot-Gdynia (Tri-City). The specific potentials on which to build in such places are different. For example, Tartu (Estonia) can base on its university tradition (enhancing sciences important for innovation and new-economy sectors). Kaunas (Lithuania) bases on the potential to form an urban region of European importance together with Vilnius. Cracow and Poznan (Poland) can base on their international orientation. But in all cases, the innovation strength is seen as a decisive factor.

Urban Development

National growth centres also face negative developments. Social segregation, road congestion, deficient public transport, sub-urbanisation, threats to the loss of cultural urban heritage are addressed by all BSR countries.

A topic highlighted in Denmark is the inefficient use of urban areas, in particular at old industrial sites. The need is stressed to promote the re-use of such areas, especially if located close to railway stations and traffic nodes.

A frequently stated challenge refers to urban sprawl, growing land consumption for settlements, and the adaptation of land use to the demands from new economies.

In Germany, the need is highlighted to rehabilitate large housing estates built under the socialist regime in the former GDR. These estates are characterised by low standard, high maintenance cost, and - in some regions - heavy loss of nearby job opportunities on which these estates were based. As a consequence, they encounter a losses of population (migrating elsewhere or preferring other forms of housing), turning them into social problem areas. In less prosperous areas, the pulling-down of such complexes has become a necessity even where costly rehabilitation has occurred. This issue is also addressed by Poland, where participatory planning for restructuring of these estates has been introduced.

Another important issue, explicitly addressed by Kaliningrad and Germany, is the conversion of former military sites for the benefit of regional development. The closing down of such sites has resulted in structural problems especially in rural areas where few alternatives for employment exist. In Kaliningrad, a regional centre "Baltic Conversion" has been set up to utilise the military arsenal for public purposes.

Urban networking

Inter-city co-operation has become a major issue in many BSR countries (similarly to the EU). Sweden seeks to strengthen weaker regions by a system of urban regions complementing each other. Complexes of various minor urban centres, efficiently bound together by transport services and co-operation networks can develop bigger and more diversified labour markets, and thus strengthen their competitiveness.

In Germany a federal research programme comprising a number of experimental city networks has been launched.

Norway also underlines the benefits from inter-municipal co-operation.