If you live in Europe or elsewhere doesn't matter but efforts for integrated urban and territorial planning often end where selected sector policies dominate. And the lack of coordination may generate high costs. The European Union cohesion policy and spatial planning both have the common goal of territorial cohesion but often they stand like sector policies on their own and prevent synergy.

In December 2021 the European Territorial Observatory Network ESPON published its Policy Brief: Cross-fertilisation of cohesion policy and spatial planning. ESPON describes the two policies as complementary with a (not yet used) high potential for interrelation:

"EU cohesion policy and other EU sectoral policies provide funding to strengthen economic investment, employment and innovation; to promote more sustainable development; to enhance resilience to shocks and the impacts of climate change; to widen accessibility to services; and to build institutional capacity at all levels. Spatial planning employs strategy, policy and regulation to shape the spatial development of territories; to coordinate and combine investment in the most appropriate places; to protect sensitive environmental and cultural assets; to enhance the liveability of urban and rural environments; and to ensure all citizens have access to the opportunities and services they need." (page 7)

The paper argues that "spatial planning tools can play a key role in ensuring that in the countries and regions that receive cohesion policy funding the combined territorial impacts of cohesion policy and other sectoral policies are positive. Spatial planning in countries and regions is too often poorly prepared to assist with the territorial coordination of investments." The policy brief describes that the call for more effective coordination of sectoral policies had been long-standing but steps taken haven't been successful. A closer look is paid at the situation in Hungary and Czech Republic, followed by information on the changing relevance of cohesion policy and spatial planning in EU Member States.

The ESPON policy brief is in line with other EU documents like the European Spatial Development Perspective (1999) or the Barca Report (1999). It also can be seen as complementary to the United Nations New Urban Agenda and the International Guidelines on Urban and Territorial Planning. In addition, with new place-based tools like community-led local development (CLLD) and integrated territorial investment (ITI) the European Commission opened already the door for combining different funds and objectives across sectors.

Steps and actions that can strengthen cross-fertilisation

Following the above described analysis the policy brief proposes and outlines as key activity cross-fertilization to solve the problem. Cross-fertilization is understood as the interaction between sectoral policy decision-makers that creates complementarity increases efficiency through synergy and avoids the costs of non-coordination.

Seven practical steps are described as relevant to all countries, but especially where cohesion policy makes up a large share of territorial investments of the Union and Member States. The seven steps are not mandated but rest on the willingness of the main parties to cooperate for mutual benefit. They can be implemented with only minimal cost and much of this could be covered by cohesion policy. According to ESPON, experiences around Europe suggest that the resources needed are most certainly outweighed by the potential benefits.

The responsible parties should prioritise the following steps.

1. Resolve unfavourable conditions that will hinder measures to strengthen cross-fertilisation, ensuring inclusive good governance practices and challenging the dominant ‘policy silo’ mindset through institutional and individual capacity building.
2. Know the territorial impacts of cohesion policy by making use of territorial impact assessment (TIA) and consultation with stakeholders to evaluate and monitor the combined impacts of policies
3. Test the complementarity of investments made by cohesion policy and other sectoral policies with spatial planning strategies, identifying and mapping inconsistences and proposing actions to foster more consistency
4. Lift communication barriers that stifle joint working, by promoting the use of the same key terms, territorial units, indicators and data sets in policymaking, and set out priorities and responsibilities for action on harmonisation.
5. Champion joint working in territories where it is a priority to strengthen the efficiency of investment, at first through voluntary cooperation, and, if needed, through statutory ad hoc agencies that can take on a leading role in joining up policies and actions.
6. Promote place-sensitivity in cohesion policy by ensuring that the territorial dimension is given more priority by the managing authorities, including the spatial effects of investment and its relationship to existing spatial planning objectives.
7. Customise spatial planning tools for cross-fertilisation to create more responsive spatial strategies and plans that get to grips with investment opportunities, and align the rhythm of strategy and plan reviews with cohesion policy to achieve temporal integration.