A European picture of the MidNord-region (based on ESPON)

Transcription

1 A European picture of the MidNord-region (based on ESPON) 23 April Introduction The territorial structure Peripheral position in the European urban system Population Nature Accessibility Profile Economic profile Human resources profile Cultural profile Impacts of EU policies Transport Structural Funds INTERREG CAP

2 1 Introduction ESPON is a unique source of comparative studies on territorial structures, trends, policy impacts and possible development scenarios covering all regions of the EU plus Norway and Switzerland. Between 2002 and 2006, 34 applied research projects have been carried out by ESPON addressing a wide range of themes and topics. The target group of the applied research activities has been mainly the territorial policy community at EU level, and to a certain degree also at the national level. The ESPON material also allows regional actors to see their region in a European context. The results are useful for discussions of a region s advantages or disadvantages as compared to other European regions, and also for discussions on framework conditions for future development. Thus the ESPON material can give stimulus to discussions about territorial development potentials at all geographical levels. It has to be noted that the majority of the over 30,000 pages of reports and maps produced by ESPON are difficult and time consuming to digest. For the present report a team of EuroFutures staff members involving Kai Böhme, Kajsa Forsberg and Hallgeir Aalbu have reviewed the available ESPON material with the focus on what it says about the MidNord-region in a European perspective. The purpose of the work is to stimulate the discussion on the territorial development of the MidNord-region. The report presents first findings regarding the MidNord-region in the context of the European territorial structure, accessibility, specific profiles and impacts of EU policies. Generally, the MidNord-region is a peripheral region which is in European terms rather rural and inaccessible. Despite this position, the economic development is good in European terms and large parts of the region belong to the top league when measuring the core indicators related to the fulfilment of the Lisbon Agenda. Furthermore, the region appears as cultural and creative with different economic specialisations in its different sub-regions. The main picture has three dimensions: (a) The MidNord-region has a distinct peripheral position just beyond the last peripheral hubs and major development nodes in the European urban system, i.e. Oslo, Stockholm and Helsinki. Although it still has reasonable accessibility to these larger cities, the region is very peripheral in a European comparison. Even the capital regions of the three countries are already peripheral in a European sense. This is underlined by the analysis of the urban system, the rural-urban settings in Europe, the population density and the accessibility. (b) The MidNord-region is strong where its countries are strong and weak where its countries are weak. Indeed, in most analysis the MidNord-region and its Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish sub-regions reflect rather well the situation of their countries. In a European perspective the sub-regions have largely the same structures and potentials and follow the same development trends as most regions in their countries. Certainly, in many respects there are huge variations within the countries. Mostly the capital regions differ from the rest. Even if the MidNord-region has high or low scores in the national contexts, they seem to be close to the figures for their respective countries 2

3 when we look at it in the European context. (c) The MidNord-region is an inhomogeneous region with significant differences between the various sub-regions when it comes to concrete aspects of territorial structures and developments. Although all parts of the region share the peripheral position, the territorial developments differ widely. This makes it difficult to summarise the territorial situation of the region in detail and may also challenge the development of a joint territorial strategy. At the same time, this diversity can be an advantage if it is possible to utilise the different potentials for cooperation and thus benefit from a broad spectrum of development opportunities and develop synergies between them. 2 The territorial structure The territorial structure is an important legacy from the past and contains development potentials for the futures. This regards among others the urban system, the population patterns and the nature. ESPON studies offer some insights on selected features of the territorial structure and allow seeing differences and communalities across Europe. 2.1 Peripheral position in the European urban system There are different ways of defining cities. They can be administrative units, or defined by some population threshold, or functionally defined (e.g. by their travel-to-work areas). An approach based on their functions has been used by ESPON, and a total of 1595 functional urban areas (FUAs) was identified within the EU plus Norway and Switzerland. These urban areas have been ranked into five groups to characterise their importance within the European urban system. The largest and most important city regions were characterised as Metropolitan European Growth Areas (MEGAs). Other regions are named transnational FUAs, national FUAs or regional/local FUAs. This ranking was based on the following indicators: (a) number of inhabitants, (b) competitiveness (GVA in manufacturing), (c) knowledge base (number of university students), (d) accessibility (number of airport passengers and volume of freight at a port), (e) access to decision making (number of headquarters of top 1500 European firms), and (f) access to public administration (highest level of public administration located there). Peripheral in the European urban system. In the MidNord-region there are three city regions that are classified as transnational/national FUAs, namely Trondheim, Vaasa and Jyväskyla. The other functional urban areas in the region are considered to be regional and local. Both in a Nordic and European perspective the FUAs in the MidNord-region are rather peripheral to the main urban structure, even if they play an important role in the respective national systems, which is particularly true for Norway and Finland. In Norway, Trondheim is the Northern-most FUA of transnational/national importance and gained this importance mainly due to its university and transport function. Norway has also two FUAs characterised as Metropolitan European Growth Areas (MEGAs): Oslo and Bergen. 3

4 In Sweden all cities in the MidNord-region are considered being of regional/local importance, whereas the most of the FUAs of higher importance are located south of the MidNord-region. Towards the north only Umeå and Luleå are considered being of transnational/national importance. Sweden has also three FUAs characterised as Metropolitan European Growth Areas (MEGAs): Stockholm, Göteborg and Malmö. In Finland the MidNord-region is well situated in a rather polycentric urban system with Vaasa and Jyväskyla as main nodes in the Finnish MidNord-region. They gained their importance mainly due to the universities and industry. Finland has also two FUAs characterised as Metropolitan European Growth Areas (MEGAs): Helsinki and Turku. (ESPON 1.1.1/Polycentricity) Low potential to strengthen European position through enlarging functional regions. Territorial cooperation between neighbouring cities can improve their position in the European urban system based on a joint exploration of comparative advantages. Increased cooperation between neighbouring areas may form more polycentric urban areas with a larger mass of population and businesses. Such strategic cooperation, including a greater number of inhabitants in the polycentric urban area, makes it possible to attract or establish a higher level of services. The use of this cooperation model can, in principle, support a better territorial balance and polycentric development. However, this is not necessarily a realistic option in the MidNord-region. Here, the large distances between cities and the low population density imply that cooperation with municipalities within e.g. 45 minutes driving distance does not make any change, as cities not are located close enough to each other. This is rather different in the more densely populated and urbanised parts of Europe. Therefore, the cities in the MidNord-region might become even less significant in case urban areas in other parts of Europe systematically enlarge their functional urban regions by strengthening cooperation between neighbouring areas (ESPON 1.1.1/Polycentricity). At the same time it might be argue that people in peripheral locations are willing to travel and commute longer (time wise) than people in more densely populated areas. If this is the case, the MidNord-region has a slightly better opportunity for positioning their functional urban areas through regional enlargement. Rural in a European perspective. There is no common understanding in Europe of what a rural area is, and what an urban area is. ESPON has presented a typology which shows a range of different area types from highly urbanised areas to very rural areas. The most urbanised areas are here characterised by high population density and the presence of a significant urban centre as well as a high degree of human footprint (defined on the basis of land cover, which means the share of artificial surfaces and of agricultural land in a region). The most rural areas on the other hand are characterised by low population density, the absence of significant urban centres (in a European perspective) and a low degree of human footprint. In this typology all areas of the MidNord-region are characterised as areas by low urban influence and low human footprint. Indeed most regions in Norway, Sweden and Finland fall into this category and only the capital regions plus Skåne are considered being of high-urban influence and having a high human footprint. Thus the MidNord-region has the same characteristic as most regions in the Nordic countries and also many other regions in the 4

5 European periphery (e.g. Scotland, Spain, Greece) but also parts of the Alps. (ESPON 1.1.2/Rural-urban) These results present the MidNord-region through the European spectacles and related to European averages. Certainly, the picture would be different if the same methodology would be applied but adjusted to Nordic average values and taking into account a more detail geographical level. This would give a more nuanced picture and also show variations within the MidNord-region. Considerable differences in land consumption. The human footprint in a region is also an interesting measure with regard to land consumption. The land consumption per inhabitant in a region is measured as the artificial surfaces (in km 2 ) per inhabitants. The picture for the MidNord-region is rather mixed ranging from very high figures for land consumption per inhabitant in the Swedish part which are declining as one moves to the east and reaching very low values in the Eastern Finnish parts of the MidNord-region. Unfortunately, no data has been available for Norway in this ESPON project. In the case of Sweden, all NUTS 3 regions outside the four urban regions (Stockholm, Göteborg, Malmö och Uppsala) fall into the highest European class regarding artificial areas per inhabitant. Thus the Swedish MidNord-regions also fall into this class of extremely high land consumption per inhabitant. The Finnish NUTS 3 regions show a much broader spectrum and are generally well below the Swedish figures. In the case of the MidNord-region it is only the NUTS 2 region of Vaasa which has in a European perspective a medium high level of land consumption, whereas all other areas fall into the lowest class. (ESPON 1.1.2/Ruralurban) 5

6 Map: Typology of Functional Urban Areas 6

7 Map: Areas within 45 minutes reach from urban centres 7

8 Map: Potential polycentric regions in Europe 8

9 Map: Rural-urban typology 9

10 Map: Artificial surfaces per capita 10

11 2.2 Population The demographic profile of the MidNord-region has been analysed for the Sundsvall- Östersund-Trondheim-region (SÖT) and the MidNord-region in some detail in earlier studies. These studies illustrate the differences in population density and also the population dynamics and age dimension. In particular Jämtlandand, Etelä-Savo/Södra Savolax faced annual population declines above 5% in , whereas Sør-Trøndelag on the other hand experienced population increases of more than 5% annually in the same period, mainly due to immigration. (EuroFutures and Nordregio study) Whereas these studies present rather detailed pictures of the MidNord-region ESPON allow us to place the region in a European context and to see how it is doing as compared other European regions. Europe is facing major challenges in terms of demographic development. The demographic changes and the ageing of the European population are expected to affect the spatial structure of Europe. Factors such as trends in natural population development and migratory patterns have impacts on the territorial development and the division of labour between regions. Decreasing population figures Demographic development is in particular related to three factors: fertility rates, age structure and migration, each of which shows different spatial patterns. Current demographic developments pose a significant challenge to Europe as the population becomes more geographically concentrated. When looking at the European demographic development trends, some areas are losing population due to both natural population change and migration, while some areas are gaining on both demographic factors. The majority of European regions face increasing challenges regarding the total population development. The MidNord-region faced decreasing population figures with a negative migratory balance in all the parts of the region between 1996 and However, some differences can be seen when it comes to the natural balance. The Norwegian part of the MidNord-region and the western Finish part had a positive natural population development, while the Swedish and eastern Finish regions had a negative natural population change. The general picture of the MidNord-region s population development is however negative and can be compared to that of other regions in the European periphery. Regions that show similar characteristics can be found in the Baltic countries, in eastern European countries such as Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria as well as in the northern parts of Spain and the UK. (ESPON 1.1.4/Demography) Probably high median-age in Long-term forecasts based on the current developments indicate that Europe faces increasing challenges with regard to depopulation in certain parts of its territory. These challenges are often associated with people tending to concentrate in highly urbanised areas, thus further contributing to the already existing imbalances in population density patterns. Population ageing is another challenge and a long-term process which affects most parts of Europe. Increasingly, it will become an issue, as the share of the population being in retirement age and out of the labour market is increasing. Thus the balance between people active in the labour market and those outside the labour market (because of age) will change. This change will affect a wide range of issues related to the welfare system and service provision. 11

12 Within the ESPON programme, a series of scenarios has been developed, one of which shows demographic perspectives. Working on the hypothesis that existing trends and policies are continued, the demographic patterns in Europe in 2030 might differ considerably from those in By 2030, the European population is, on average, much older than in 2005, the ageing process has been amplifying and wide areas in Europe have reached a median age above 44 years. As in almost all parts of Europe, the MidNord-region will have a considerably higher median age in 2030 than in In the Mid-Nord-region the median age in Trondheim is expected to be relatively low in 2030 the median age increases towards the east of the MidNord-region and reaches rather high levels in the eastern Finnish MidNordregion. Taken together, all of the MidNord-region is expected to have a median age lying above those in metropolitan areas. However, for being a rural region in a European perspective the median age is still not expected to have the extreme values pictured for many other rural areas in (ESPON 3.2/Scenarios) Map: Components of population development,

13 Map: Baseline scenario on demographic perspectives 13

14 2.3 Nature Land-use, landscape and nature are important intangible factors influencing a region s profile and in particular the attractiveness and quality of life. At the same time these factors are often very subjective and difficult to measure in an objective and European-wide comparative way. This is particularly challenged by the fact that European-wide comparative analysis mostly focuses in NUTS 2 or NUTS 3 regions which tend to be too large in particular in the Nordic countries to catch the often rather local specificities of the nature and environment. A more nuanced picture which presents the land-use pattern in the MidNord-region on a 1x1 km level has been elaborated in an earlier study but as it is limited to the MidNord-region. (Nordregio study) Indicators such as the share of NATURA 2000 areas and other protected areas have of the total area in a region, or ecological vulnerability and fragmentation might offer some first insights. Relatively low share of NATURA 2000 areas. The extent of protected areas in Europe has grown in the past fifteen years although most such areas remain protected islands. The European Union established NATURA 2000 as a network of specially protected areas. This is the main EU policy instrument for the protection of flora, fauna and habitats. Some countries have a high percentage of NATURA 2000 areas (i.e. more than 10% of their surface). Sweden and Finland belong to the countries with lower figures and the protected areas are mainly situated in peripheral regions. Norway on the other hand, has a high percentage of NATURA 2000 areas. In a MidNord perspective, Sør-Trøndelag, Nord-Trøndelag and Etelä-Savo/Södra Savolax have the highest figures (15% -16%). Jämtland is also considered to have a high share with 10.1%, whereas Västernorrland, Pohjanmaa/Österbotten and Keski- Suomi/Mellersta Finland have the lowest figures (0-5%). (ESPON 1.3.1/Hazards, ESPON 2.4.1/Environment, and Nordregio 2006:2, p Data from PELCOM) Huge differences in the share of nationally protected areas. In addition to NATURA 2000, there are also a wide range of national protection lists. These are however difficult to compare across countries. An analysis of the number of protected conjuncts and landscapes in national lists per square km, presents a picture which is rather different to the one of NATURA Here all of Finland and thus also the Finnish MidNord-region falls into the highest category. Whereas Trøndelag och Västernorrland are on an average European level and Jämtland has a low share of protected conjuncts and landscapes per square km in national lists. Thus the aggregated picture for the MidNord-region is rather mixed and shows a huge variety which corresponds to differences between the countries. (ESPON 1.3.3/Culture) High levels of nature fragmentation in a Nordic, but in a European perspective low. Landscape indicators, such as fragmentation, help to understand the complexity of the European landscape. The fragmentation of natural landscapes, e.g. by urban development can damage a range of ecological processes such as water courses and fauna and flora habitats. Thus fragmentation can be an indicator for the ecological vulnerability of an area. In the Nordic countries the extensive forests are mentioned in particular by ESPON research considering the ecological vulnerability. Whereas most parts of the Nordic countries fall into the group with lowest degree of fragmentation, the MidNord-region (except the eastern part of the Finnish region) fall in the group with the second lowest degree of fragmentation. This is still a low level of fragmentation in a European comparison but rather unfavourable for being 14

15 in the Nordic countries. Unfortunately the data on fragmentation does not cover Norway. (ESPON 2.4.1/Environment) Low vulnerability in a European perspective. A more elaborated indicator on vulnerability is based on GDP per capita, population density, national GDP and proportion of fragmented natural areas of all natural areas. This aggregated vulnerability indicator shows that less densely populated areas tend to have lower vulnerability values. Indeed, most of Norway, Sweden and Finland fall in the lowest European class of vulnerability and so do all areas of the MidNord-region. (ESPON 1.3.1/Hazards) A safe place to be. The attractiveness of an area is also influenced by the hazard risks in that area. Within ESPON 15 different natural and technological hazards have been studied regarding their regional differentiation in reoccurrence or risk. The natural hazards addressed are avalanches, drought potential, earthquakes, extreme temperatures, floods, forest fires, landslides, storm surges, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, winter and tropical storms. The technological hazards addressed are air traffic hazards, major accident hazard, nuclear power plants, oil processing, storage and transportation. Considering all 15 hazards in an aggregated approach, the MidNord-region belongs to the areas with the lowest figures on natural and technological hazards. However, there are some variations. Whereas Sør-Trøndelag has a medium aggregated hazards level in a European perspective, the Finnish MidNord-region and Jämtland belong to those areas in Europe with the lowest levels. The remaining areas of this region lie in between these. (ESPON 1.3.1/Hazards) Technological hazards more prominent in Norway than in the rest of MidNord. The picture is slightly different when considering the natural and technological hazards separately. As regards the aggregated picture of the four technological hazards most parts of Norway and thus also Trøndelag reach average European technological hazard levels. The hazards levels in Sweden and Finland tend to be lower than in Norway. As for the Swedish and Finnish MidNord-region all parts fall into the lowest range for technological hazards. (ESPON 1.3.1/Hazards) Medium to low natural hazards levels. The aggregated picture of the 11 natural hazards is almost contrary to the picture of the technological hazards. Here Västernorrland, Pohjanmaa/Österbotten and Keski-Suomi/Mellersta Finland fall into the class of average European natural hazards levels. Nord-Trøndelag falls into the lowest natural hazard class and the remaining MidNord-areas lie between these two classes. Thus the comparative European situation for the MidNord-region is at medium to low natural hazards level, which is not outstanding and not as good as the comparative European situation in the field of technological hazards. (ESPON 1.3.1/Hazards) 15

16 Map: Natura 2000 areas 16

17 Map: Potential use pressure on protected cultural landscapes and heritage conjuncts from local population 17

18 Map: Fragmentation of natural areas 18

19 Map: Integrated vulnerability 19

20 MAP: Aggregated natural and technological hazards 20

21 3 Accessibility Accessibility is one of the most important indicators used to describe the territorial aspects of the transport system. The quantity and quality of a region s infrastructural endowment, as well as distance to population and/or economic centres, plays an important role in the definition of accessibility. The concept of potential accessibility has been developed in order to cover these aspects in one indicator: the opportunities to be reached (population or GDP or income, in this case population) in a certain territory (in this case the entire Europe) weighted by the effort in terms of distance, time or cost (in this case time). Thus, an accessibility indicator describes the relative location of an area and illustrates the benefits that accrue to households and firms in an area in terms of the available transport infrastructure and the available transport services. In terms of physical accessibility at European level, the MidNord-region is rather challenged. However, a correlation analysis between European accessibility and economic situation (GDP per capita) shows that the economic situation in the MidNord-region is better than what the accessibility would suggest. This underlines the importance of other factors for regional development and the limited explanatory value of European accessibility for economic development. Low multimodal European accessibility. Multimodal accessibility expresses the combined effects of alternative transport modes, i.e. an aggregated picture of road, rail and air accessibility (including waterways to where ferries are links in the road or rail network) for a certain location. The multimodal accessibility of the MidNord-region is well below the European average. The NUTS 3 regions Nord-Trøndelag and Etelä-Pohjanmaa/Södra Österbotten are among the regions with the lowest multimodal accessibility in Europe. The low accessibility is rather characteristic for large parts of the Nordic Countries and Baltic Sea Region. Only the larger urban areas reach and partly exceed the European average multimodal accessibility. (ESPON 1.2.1/Transport) Extremely low accessibility by road and rail. Considering European accessibility by road or rail, all parts of the MidNorden-region fall into the lowest class of European accessibility. Again, this is rather characteristic for Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish regions. Indeed, only some regions in the southern part of Sweden have better European accessibility by road or rail but the values are still far below the European average. (ESPON 1.2.1/Transport & ESPON accessibility update) Low accessibility by air. Most peripheral regions show low accessibility by road and rail, whereas they may have a slightly better accessibility by air in case they have an airport with good flight connections. This is also the case in the MidNord-region. When European regions are divided into 10 classes for accessibility, all Mid-Nord-egions fall into the two weakest classes. Whereas most regions are showing low accessibility by air, the NUTS 3 regions Nord-Trøndelag and Etelä-Pohjanmaa/Södra Österbotten are characterised by extremely low accessibility by air. Here it has to be taken into account that the figures are measuring the time from the regional capital to the airports, even if most of the population lives close to the airport. (ESPON 1.2.1/Transport) More than one hour drive to the nearest transport terminal. For many people the time they need to get to the next transport terminal (e.g. motorway entrance, railway station or commercial seaports) is more important than the overall European accessibility of their region. The connectivity to transport terminals very much reflects the main road networks. In 21

22 most parts of the MidNord-region the time to the nearest transport terminal is more than 1 hour and only the urban centres show lower figures. This is rather characteristic for sparsely populated areas in the European periphery. The more polycentric structure of the Finnish MidNord-region is reflected in slightly better values as compared to those in the Norwegian and Swedish regions. However, in all cases the regions show higher values (i.e. longer travel times) than the capital and main urban centres of their respective countries. (ESPON 1.2.1/Transport) Moderate to high information society readiness, growth and impact. Accessibility is not only limited to physical transportation but comprises also ICT. As the provision of ICTinfrastructure does not necessarily imply that people use ICT or even benefit from it, the full information society lifecycle needs to be considered. This brings together information on (a) the readiness to use ICT means, (b) the availability and use, and (c) the impact of the usage. The combination is presented in the Information Society Index, where areas with the highest values are most likely to gain from the impacts and development of innovations in the field. Generally the Nordic countries, along with the core of Europe, are further ahead in terms of ICT accessibility and the information society lifecycle. The MidNord-region has mainly high and moderate high values. With these values they show a performance above European average albeit not in the top class. Trøndelag and Länsi-Suomi/Västra Finlands län have high values in the information society index which put them in a pretty good position, although in both countries there are regions with very high European values which thus are more advanced. Mellersta Norrland shows only moderate high values which is still above the European average but the lowest group registered in Sweden. Also the Eastern parts of the Finnish MidNord region show the lowest national values which in this case are even below the European average. (ESPON 1.2.3/InfoSo) 22

23 Map: Potential multimodal accessibility,

24 Map: Potential accessibility by road,

25 Map: potential accessibility by rail,

26 Map: Potential accessibility by air,

27 Map: Connectivity to transport terminals,

28 Map: Information society readiness, growth and impact,

29 4 Profile The physical structure and accessibility of an area are not sufficient to see the territorial potentials and reasons why people should come and/or invest in that area. For a better understanding of the comparative territorial advantages or disadvantages more needs to be said about an area s characteristics and profile. The ESPON material may be used for some reflections on the economic profile, the issue of human resources and the cultural dimension. 4.1 Economic profile Earlier studies looking at the Sundsvall-Östersund-Tronheim-region (SÖT) or at the entire MidNord-region have presented a detailed picture of some economic factors and the variation within the MidNord-region. They reveal some more detailed insights into the economic structure and the diversity within the MidNord-region. This is e.g. reflected in the analysis of the importance of the manufacturing sector for the regional development which is very low in Sør-Trøndelag but rather high in Västernorrland, Pohjanmaa/Österbotten and Keski- Suomi/Mellersta Finland (Nordregio study). Furthermore, the employment in different branches has been studied for SÖT. This study illustrates the importance of trade, commercial services and communications in the region. Furthermore, it underlines that 35.8% of the employment is in the public sector (EuroFutures study). The ESPON studies analysed confirm largely the pictures drawn up by these early reports by providing a comparative European perspective. Certainly, ESPON does not go into the same level of detail as the studies mentioned above, but reveals some interesting conclusions on how the MidNord-regions can be seen in relation to the other regions in the EU, Norway and Switzerland. Above average GDP per capita with specific focus on coastal areas. The gross domestic product (GDP) in purchasing power standards (PPS) per capita is higher in the MidNordregion than in most of the other regions within EU, Norway and Switzerland. In particular Sør-Trøndelag, Västernorrland and Pohjanmaa/Österbotten have a GDP per capita which is clearly above the average. (ESPON 4.1.3/Monitoring) West-east decline in Lisbon performance. With the renewed Lisbon Agenda, the EU aims to improve its competitiveness and to become the world s leading knowledge-based economy. The European Commission and the European Council have agreed on a set of fourteen indicators to measure the progress of the Lisbon Agenda. In an ESPON report seven of these fourteen indicators have been merged into one combined indicator. These seven indicators are (a) GDP per capita, (b) GDP per employed person, (c) employment rate, (d) employment rate of older workers, (e) gross domestic expenditure on R&D, (f) dispersion of regional (un)employment rates, and (g) long-term unemployment rate. The combined indicator illustrates that regions with high performance are mainly located in Switzerland, Austria, Germany, the Benelux, UK, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. In the MidNord-region there is a clear west-east divide. Trøndelag belongs to the regions with the highest score on the Lisbon performance indicators in Europe. The Swedish MidNord-region falls into the next lower class, but is still above the average performance. The Finnish MidNord-region shows average European performance with regard to this Lisbon-indicator. 29

30 The same west-east difference is visible also when comparing the three countries with each other. (ESPON 3.3/Lisbon) West and east MidNord strong on R&D. Large parts of the Nordic countries have in a European context a relatively strong Research and Development (R&D) profile. This is also true for some parts of the MidNord-region. The combination of R&D personnel, personnel in BES (Business Enterprise Sector) and expenditure on R&D, shows that in particular Trøndelag belongs to the group of regions with the highest R&D values. In Norway it is only the Oslo region which has similarly high values. The Finnish MidNord-region has lower values, but does nevertheless have high R&D values in a European perspective. However, the region is amongst the regions with the lowest R&Dactivities within Finland, were large parts of the regions fall into the highest European group. The Swedish MidNord-region falls into the lowest class as regards the combined R&D indicator. The region has low R&D importance in the European as well as in the national Swedish context, since most Swedish regions fall into one of the two highest classes in the European ranking. (ESPON 2.1.2/R&D) A cultural and creative region. Creativity and culture are increasingly emphasised as factors for regional development. The share of local working population engaged in cultural and creative professions is one indication of the extent to which culture and creativity are embedded in the local production systems. This is important both as a force for endogenous economic development, and as an attraction to people and investments from the outside. People in culture and creative professions employed in various cultural industries, as well as performing culture-oriented tasks in other sectors *. The number of people in culture jobs as share of the local active population presents a rather surprising diversity across Europe. Generally, the highest share can be found in a number of urban regions, many of which are capitals. Some countries demonstrate a high degree of creativity or capacity to utilise cultural values for strong knowledge-based industries such as Finland (telecom), Sweden (design and electronics), the Netherlands (media and publishing) or Switzerland (design and architecture). The Finnish and Swedish parts of the MidNord-region fall into the second highest class in the European analysis. Thus they have, as most parts of their countries, high shares of cultural employment. Trøndelag is just above the European average and, in the * Professions considered: Managers of cultural enterprises and institutions; Production and operations managers not elsewhere classified; Managers of small enterprises in cultural activities (cinemas, theatres, art galleries ); Computer systems designers and analysts; Computer programmers; Computing professionals not elsewhere classified; Computer systems designers and analysts; Computer programmers; Computing professionals not elsewhere classified; Architects, town and traffic planners; Art teachers (higher education); Art teachers (secondary education); Archivists and curators ; Librarians; Sociologists, anthropologists and related professionals; Philologists, translators; Authors, journalists and other writers; Sculptors, painters and related artists; Composers, musicians and singers; Choreographers and dancers; Film, stage and related actors and directors; Photographers and image and sound equipment operators; Agents and promoters related to cultural activities; Cultural animator; Decorators and commercial designers ; Radio, television and other announcers ; Street, night club and related musicians, singers and dancers; Clowns, magicians, acrobats and related associate professionals; Religious associate professionals; Travel guides; Fashion and other models; Precision-instrument makers and repairers; Musical instrument makers and tuners; Jewellery and precious-metal workers; Abrasive wheel formers, potters and related workers; Glass makers, cutters, grinders and finishers; Glass engravers and etchers; Glass, ceramics and related decorative painters; Handicraft workers in wood and related materials; Handicraft workers in textile, leather and related materials; Compositors, typesetters and related workers; Stereotypers and electrotypers; Printing engravers and etchers; Photographic and related workers; Bookbinders and related workers; and Silk-screen, block and textile printers. 30

31 Norwegian context, the region shows a medium-low share of cultural employment. (ESPON 1.3.3/Culture) MidNord has different specialisations. Regional specialisation is a key issue in many ongoing debates. The very idea of specialisation implies that each region is different. However, it is useful to look for some features that are shared. A typology of regional specialisation on the basis of each region s contribution of valued added in 25 economic sectors of activity gives some ideas on the long-term development factors which are of relevance for different types of regions. Following this approach, the ESPON analysis developed seven categories of regions at NUTS 2 level. Every NUTS2 region of the MidNord-region falls into a different group, which underlines the diversity within MidNord. Trøndelag is characterised as market & non-market personal services, weak in industry. Mellersta Norrland is characterised as neutral central without big cities, which implies that it was not possible to identify any specific characteristic. Länsi- Suomi/Västra Finlands län is characterised as high and medium technological industries and Itä Suomi/ Östra Finlands län is characterised as non-market services, agriculture & light industry. (ESPON 3.4.2/Economy) Focus on non-market services in large parts of MidNord. Another typology exploring the regional specialisation focuses on specific predefined sectors and their importance in the regional economy. This typology reveals that the Norwegian and Swedish MidNord-regions as well as Itä Suomi/Östra Finlands län have a large public sector ( high share of non-market services ). This is characteristic for large parts of their countries and more generally for rural regions in Europe. In the case of Itä Suomi/Östra Finlands län this is also combined with a considerable activity in the fields of agriculture and building industry. Länsi-Suomi/Västra Finlands län is rather different from the rest of MidNord as it has a predominantly high share in the field of high technological industry. (ESPON 3.4.2/Economy) Medium energy price sensitivity. The sensibility to energy price changes is a rather important feature as regards both the industrial profile of a region and its accessibility. With regard to accessibility it can be argued that the peripheral location and dependency on flight connections implies a rather strong energy sensitivity for all parts of the MidNord-region and the countries they are located in. As regards the industrial production, the question is how much energy input is needed to produce e.g. one Euro in value added. The more energy is needed, the more sensitive the regional economy is to energy price changes. This regards both energy importing and exporting regions. Generally, all the MidNord-region is characterised as having a medium level of sensibility to energy price changes in a European perspective. Again, the same applies for most regions of Norway, Sweden and Finland. (ESPON 2.1.4/Energy) 31

32 Map: GDP in PPS per capita

33 Map: Econimic Lisbon indicators Map: The importance of Research and Development,

34 Map: Cultural employment as share of local active population, 2005 Map: Regional economic specialisation 34

35 Map: Economic specificities 35

36 4.2 Human resources profile Earlier studies looking at the Sundsvall-Östersund-Tronheim-region (SÖT) or at the entire MidNord-region have presented a detailed picture of some factors related to the region s human resource profile. This involved e.g. reflections on the education level employment rate, employment development and employment by sector. For SÖT the education situation in 2000 and 2003 has been analysed and reveals that 25% of the population holds a university degree. Furthermore, the study reveals that there is a variation within the region as e.g. 32% of the population in the municipality of Östersund hold a university degree, but only 24% in the Sundsvall region. (EuroFutures study) When it comes to employment, considerable differences in employment levels and the sectors of employment can be observed, in particular between the Norwegian and Finnish parts of MidNord-region. (Nordregio study) The ESPON studies analysed largely confirm the pictures drawn-up by these early reports by providing a comparative European perspective, although it does not go into the same level of detail as the studies mentioned above. Territorial development is closely linked with several social aspects such as employment, education, health care and house holding. Although it is clear that social issues are an important component of territorial cohesion, there is just a fragmented knowledge about the relationships between social aspect and territorial development with the European Union. In many fields these relationships have not yet been scientifically analysed. Diverse unemployment situation. Employment is a political key issue both on national and EU level. In 2003, 8.1% of the European workforce (EU-15) was unemployed, though in the EU Member States which joint in 2004 and 2007 the average rate was much higher at 15%. There has been a wide divergence of experience concerning unemployment rates in the EU over time, and also large differences between the Member States. In the MidNord-region, the unemployment rate (in 2003) is lower in the western parts than further east. The Norwegian part of the region has the lowest unemployment rate, %, which also is very low in a European perspective. In Sweden and Finland, the unemployment rate is higher, %, which is average in a European context. The Finish region Etelä- Savo/Södra Savolax is the only MidNord-region with an unemployment rate of % which is above the European average. (ESPON 1.4.2/Social) As this ESPON study has been finalised some time ago, the data does not reflect the developments in the last couple of years. Changing patterns of employed persons with tertiary education. The social aspects of territorial development are closely interconnected which makes a cross-cutting analysis interesting. When dealing with employment, a challenge is to depict these aspects in combination with other social aspects such as education and training. One ESPON project has carried out a combined analysis of the dynamics of employment, defined as change of the number of employed persons during the time period , and a specific group defined by highest education. This cross-cutting analysis displays the correlation between an 36

37 education level and the access to the labour market. The picture shows that a majority of the European regions had a positive development of employment increase, and suggests that there is a correlation between higher education and the possibility of finding a job. When it comes to the MidNord-region, a decline in employment levels for higher educated workforce could be found. In a European perspective, Italy, Ireland as well as parts of France and Spain show the largest increases in employment levels for higher educated, while the low levels in the MidNord-region can be compared to other regions in Scandinavia, Estonia, Romania and Eastern Germany. (ESPON 1.4.2/Social) 37

38 Map: Unemployment rate

39 Map: Employed persons by highest level of education attained 39

40 Map: Sensibility of the NUTS2 regions to changes in the prices of energy 40

41 4.3 Cultural profile Cultural heritage and identity receive attention in European territorial policies several reasons. First of all, cultural heritage and identity are assets which can offer unique social and economic development opportunities. They are important inputs for the creative industry and the tourist industry, two of the most important and dynamic sectors of the post-industrial economy. Furthermore, cultural assets are typically place products that cannot be separated nor moved from the regions they are located in. This makes the economic activities in connection to the cultural heritage strictly bound to that location and impossible to re-localize. Thirdly, many cultural assets and traditions are not only points of reference for the local populations but larger groups of people. The concept of cultural heritage and identity includes a multitude of tangible as well as intangible components. One of the ESPON projects has focused on the regions cultural characters and has assessed tangible components, such as cultural landscapes, sites, monuments, cultural facilities. Low density of museums in the MidNord-region. A concentration of cultural collections in one region both captures the complexity of the local cultural identity, and reflects the cultural policy of a region. A concentration of museums indicates a large provision of cultural services and educational opportunities for the local and transient population, which indirectly enhances the development opportunities. Moreover, museums are tourist attractions which can boost the economic performance of a region. The higher concentration of museums is therefore a positive occurrence which may turn out to have spatial effects in terms of attraction of resources and development impacts. The MidNord-region is all together characterized by a very low density of museums. When seen in a Nordic perspective, this is not outstanding since almost all regions in Norway, Sweden and Finland, with exception from the capital regions, have the same low level of museum density. These three countries are distinguishing themselves in a European perspective since no other countries show as low levels to the same degree. There is a small difference between the Norwegian and Swedish MidNord-regions to the Finish one, since the latter has a somewhat higher density of museums and partially only lays on a low density level. (ESPON 1.3.3/Culture) Uneven use pressure on museums. In general, large urban areas have more visitors, inhabitants and tourists per museum than less urbanised areas. However, in regions with a very low density of museums the user pressure may increase in comparison to other regions. While the density of museums (museums in relation to km 2 ) is very low in almost the entire MidNord-region, some variation can be seen when it comes to the availability or use pressure (museums in relation to population). The availability of museums measures as number of inhabitants per museum reflects the local use pressure on a museum. This shows that in particular the Swedish sub-regions have a low availability or high use pressure in a European perspective. The Norwegian and Finnish subregions have an average or low use pressure which implies an average or high number of museums per inhabitant. 41

42 When considering the use pressure from both the local population and tourists, the Norwegian and Finnish parts of the MidNord-region are both characterized by a low degree of use pressure on museums. The Swedish part however shows a high degree of use pressure on museums. Generally, due to the low density of museums in a European perspective, the MidNord-region shows a stronger profile when it comes to the use pressure on the existing museums, i.e. the number of inhabitants or inhabitants and tourists per museum. (ESPON 1.3.3/Culture) Good level of theatre availability. There are several cultural components which reflect the availability of cultural services to the local population. In the ESPON project 1.3.3, three highly representative forms of cultural consumption roughly reflecting high culture (theatres), popular culture (cinema screens), and educational opportunities (libraries) have been chosen. These services are generally population-related: the number of facilities provided depends on local demand. The distribution of theatres is rather uneven and relatively concentrated in the more densely populated areas. There are however notable exceptions in for example Spain, France, Sweden and Finland. With regard to the availability of theatres per 1,000 inhabitants, most parts of the MidNordregion are characterized by a low level. The outstanding regions are the Finnish regions Etelä- Savo/Södra Savolax and Pohjanmaa/Österbotten, as well as the Swedish region Västernorrlands län, which have an average availability level of theatres. Taken together, the MidNord-region shows a good availability of theatres in comparison to its population, seen from a European perspective. (ESPON 1.3.3/Culture) 42

43 Map: Potential use pressure on museums from local population 43

44 Map: Total use pressure on museums from resident and visiting population 44

45 Map: Availability of theatres 45

46 5 Impacts of EU policies EU policies affect territorial development regardless whether they intend to do so or not. This was recognized by the spatial policy-makers and led to the demand for broadening the knowledge-base and evidence. During the last years a series of first Territorial Impact Assessments (TIA) of EU policies has been carried out under the framework of ESPON. These assessments illustrate that TIA can deliver interesting insights and food for thought regarding the effects of EU policies. Taken together they also provoke thoughts about the interplay between different EU policies and their supplementing, reinforcing or contradicting effects of different EU policies. Indeed every European territory (region, city etc.) is subject to a specific combination of EU policy measures which have diverse effects and interplay with the territorial preconditions in a region. The results of the TIAs carried out by ESPON present a rather complex picture of territorial impacts, both regionally, nationally and across the EU. 5.1 Transport Transport infrastructure is widely considered an important means for regional development. Thus many regional development discussions focus on infrastructure and the access to motorways and high-speed rail-networks but also secondary transport networks. At European scale the level of accessibility is considered to play a significant part in the potentials for more polycentric territorial development. European transport policy focuses mainly on the effectiveness and efficiency of transportation and its real costs (including costs for accidents, environmental damage, noise, congestions etc.). In general, EU transport investments contribute to cohesion in relative terms, although they may actually widen the absolute economic gap between regions. The TEN transport infrastructure projects planned for the period up to 2020 have a decentralizing effect, and so favor peripheral regions. However, even larger increases in regional accessibility produce only small benefits in terms of regional economic activity. Quite simply, transport is only one of many factors that influence the socio-economic development of a region. MidNord-region does not belong to the winners of EU transport policies. If all TEN (Trans-European Networks) and TINA (Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment) projects are implemented and transport pricing on all modes of transportation is introduced, it will change the accessibility and also the GDP per capita in Europe s regions. The ESPON project has calculated the expected changes in GDP per capita between 2001 and As for the MidNord-region the effects will be mainly a decrease in GDP per capita. This is indeed the case for most European regions, whereas mainly those regions in which new European transport infrastructure is built will improve their position. However, also within the MidNord-region there are differences. The Norwegian region will experience the largest decrease in GDP per capita, whereas the Finnish region will experience lower or no decreases and the Swedish region might experience no effects or even a slight 46

47 increase. This is a consequence of the infrastructure investments taking place in other parts of Europe and thus increasing the competitive advantages of these regions. (ESPON 2.1.1/TEN) Most Nordic regions in the same boat as MidNorden. The difference between the MidNord-regions also reflects the differences between the three countries. In Norway, all regions will experience a decrease in GDP per capita as a consequence of the EU transport policy actions and some regions in the North will do belong to those regions in Europe being hit hardest. In Finland, all regions except for Helsinki, Turku and Åland are expected to experience decreases in GDP per capita. In Sweden the picture is rather mixed with some regions in the South benefiting form the policies in terms of increases in GDP per capita, whereas some regions in the North will experience among the highest level of GDP per capita decreases expected in Europe. (ESPON 2.1.1/TEN) 5.2 Structural Funds Traditionally the European Regional Policies and in particular the Structural Funds are considered as one of the most important instruments for the European Commission to influence regional development in Europe and thus also territorial development. The main aim of the Structural Funds is to support economic and social cohesion in Europe and tackle disparities between regions in this field. The main objectives of the EU Structural Funds were to reduce disparities in GDP and unemployment between regions. In doing so they contributed to territorial cohesion stimulating regional and local innovation and development - however, less consistently than might have been anticipated. Data for the period (last for which comprehensive figures could be collected) revealed a complex picture where the overall European picture shows that the resources were spent in the less favored countries of the EU and contributing to the above-average growth of the Cohesion Countries. However, the differences between regions within a country were largely untouched or even accentuated. Furthermore, there is evidence that the funds have boosted competitiveness and through leverage effects on national policies and by empowering local and regional levels of governance, resulting in innovations, strategic planning, new partnerships etc. MidNord-region benefits from Structural Funds. When considering the annual average share of Structural Fund spending during as share of the regional GDP in Euro, it shows which regions benefited most. It has to be kept in mind that the Structural Funds share of the regional GDP is very limited in north-west Europe. The Finnish and Swedish MidNordregions are among those regions which are benefiting from Structural Funds. In both cases the coastal areas do so a little less than the rest of the regions. Jämtlands region is the MidNordregion with the highest share of Structural Fund investments relative to the region s economy, as the region received SF investments in the range of % of the annual regional GDP. This is also the highest share within Sweden and it belongs in the second highest group in a European-wide perspective. (ESPON 2.2.1/Structural Funds) 5.3 INTERREG Whereas many EU policies remain rather abstract and far a way for many people, EU also supports direct cooperation between actors across European borders. The most known 47

48 examples are probably the student exchange programmes (e.g. ERASMUS) and the crossborder and transnational cooperation programmes under INTERREG. INTERREG offers local and regional actors a platform for cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation. This is designed to strengthen economic and social cohesion by stimulating local and regional actors to take action together with colleagues from other countries. A transnational cooperation hotspot. Although it is impossible to describe the territorial effects of INTERREG, there are some notable differences in the patterns of cross-border and transnational cooperation. Focusing on transnational cooperation, the highest overall rate of participation in cooperation projects per NUTS 2 region weighted by the number of inhabitants can be found in southern and central Sweden, most of the Finnish regions, central and northern Norway, Latvia, Mecklenburg (northern Germany) and northern Scotland. Thus, the MidNord-region is one of the European regions with the highest participation in transnational cooperation projects per inhabitant. (ESPON 2.4.2/Zoom) To what degree the intensive transnational cooperation translates in to tangible effects for regional development is not possible to say. Experience has show that this depends very much on the partner selection and the relevance of the cooperation topic: Partner selection is the key to success this regards both the territorial features, i.e. that there is a joint or preferably common issue to work on, and the organisational/institutional aspect, i.e. that all relevant partners are involved and that the partners have suitable competences/rights and means to approach the cooperation topic. Relevance and integration of the territorial cooperation issue in the daily work of all partner organisations and the incorporation of territorial cooperation tasks in routines are important for the success of the cooperation project and for being able to continue the task after finalisation of the project without additional European funding. As regards further input for the discussion on territorial cooperation and suitable topics cooperation topics, the report Territorial evidence and cooperation: Linking analysis and action on the INTERACT-ESPON cooperation can be recommended. 5.4 CAP About 45% of EU expenditure is at presents on agriculture. The European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is politically important and as mostly in such cases a challenging subject for any kind of systematic assessment. The CAP currently consists of two pillars. Pillar 1 provides market support and direct payments to producers. Pillar 2 comprises agri-environmental and other rural-development expenditure and demonstrates that there has been some integration of policies between the agriculture and environment sectors. The territorial impacts of the CAP are largely not supporting the aims of territorial cohesion in Europe, although there is scope in the given instruments to do more in that direction. Furthermore, one has to consider that the analysis of the instruments and expenditures of the CAP exclude the largest component of the support received by EU farmers in form of the 48

49 higher prices paid by consumers within the EU. This support is estimated by the OECD to amount to 56 billion Euro. MidNord among regions with average benefit from Pillar 1 per AWU. Considering the total Pillar 1 support per Agricultural Work Unit (AWU), Swedish and Finnish regions fall neither into the lowest nor the highest category. The Swedish regions featured above the European average and Finnish regions below. This is true for all regions for which data is available, incl. the MidNord-region. (ESPON 2.1.3/CAP) MidNord has among the highest contribution per AWU in Europe from Pillar 2. Considering the total Pillar 2 support per Agricultural Work Unit (AWU), most of the Swedish and Finnish MidNord-region are located in the highest class. Indeed, only the eastern part of the Finnish MidNord-region is located in the second highest European class. Seen per Agricultural Work Unit, the MidNord-region definitely belongs to the winners of Pillar 2. This is basically true for most Swedish and many Finnish regions. (ESPON 2.1.3/CAP) Map: Change of GDP per capita when implementing TEN/TINA and higher transport costs,

50 MAP: Structural Funds and Pre-accession aid spending as share of GDP,

51 Map: Intensity of INTERREG IIIB cooperation 51

52 MAP: Intensity of INTERREG IIIB cooperation on transport and infrastructure issues 52

53 Map: Total Pillar 1 support per AWU,

54 Map: Total Pillar 2 support per AWU,