Interview: Peter Mehlbye

Peter Mehlbye is Director of the Coordination Unit for ESPON 2013 Programme. He kindly accepted to answer the questions proposed by the ESPON UK Contact Point by email at the end of November 2009.

1. How did you get into ESPON?

My road to ESPON started with my involvement in European affairs way back in the late 1990's. I was then working in a Danish Ministry being responsible for national spatial development and planning as well as regional policy in the Nordic space. As the European policy process around the ESDP gained momentum I became heavily involved in the ESDP process. One policy demand related to this process was more pan-European facts and evidence on regions and cities materialised in the wish of Member States to establish a European knowledge network or observatory in the field of spatial development and planning. In 1997, after 10 years of Danish service in national and European spatial/regional policy matters, I had moved to the European Commission, DG Regio, to the policy development unit responsible for the ESDP. As the process of deciding a European Observatory did not mature in policy terms at that time, the Commission stepped in and created a test phase, the Study Programme on European Spatial Planning (SPESP). I was much involved in this, and as the SPESP test ended positive and the ESPON 2006 Programme became reality I saw a further engagement using my experience in making ESPON a success as an attractive option.

2. What attracted you to ESPON?

Actually there are at least three major reasons. I am probably a rather entrepreneurial person. So to start up a new European activity was a great challenge. In the Danish Ministry, I was often allotted tasks of creating new concepts and results. My responsibility for finding solutions for opening a politically blocked major green space in Copenhagen, finding legally viable solutions for areas habited by hippies, developing the Danish Spatial Development Strategy (Denmark 2018) as well as the first Vision and Strategies for the Baltic sea (VASAB) are among the examples. Secondly, my interest and motivation for European engagement had grown over the years. I was and am convinced that the European project needs a territorial dimension in order to fully succeed both in competitive and cohesion terms. Now territorial cohesion is an aim of the Lisbon Treaty which by itself is a major new development. Last but not least, I had always followed the principle of basing policy advice on facts. In my Danish period, I headed the analytical unit for national policy development which included scientific capacity and mapping facilities. In this context I as well conducted the relations to and projects with relevant Danish scientists.

3. What do you think have been its main achievements so far?

The ESPON 2006 Programme confirmed that a European network model producing comparable facts and evidence could deliver interesting and useful results. In total 34 projects and a network of more than 400 researchers and experts was a strong proof. This led to political recognition of European Institutions, Member States, Partner States many regions and municipalities and to a ESPON 2013 Programme with nearly a threefold higher budget and 31 countries behind.

4. One criticism that has been made has been that ESPON is too academic and too broad brush to be of value to mainstream practitioners involved in making regional plans and strategies. Is that fair and if so what is ESPON doing to reach these people?

First of all I think it is inevitable and OK to be academic when providing new and innovative facts and evidence through applied research. More needs to be done in terms of communication in order to serve policy development and practitioners, this is true. We are working hard on making improvements within the current 2013 Programme, however it is a major challenge to process and translate scientific rich and voluminous output to short and clear policy relevant messages. It is often underestimated how many senior resources this takes. The second part of your question is about practitioner’s expectations and mind-set. Here, I tend to say that practitioners at national, regional and local level know much better the details related to their national, regional or municipal territories. The respective practitioners know better the potentials and challenges that their areas are facing. What ESPON can deliver is the European perspective, the positioning vis-à-vis other cities, regions and larger territories, and information on comparative advantages that can stimulate cooperation with other territories. With the ESPON 2013 Programme, practitioners with sensitivity for adding a European context to their work is offered the possibility of Targeted Analyses using ESPON results in combination with regional and local detailed knowledge. Without doubt, the larger territorial context becomes more and more obvious for more and more policymakers. The globalisation and recent crisis as well as the response on the latest ESPON Call for Expression of Interest makes this very visible.

5. What do you think have been ESPON’s most important findings? What has it been able to tell us that we didn't know before?

This is a very difficult question. Basically, the thematic wideness of applied research is a major strength of the activities so far. Many teams of researchers and experts have contributed to creating, within a short time span, an impressive mass of new knowledge and maps on the European territory, its structures, dynamics, perspectives and policy impacts. Mapping the diversities within the Europe territories, which are considered an asset for development, is another way of putting it. Forcing myself to be more precise, I can say that classifying the European urban system and the work on potential accessibility of regions have caught a lot of interest and been used by many. Also the spatial scenarios created quite a political interest at EU level. However, as said, I think the main strength lies in the totality of themes and territorial phenomena approached which make it possible to use the results when applying an integrated territorial approach. The new projects of the ESPON 2013 Programme will add to this knowledge base which is being acknowledged by at European level, latest by the new REGI Committee (Regional Development) of the European Parliament.

6. Territorial cohesion is an ambiguous term – how has ESPON helped us to better understand it?

Obviously, it is for politicians and policy makers to deal with definitions of policy concepts. The ESPON support lies in displaying territorial structures, imbalances, potentials, perspectives, policy impacts etc. that can help putting more content, not only to the concept itself, but in particular to measures that are taken in order to enhance territorial cohesion. On the concept, I believe that the recent efforts made by the European Commission and EU Member States represent a step forward towards a more unified understanding of territorial cohesion. However, one should not forget that many policy concepts, like sustainable development, innovation, etc., are concepts that neither have a clear cut definition. Policy development in these fields is nevertheless progressing.

7. You have also tried to build links to the academic research communities through Scientific Conferences. What benefits has that yielded? Are more conferences planned?

As I am a strong believer in an evidence approach to policy making, strong links to and support of the scientific community becomes indispensable. The ESPON Programme share this approach as priority is given to building further on the scientific platform started within the ESPON 2006 Programme. ESPON have from the beginning taken steps to integrate and interest scientist in what could be named European Territorial Science. Apart from the opportunities for scientist in taking part in ESPON applied research projects, a scientific conference was organised during the ESPON 2006 Programme and two scientific ESPON Reports issued. The clear vision is to support the development of a multidisciplinary scientific community in Europe that fits to the integrated territorial approach. We want to continue having close contact with several European Organisations of Scientist. Until now, in particular the fields of geography, regional science and economics as well as spatial planning cooperation are well established. This cooperation is supposed to continue during the ESPON 2013 Programme and materialise in ESPON Workshops at scientific events. The first example is at the next Regional Studies Association Conference in May 2010. In addition, we foresee further volumes of ESPON Scientific Reports as well as an ESPON Scientific Conference, when the bulk of Final Reports from projects have reached a sufficient level.

8. How can ESPON results be used by those planning INTERREG projects?

The use of ESPON results is a key priority for the ESPON 2013 Programme. Actually, the new project type, Targeted Analyses, is trying to meet this challenge. Actions with other Structural Funds Programmes are explicitly part of the ambition. Luckily, the latest open call did provide proposals and expressions of interest related to other SF Programmes. The use of ESPON results will first and foremost enforce the programme authorities and related secretariats with the European (and on some aspect global) context. They will have fact and evidence from a European perspective related to their area and be able to analyse strength and weaknesses that could be included in the implementation of their programme, either at programme level in relation to strategy considerations, and/or at project level in the form of more content based advice to project developers and in the assessment of project proposals. One important benefit could be to optimise that projects within a particular theme, like adaptation to hazards caused by climate change is carried through in territories where the risk of hazards and the need for interventions are the highest seen from a European perspective.

9. Where do you see ESPON going after 2013?

ESPON 2013 will next year be halfway in its implementation. After a short delay in project implementation, I am confident that we are back on track. The results of the recent calls are very encouraging with 69 proposals and expressions of interest received involving 385 partners and stakeholders. This interest is a promising and supporting sign for the considerations about ESPON after 2013. Of course, it is too early to tell what will be the solution. What can be said at this stage is that ESPON enjoys recognition and support from policy makers involved in region development and territorial cohesion. The policy development related to the new Treaty and Territorial Cohesion will for sure need support of European facts and evidence about territorial structures, trends, perspectives and policy impacts within Europe, its regions and cities. By the end of ESPON 2013, a further consolidation of indicators, reporting and many new, robust and innovative results from ESPON projects will be available providing arguments for a continuation in one form or another. Personally, I consider that many strong arguments are building up in favour of a more permanent structure, a European Territorial Observatory. However, one has also to be aware of the political reality and that such ambitions need broad political support to succeed. The new Commissions political and budgetary priorities as well as the position of EU Member states will be among the key factors determining the future. In any case, when the ESPON 2013 Programme moves towards its completion, I am confident it will not be a question of whether to continue ESPON, but how to proceed in a consolidated way.

Back to ESPON UK Interviews

Back to Network Homepage