A bit more difficult is the situation with the competence of the content. Although gathering of
guidelines on European level as a reference document is useful and needed - likewise as a
basis for a spatial development related co-ordination - this has not to be done by the European
Commission. In the contrast following the subsidiary principle this is undoubtedly a matter of
national state level or even regional level. The rejection by member states of a content related
competence for the European Commission is therefore a logical consequence.
Regarding the spatial observation a transfer of the competence to the European level might be
absolutely reasonable. This solution was already discussed in advance to the ESPON (see
above). But the present organisation of ESPON as a network based on national research
institutes shows at the same time that a solely European competence is not urgently needed.
As long as a extensive information flow between member states and the Commission is
secured - and again following the subsidiary principle - the responsibility for spatial
observation should be left with the member states.
The broadening and reinforcing of the core Treaty Goals of social and economic cohesion by
the new goal of territorial cohesion - added in the final draft of the Treaty establishing a
Constitution for Europe - has opened a new capital in the discussion around a European
competence for spatial development. Territorial cohesion falls according to the Constitutions
regulations under the sphere of shared competence. However, what is exactly meant by
territorial cohesion is up to now not at all clarified. Some experts’ opinion is that the new
terms in principle covers the same as European spatial development does. Whereas others do
not agree and identify significant differences between territorial cohesion and European
spatial development. Scientists as well as politicians and experts in European spatial
development are urgently called on clarifying this question and defining the core aspects of
territorial cohesion in contrast to European spatial development.
4. Possibilities for the Co-ordination of Community Sectoral Policies1
As above mentioned this paper concentrates on the horizontal co-ordination of EU sector
policies. On principle there are two ways of organising this kind of co-ordination: initiated by
the European Commission (top down) or by the EU member states (bottom up). For both of
these ways there are currently varying alternatives and instruments on the agenda.
1 Currently, the author is working on a PhD under the provisional title “Possibilities and Limits of an Inner-
European Coordination Responsibility for the Purpose of European Spatial Development”. The proposals
presented here thus represent work in progress.
13