Europe is a continent distinguished by its rich cultural, geographical, and economic diversity. The unique historical, cultural, and economic backgrounds of its member states lead to variations in the implementation of European Union policies. From the Nordic countries to the Mediterranean nations, the distinct territorial landscapes shape how EU policies are applied.
These differences highlight the complexity of harmonizing regulations across diverse regions and underscore the need for nuanced approaches in policy application within the European Union, transitioning from territorially-blind policies to territorially-considerate policies.
In recent years, both national and EU regulations with either spatial or non-spatial impact, have interacted in ways that sometimes create tension between sectoral policy areas and spatial development ambitions, with each making different claims on member state territories. Since there is no spatial planning at the EU level, relevant policies are shaped across various sectors.
We argue that the implementation of EU policies and regulations, often driven by quantitative requirements and objectives that overlook territorial considerations, might not always consistently contribute to achieving EU goals. While guidelines such as the Better Regulation Guidelines & Toolbox exist to promote territorially considerate regulations and policies, there is a need for greater emphasis on effective implementation.
Rationale & link to Territorial Agenda
The Territorial Agenda 2030 addresses inequalities between places and people and advocates for a future for all places. The action aims to create a better understanding policy impacts on territories to design better policies that are place-sensitive and address the needs of communities and citizens.
In recent years, both national and EU regulations with either spatial or non-spatial impact, have interacted in ways that sometimes create tension between sectoral policy areas and spatial development ambitions, with each making different claims on member state territories. Since there is no spatial planning at the EU level, relevant policies are shaped across various sectors.
We argue that the implementation of EU policies and regulations, often driven by quantitative requirements and objectives that overlook territorial considerations, might not always consistently contribute to achieving EU goals. While guidelines such as the Better Regulation Guidelines & Toolbox exist to promote territorially considerate regulations and policies, there is a need for greater emphasis on effective implementation.
Methodologies
The project applied a mixed-method approach, by document & literature review and empirical evidence through in-depth examination of ten EU legislative dossiers and semi-structured interviews and questionnaires with the members of the pilot action (NL, DE, AT, LU, SI, IE, PL, plus European Committee of Regions and ESPON representatives). Together, this generated a richer understanding of how territorial impacts are (not) considered in practice and by which stakeholders.
Results
This pilot project starts from the idea that EU policies and legislation and their specific implementation in the Member States do not always take unintentional territorial impacts into account with respect to, among others, urban, rural, mountainous, cross-border or other specific territories.
Therefore, the focus of this pilot project was to learn more about the current practice of Territorial Impact Assessment with respect to different phases of the EU legislative process. This study investigates the current practice of Territorial Impact Assessment in different phases of the EU legislative process and to what extent TIA tools are applied. Its core ambition is not to produce another TIA tool, but to understand how TIA can be structurally improved as a governance process, culminating in a model for Dynamic Territorial Impact Assessment (Dynamic TIA) across all phases of the EU legislative cycle.
In general, Territorial Impact Assessment is rarely applied in practice by the European Commission when drafting legislation. While part of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making, the two co-legislators, European Parliament and Council have only limitedly or rarely assessed their substantial amendments. Based on the ten pilot dossiers, the study empirically assesses the territorial dimension of impact assessments. In the ten dossiers territorial considerations are mostly absent or very limited. As noted, the territorial analysis remains analytically weak, often only reflecting on the distribution of costs and benefits across Member States.
With respect to the Member States, the report identifies governance and capacity gaps. Spatial/territorial ministries often are not the lead ministries and struggle to inject territorial considerations into early phases. Even more, EU consultation seems to be underused by public authorities (public authorities represent only 0.16% of the total 547,513 responses across the ten dossiers screened) and the contributions seldom include territorial dimensions.
The study also looked at the national Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) frameworks, concluding that in the seven pilot action Member States no full-fledged territorial impact assessment method is present. Positive cases exist, with examples of a specific border region test in the Netherlands, a regional equality check in Germany and a spatial check in Slovenia. Yet, none fully embeds TIA.
In light of TIA as a governance process, the report concludes with the recommendation by making the TIA a dynamic, multi-phase process. This means that territorial impacts may emerge throughout the entire legislative process (also as result of negotiations) and impact assessment thus should be continuously applied by different stakeholders. The approach needs to be multi-level, engaging EU, national, regional and local actors, pragmatic, combining light screening with deeper assessments when needed, and iterative, re-applied after major amendments.
As practical product, the report proposes seven actionable recommendations for the ministries responsible for spatial planning and/or territorial cohesion for increasing the territorial dimension in impact assessments.
- Monitor the Commission Work Programme & DG Management Plans.
Establish an early-warning system to flag proposals with potential territorial effects.
- Strengthen coordination with line ministries.
Assign a file owner for each dossier to ensure early input into Commission expert groups.
- Actively monitor & use EC public consultations.
Submit territorial input where relevant and track contributions from domestic stakeholders.
- Monitor EC Impact Assessments & RSB opinions.
Push for better territorial analysis, including use of foresight and TIA necessity checks.
- Apply a national TIA Quick Check.
Especially for preparing national positions and assessing late amendments
- Integrate a light TIA module into national ex-ante RIA systems.
Ensures territorial aspects are structurally considered without adding excessive burden.
- Build capacity among regional & local authorities.
Create national TIA networks, run joint TIA workshops, and link efforts with CoR and ESPON
Time planning
The project ran from May 2024 until the end of 2025. Final report is delivered in Q2 2026.
Resources
Partners bring in own resources to cover own activities, e.g. funding, personnel and knowledge. Resources for joint activities will be covered by Lead Partner.
Indicative partners
Partner states are The Netherlands (lead), Poland, Germany, Slovenia, Ireland and as observers we include Austria and Sweden. Additional cooperation partners are the European Committee of the Regions, The Committee of European Municipalities and Regions and ESPON. Interested parties are welcome to join.
Lead stakeholder
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Kingdom Relations, The Netherlands, Marcia van der Vlugt (Marcia.Vlugt@minbzk.nl) in cooperation with ITEM University Maastricht.
Downloads
