Territorial cohesion through cross-border landscape policy? The European case of the Three Countries Park (BE-NL-DE)

Abstract

Landscapes can be understood as socialecological systems under constant change. In Europe various territorial dynamics pose persistent challenges to maintaining diverse landscapes both as European heritage and in their capacity to provide vital functions and services. Concurrently, under the competence of cohesion policy, the EU is attempting to improve policy making by better policy coordination and respecting regional specifics. This paper explores the question how a policy dedicated to landscape can help to handle territorial change and support territorial cohesion. It presents results and performances of the ESPON applied research study LP3LP: (1) a common landscape policy for the Three Countries Park, across the Dutch, German and Belgium borders, including a spatial landscape vision, a governance proposal of adaptive landscape management, and thematic strategies dealing with green infrastructure, cultural heritage, complementary biomass and quality production; (2) recommendations at the EU level. In discussing the significance of a landscape approach for EU policy,three dimensions of landscape are linked withimportant aspects of territorial cohesion: ‘landscape as asset’ addressing natural-cultural territorial capital as an indigenous base forsmart, sustainable, and inclusivedevelopment;‘landscape as place’ stressing the relevance of landscape for place-based policies; and ‘landscape as common ground’ highlighting its potential for horizontal, vertical, and territorial integration.

What the Ground Says…

“…Since 1976, his territory has formed the Rhine-Meuse Euroregion, which concerns the agglomerations of three main cities, Liège (BE), Aachen (DE), and Maastricht (NL), and three regions, German-speaking Wallonia (BE), Westphalia -Rhenania (DE), and Limburg (NL). In 2008, by seizing the opportunity of the Interreg III and IV programs, the idea, and then the order of "creating a new identity for a regional group without defining a precise territory and seeking new relationships between regions and cultures through the landscape" [18], took shape.…”

“…The continuum of the lived and travelled landscape stands out as a strong characterization element of the territory. Reflection on the concept of continuity and extent leads to the notion of horizon, which refers both to "visual horizons and to invisible or subterranean horizons: soil thicknesses, geological layers" [18].…”

“…The development of policy recommendations at the interface between the 3LP landscape perspective and EU policy" [18].…”

“…"The landscape perspective is meant to be a vision document with no formal or binding status. It has been appreciated by the stakeholders and is now used by the 3LP partners with spatial and landscape planning competence as well as many projects and local organizations as a source of reference, guidance and inspiration" [18].…”

Planning in Times of Uncertainty

“…These analytical works must foster placebased spatial solutions while also imagining places in a broader, regional, national, and global setting and co-producing between views in often contested multi-actor settings. Globally, the landscape scale (Selman 2006) has been claiming as a powerful boundary concept (Star 2010) flexible enough to adapt to different backgrounds and multiple levels, but also robust enough to maintain conceptual coherence across scientific disciplines and the theory-practice boundary, as well to operate on functional areas across national and administrative boundaries (van Rooij et al 2021;Brüll et al 2017). Few subjects have given rise to as much philosophical debate and writing as landscape.…”