Spatial and Environmental Planning of Sustainable Regional Development in Serbia

7/27/2019 Spatial and Environmental Planning of Sustainable Regional Development in Serbia

1/14

SPATIUM International Review UDK 711.2(497.11) ; 502.131.1:711.2(497.11)No. 21, December 2009,p. 39-52 Review paper

spatium 39

SPATIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNINGOF SUSTAINABLE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

IN SERBIAMarija Maksin-Mii1, University Singidunum, Faculty of tourism and hospitality management, Belgrade, Serbia

Saa Miliji, Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia

Marina Nenkovi-Rizni, Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia

The paper analyses the planning framework for sustainable territorial and regional development. The spatial and environmental

planning should play the key role in coordination and integration of different planning grounds in achieving the sustainable

regional development. The paper discusses the spatial planning capacity to offer the integral view of the sustainable territorial

development. The brief review of tendencies in new spatial planning and regional policy has been given. The focus is on the

concept of balanced polycentric development of European Union. The guiding principles of spatial planning in regard of

planning system reform in European countries have been pointed out. The changes in paradigm of regional policy, and the

tasks of European regional spatial planning have been discussed. In Serbia problems occur in regard with the lack of

coordinating sectoral planning with spatial and environmental planning. Partly the problem lies in the legal grounds, namely in

non codification of laws and unregulated horizontal and vertical coordination at all levels of governance. The possibilities for

the implementation of spatial planning principles and concepts of European Union sustainable territorial and regional

development have been analized on the case of three regional spatial plans of eastern and southeastern regions in Serbia. The

dissadvantages in implementing the strategic environmental impact assessment as an instrument for coordination and

integration of sectorial planning with spatial and environmental planning have been analized. The strategic environmental

impact assessment has been implemented only in the spatial planning process. Through spatial planning process its feedback

effect on sectorial planning has been indirectly achieved. The priority actions in Serbia for achieving the spatial and

environmental planning role in coordination and integration of different planning grounds in sustainable regional development

have been given.

Key words: sustainable territorial and regional development, regional spatial planning, sectoral planning, coordination andintegration, strategic environmental impact assessment.

THE ROLE OF SPATIAL ANDENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSUSTAINABLE TERRITORIAL ANDREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THEEUROPEAN UNION1The orientation towards establishing unified,integral strategic planning is currently presentin all European countries with developedplanning systems.1 Danijelova 29, 11 000 Beograd, [email protected]

Integral strategic planning can occur solely asa consequence of an integral view ofdevelopment and future. It can not happensimply by joining social, economic, spatial andenvironmental components or developmentaspects. In order to overcome partial planningor establish a comprehensive view and anorganised direction of spatial systems anddecision-making, one must make manyassumptions (economic, political, regulatoryetc.) which have been implemented in fewcountries (the Netherlands, Finland and theScandinavian countries).With the development of the sustainabledevelopment concept, tendencies to integrate

spatial2 and environmental planning and detachthem into a separate block of institutions -considered able to have a coordinating andintegrating role in planning and directingdevelopment - are becoming increasinglyemphasised. These expectations are based on2The paper is prepared as a part of the scientificprojects TP 16013 Approach and concept forcompilation and implementation of Strategy of SpatialDevelopment of Serbia", and TP 16007 SustainableDevelopment and Organization of Spas and OtherTourist Settlements in Serbia, financed by the Republicof Serbia Ministry of Science and TechnologicalDevelopment.


2/14

Maksin-Mii, M. et al.: Spatial and environmental planning of sustainable regional development in Serbia

40 spatium

the necessity of integral and problem-basedapproaches to planning and control overgeneral resources, and the necessity ofcoordination and cooperation aimed atdevelopment of the respective sub-systems,co-existing in actual space and theenvironment.Along with the aforementioned, it should bekept in mind that there are significantdifferences between the spatial planningsystems of individual European Unioncountries, due to differences in geographicalconditions (size and density of population),historical and cultural conditioning, inheritedland use patterns, the extent of urban andeconomic development, political andideological aspirations. Similarities emerge inrelation to the consistency in recognising thesignificance of setting the framework forpolicies and procedures in utilisation of space,environmental protection and sustainabledevelopment, and relations towards broadersocial and economic goals. This means that itis possible to establish common frameworksand principles to develop the system ofplanning and - within these limits - spatialplanning, but also that the systems willdevelop differently and adapted to thespecificities of each state. This position wasalso confirmed by recent surveys (UNECE2008), which do not explicitly recommend auniversal approach to strategic planning, albeitgranted that the integrated strategic approachis present in all reformed systems of spatialplanning in European countries.What is expected of spatial planning today,primarily at the level of the European Unionand its regions? What are the basic changes inapproach, policies and principles of spatialplanning, and the possibilities of theirimplementation in local practice?After almost three decades, spatial planninghas, starting from local and national, taken on aEuropean dimension. At the level of theEuropean Union and individual member states,spatial planning can still not boast sufficientlystrong political and institutional support inrelation to sectoral policies, primarily inrelation to agrarian and transportation policies.Apart from this, the popularity of spatialplanning has increased over the last decade.Why? Advocating the strengthening of theEuropean Union's social, economic andterritorial cohesion on the one hand, andvarious - often adverse effects of sectoralpolicies to the desired realisation of cohesionand competitiveness of Europe as a continent -

on the other, have both conditioned the searchfor the most suitable tool to integrate differentaspects of general and sectoral policies andrealise sustainable territorial development.Spatial planning is being promoted as one ofthe instruments of sustainable developmentthat can offer an integral view of futuredevelopment of territories. The assumedcapacity of spatial planning is based on itsspatial dimension and capacity to coordinateand integrate various policies, from economicdevelopment, transport and environmentalprotection to cultural policies. The basic task ofspatial planning is to plan sustainable territorialdevelopment as a general strategic frameworkfor general and sectoral policies. Therefore,spatial planning realises a control role as well,because it enables decision makers to view theresults and effectiveness of different policies inspecific space, as well as to foresee theirefficiency and necessary future adjustments(Adams, Alden, Harris, 2006)A succession of the European Uniondevelopmental documents were adopted, aswell as several Pan-European initiatives,representing a new generation of strategicdocuments. The largest contribution topromoting the role of spatial planning in theEuropean Union was provided by the documenton European Spatial Development Perspective- Towards Balanced and SustainableDevelopment of the Territory of the EuropeanUnion (ESDP, 1999). Starting from thefundamental goal of EU integration processesto achieve sustainable and balanceddevelopment of the European territory, themost important contribution of ESDP was toestablish the concept of balanced polycentricdevelopment, i.e. polycentric system of urbancores, staring with the positive experiences ofHolland and Germany, where this concept hasbeen applied for more than half a century. It isessentially an effort to restrain uncontrolledmetropolisation and find a counterbalance tothe market-initiated process of concentratingeconomic activities and population in centralEuropean regions. The concept of balancedpolycentric urban and regional developmenthas become one of the determinants of spatialplanning and it exerts a large influence onstrategies and policies at national and regionallevels of planning and administration (Alden,2006).The Territorial Agenda of the European Union -Towards a More Competitive and SustainableEurope of Diverse Regions (2007), representsa continuation and correction of ESDP in its

own right. The agenda retains all crucialelements of ESDP and introduces severalnewer tasks. Orientation towards improvingpolycentric development has been confirmedand the tasks have been defined in order tocontribute towards a more balanceddevelopment, balancing quality of life acrossthe population, sustainable use of resourcesand territorial capital of the region and entireEU. Strengthening regional identity and betterutilisation of potentials of the regionallydifferentiated EU territory was stressed as oneof the crucial challenges.What is significant is that the Territorial Agendaintroduced mandatory implementation of anintegrated strategic territorial approach,i.e. implementation of integral planning andmanagement for all actors in EU, especiallylocal and regional actors, within limits set outat Pan-European and national levels. Theestablishment of the integral approach toguiding and managing development of theEuropean Union was also supported by therevised European Union strategy forsustainable development (EU SDS, 2006).The following were categorised as territorialpriorities in scope of the EU developmentprocess: (i) strengthening polycentricdevelopment and innovation throughnetworking urban regions and cities; (ii)establishing new forms of partnership andterritorial management in developing urban andrural areas, predominantly at the level offunctional urban areas; (iii) promoting regionalcompetition and innovation clusters with theaim of stimulating development andspecialisation of peripheral andunderdeveloped European regions; (iv)strengthening and spreading trans-Europeantransport corridors, improving technical(especially energy) infrastructure, anddecentralising services of public interest; (v)promoting Trans-European risk management,including climate change impacts and newforms of managing protection of areas etc.; (vi)strengthening environmental structures andcultural resources as development potential,especially in regions which lag behind indevelopment and in environmentally andculturally sensitive areas.In the analysis of crucial provisions of theEuropean documents, M. Vujoevi (2008)rightfully claims that all of them are relevant forsustainable territorial development in Serbia.He particularly stressed the significance andproblems in: implementing polycentricdevelopment; achieving equality in the


3/14


spatium 41

availability of infrastructure, knowledge andinnovation; strengthening the economic base,quality of the environment and infrastructure ofurban services; wise management in usingnatural and cultural heritage, promotingcooperation at regional, cross-border andtransnational levels etc. Some of the problemsand possibilities concerning implementation ofprovisions and concepts of Europeandocuments shall be indicated in this paper.The implementation of strategic documentsand establishment of sustainable territorialdevelopment is facing difficulties, partlybecause spatial planning is not among theUnions original jurisdictions, but rather fallsunder the jurisdiction of member states. ChiefEU policies are the basic problem, primarilythe Lisbon strategy/treaty, prioritizingmacroeconomic competitiveness over socialand environmental objectives. According tosome estimates, most basic European sectoralpolicies are aimed at achieving economiccompetitiveness (from transport to urbanpolicies) and therefore indirectly giveadvantage and contribute to the concentrationof economic and innovative activities in alimited number of metropolitan regions(Kunzmann, 2006).Although the implementation of documents onthe Union's territorial development is notobligatory, but they rather represent a guiding,strategic framework to coordinate variouspolicies, experiences in their implementationto date have been positive, primarily inimplementing new approaches and concepts.The implementation of these documents in theEU countries is based on the principle ofsubsidiarity and developing horizontal(intersectoral at the same level ofadministration) and vertical (between the levelsof administration - Union, transnational,national, regional and local levels)coordination. From the EU standpoint, mostimportant are coordination and cooperation attransnational and regional levels, because theyenable the resolution of the most importantissues of developing European territory -Trans-European transport systems,environmental protection, functional andeconomic connections between regions,cross-border areas etc.The ESDP document exerted a powerfulinfluence on Europeanisation of spatialplanning and planning methodology, whichadapted both to realising sustainabledevelopment and territorial cohesion andcompetitiveness. Different from traditional

land-use planning, spatial planning was moreoriented towards unifying the spatial dimensionof development with economic, social,environmental and sectoral policies. In a post-industrial information society, spatial planningis expected to represent a foundation forsustainable development policies and policiesthat contribute to or influence sustainableterritorial development. The basic reasons areas follows:

Cultural and landscape diversity ofEuropean space shall be of crucial interestfor the future economic development of theEU. The role of spatial planning andspatially relevant policies is to determineregionally differentiated values andresources and protect them fromuncontrolled economic development anduncontrolled and unsustainabledevelopment of infrastructure systems.Spatial planning gathers solutions forproblems of regional development andpreserving regional identity, culture,tradition and quality of life of inhabitants.No other policy can comprehensively viewand guide all dimensions of sustainableterritorial development.High-level discussions on spatialplanning in the EU shall influence theadaptation of European sectoral policies tothe Pan-European spatial framework andthe implementation of estimates ofterritorial influence, so as to enableguiding spatial implications of sectoralmeasures and activities on regions, urbanand rural settlements (Kunzmann, 2006).

The cohesion policy of the European Union isparticularly targeted at regions, regionalpolicies and the role of regional developmentin reducing economic and social disparities,primarily in production, productivity andemployment, which were deepened by itsterritorial spread. At NUTS II level in 2005, theproportion of gross national product was 8:1between the most developed Londonmetropolitan and the least developed Europeanregion, Lithuania (Growing Regions, GrowingEurope, 2007).Regional policy of the European Union isfocused on implementing Lisbon strategy andthe EU Sustainable Development Strategy &tasks to increase productivity, employment andsustainable development of European regions.The second largest support from Europeanfunds for the period 2007 - 2013 is secured forregional development policies, with a priority

for impoverished regions and overcomingregional disparities (Alden, 2007). Europeanregional policy was designed so that itsspecific results in improving social andeconomic cohesion contribute to reducing thegap between developed and undevelopedstates and regions. Special attention was paidto the scientific approach in regional policies.Experiences from various European regionsindicate that the contexts of regional planningand regional development are changingrapidly. Within the GRIDS project (Bestpractice guidelines for instruments of regionaldevelopment and spatial planning in enlargedEU) anbd INTERREG IIIC program, it wasperceived in several examples that traditionalregional policies did not provide expectedresults in view of more balanced developmentand competitiveness of regions.Discussions were held over the previous yearsabout new paradigms of regional developmentand new approaches to resolving problems ofregional disparity and competitiveness. Anentire spectrum of topics arose withintheoretical contemplations of regionaldevelopment - on regional competitiveness,social capital, knowledge-based economy,flexible regional specialisation etc. Varioustheories, concepts and models are beingquestioned, such as the central place theory(Christaller), growth poles (Perroux), core-periphery spatial and economic developmentmodel (Myrdal and Hirschman) etc. Theconcepts of balanced polycentric regionaldevelopment, nodal regions - functional-urbanregions - daily urban systems etc. weredeveloped on the basis of combining modifiedclassical theories and models. New conceptsand models are being researched, such aslearning regions (Cooke), intelligent urbanregions, regional innovation clusters etc.(ibid).The nodal region concept came intoprominence in regional and spatialplanning. Selecting nodal regions andplanned guidance of their development is oneof the most important premises in the processof rational organisation of space. Europeanfunctional-integration areas and multimodalcorridors that shall link big city centres moreintensively and contribute to the creation of anintegral polystructural urban system ofbalanced hierarchy and powerful horizontal(spatial) and vertical (functional) connectionshave been determined. One of the intendedmodels is also the model of Europeanmetropolitan regions - EMR, highly urbanized


4/14


42 spatium

regions the role of which in demographic,economic (production, consumption,transport), cultural and social sense istransnational in character, and simultaneouslyrepresents a factor of spatial cohesion andregional development on the continent. Oneform of EMRs are metropolitan developmentareas (Metropolitan European Growth Areas -MEGAs). The future organisation EU27+2provides for the development of 1595functional areas, i.e. functional urban regions,74 of which are MEGAs. In each of the Union'sstates, the territorial reach of functional regionscoincides with daily population migrationzones, outlined on the basis of national criteria(Toi, Maksin-Mii, 2009).Spatial planning is indeed one of the morerecent and innovative activities of the publicsectoral in the domain of regionaldevelopment. This was also contributed to bythe increase in spatial strategies of differentscope - from European, transnational, nationalto regional (Adams, Alden, Harris, 2006).Among them, most attention was drawn to theregional level. The main task at regional levelof planning is to prepare and coordinate theregional spatial strategy for a planning horizonof 15 to 20 years. Although European regionsvary significantly in respect of spatial reach, itis customary that regional planning strategiesand plans are developed for administrative orfunctional regions, such as functional urbanareas (or daily urban systems), axes ofdevelopment (or corridors), catchment areas,national park areas etc. It is recommended inspatial planning to prioritize functional areasover administrative borders.UNECE research (2008) identified sixfundamental principles of spatial planning:

democraticness,subsidiarity,participation,integration,proportionalityprevention.

The implementation of the subsidiarityprinciple is harmonized with the significanceand spatial influence of the problems beingsolved, so that only some of the decisionsshall be based on local community requestsand initiatives. Decisions on main transportcorridors, protection and regulation ofenvironmentally or culturally sensitive areas(e.g. catchment areas, areas of natural andcultural heritage) and other matters of public

interest or significance to equate developmentconditions within and between regions, shallbe passed at regional or national levels ofplanning or administrationParticipation and coordination of the widestpossible spectrum of regional and localstakeholders in the spatial planning process isof crucial value for the determination andverification of regional space protectionpriorities, improvements in infrastructuresystems, projects of regional and subregionalimportance and assessments of theirenvironmental impact etc. Participation in theprocess of formulating and adopting spatialpolicies and plans enables a relativization ofconflicted interests, activities and actions ofsectors at same or diferent levels ofadministration, local communities and theprivate sectorThe implementation of the integration principleis significant - harmonisation, coordination andintegration of sectoral policies for the plannedarea and integration of local policies, plans andprojects of significance for several localcommunities in the region.The proportionality principle relates to strikinga balance between obligation/directiveness(legal protection) and flexibility (discretionarydecision making) in formulating spatialpolicies and planning statements. Obligation,i.e. directiveness, is neccesary when dealingwith policies and planning statements inprotection of resources, heritage andenvironment, and in some cases is welcomedas support for development, because of theinvestor's legal protection. At the same time,the spatial policy must be flexible in order toadapt to the eventualities of economic, socialand technological development andstimulating innovation. Flexibility can beachieved by way of determining criteria torealise planned development, in stead ofdefining final solutions and strict zoning ofspace. It is recommended to implement alesser degree of flexibility i.e. discretionarydecision-making in conditions of insufficientlydeveloped local levels of planning andadministration.The prevention principle relates toimplementing estimates of environmentalimpacts and risks when defining and evaluatingplanning policies and options. It also includesthe determination to limit development insensitive areas with an aim to minimiseexpected climate change impacts and preservebiodiversity, values and resources.

The regional level of spatial planning is used tointerpret national policies and priorities andadapt them to regional conditions, to defineinterregional and intraregional functional bondsand directions of development, set apart andprotect areas with critical natural capital(strategically significant and limited sources ofwater, minerals, natural and recreational valuesetc.), plan the development of regional andsubregional infrastructure systems and publicservices, conduct environmental impactassesments of planning options andstatements, provide guidance for thedevelopment of local spatial and other plansetc.Regional spatial planning is simultaneously averification and coordination tool forspatial/territorial impacts of all spatiallyrelevant national and regional policies(economic development, natural resources,sustainable development, rural development,heritage protection, development of tourismand culture etc.). Support of national andregional administration levels is necessary torealise expected coordinating role of spatialplanning, primarily by way of connectingfunding development of sectors and localcommunities with regional spatial strategiesand plans.The crucial and most difficult task for theplanning process is to realise sustainabledevelopment of regions by guidinggeneral/framework spatial distribution ofdevelopment and investments, coordinating thedevelopment of infrastructure, housing andpublic services, and preserving theenvironment and resources. Apart fromgeneral/framework guidelines on thedesignation and organisation of space, aregional spatial plan can contain boundaries ofareas/zones intended for development,revitalisation and/or protection, once they havebeen sufficiently researched and known.Cooperation between local levels ofadministration is necessary in the planningprocess so as to provide an overview ofpossible options for the problems and issuesof common interest for several localcommunities. Spatial development optionsshould be the subject of public consultationsand strategic impact assessment.Strategic environmental assessmentpresents an important tool of integrationbetween various policies and support for therealisation of sustainable territorialdevelopment. By implementing a strategic


5/14


spatium 43

environmental assesment it can be determinedwhether plans and policies have beenharmonised between themselves and withterritorial sustainable development goals,provided it was integrated in the process ofspatial and sectoral planning. IndividualEuropean countries have also established anenvironmental compensation to compensatefor the impact of new development on theenvironment with investments intoenvironmental protection in the same or otherspace (UNECE, 2008).For the development of new, or the reform ofexisting spatial planning systems in Europeancountries, and especially countries intransition, it is of significance to reform thefollowing:

legal basis,spatial planning,planning instruments, primarily spatialstrategies and plans,support to implement planningdecisions.

The first precondition to reform the spatialplanning system is to reform the legal basis,which should secure the following: theimplementation of an integrated strategicterritorial approach in the process of planningand managing sustainable development,primarily mechanisms for horizontal andvertical cooperation and coordination betweensectors and administration levels, and theparticipation from stakeholders in the decision-making process: accountability for theverification of environmental and territorialimpacts of planned development; and higherflexibility of the planning process and planninginstruments etc.The second part of the paper considers thecontribution by previous reforms of legal andplanning basis to establishing a system ofplanning and managing sustainable territorialand regional development in Serbia, andprimarily mechanisms of coordination betweenspatial, environmental and sectoral planning.The third part of the paper analyses theimplementation of basic principles of spatialplanning, concepts of territorial development ofthe European Union and individualrecommendations made by UNECE for theregional level of spatial planning on theexample of new regional and spatial plans forspecial designation areas with a macroregionaldimension in Serbia.

The fourth part of the paper analyses the roleand possibilities for the implementation ofstrategic environmental assessments with theaim of coordinating spatial and sectoralplanning and realising sustainable territorialand regional development.PROBLEMS IN REALISING THEROLE OF SPATIAL ANDENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSUSTAINABLE TERRITORIAL ANDREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFSERBIAA hierarchy (both formal and informal) in theplanning systems of the European countrieswas established for the planning basis,mechanisms and procedures of harmonisingand coordinating spatial and sectoral planning.This means that the frameworks (concepts,general solutions and guidelines) for thedevelopment and regulation of space,determined at national level, are binding forsectoral planning bases at the same levels ofplanning and that they are being elaborated atregional and local levels of spatial and sectoralplanning and corresponding technicaldocuments. The same relation exists betweenregional and local planning levels. Establishedmechanisms and procedures also provide thereverse course of actions in the harmonisationprocess - from local to higher levels ofplanning. In this process, the regional level ofplanning plays a decisive role for horizontal(between local communities and sectors) andvertical (between planning levels)coordination.Coordination and integration of spatial,environmental and sectoral planning isestablished by providing legal basis, andimplementation is secured by institutional-organizational arrangements.The legal basis in Serbia is extremelyextensive and uncodified, even though it hasbeen reformed for nearly a decade. Theproblematics of managing space, protectingthe environment, resources and heritage, andsustainable development are directly orindirectly regulated by more than 40 laws.The legal basis in Serbia has established thehierarchy of spatial and urban plans, butestablishing relations between spatial andurban plans with sectoral planning basis, aswell as mechanisms and procedures for theircoordination and integration are lacking. Onlythe Law on Spatial Plans of the Republic of

Serbia (1996) set out the obligation to realiseor elaborate this spatial plan with other spatial,urban and sectoral plans, strategies, policiesand programmes.The law which regulates spatial planing andmanagement of space ought to be the basiclaw to provide a planning basis and theimplementation of sustainable development ofterritory and settlements. The Law on Planningand Construction from 2003 specificallymentioned spatial development amongprinciples for management of space. Theproblem is that this law did not deal inmanagement and protection of space, but thefocus was on building and legalisation ofunplanned/illegally built buildings. This is thereason why this law did not provide efficiencyin planned management and protection ofspace, and with it no foundation for sustainableterritorial development. It seems that, from theaspect of sustainable development andmanagement of space, the new law from 2009offers even more unfavourable solutions. Theprimary focus of that law is constructible land,i.e. placing government-owned constructibleland on the market, and construction ofbuildings, i.e. facilitating the acquisition ofbuilding permits, all with the apparent aim ofattracting foreign investors. The law whichdoes not protect public interest in use andconstruction of space, and therefore not all ofresources in space, can not represent the legalbasis for planning and realising sustainableterritorial development.The most advanced in view of establishingrelations on coordinating the planning basis isthe package of laws on environmentalprotection from 2004. The law onenvironmental protection, modelled after thelegislation from European countries,established an integral system ofenvironmental protection, as well as measuresand instruments for sustainable managementand protection of natural resources andheritage. The law stipulates that the SpatialPlan of the Republic of Serbia and the NationalStrategy for Sustainable Use of NaturalResources and Goods represent legal bases forsustainable use and protection of naturalresources and heritage, whereas spatialplanning represents planning basis forintegrated protection of the environment,resources and goods. The law on strategicimpact assessment provides for use of thisenvironmental tool for plans, programs andbases in the domain of spatial and sectoralplanning of transport, energetics, agriculture,


6/14


44 spatium

forestry, fishery, hunting, industry, wastemanagement, water management,telecommunications, tourism etc. with the aimof avoiding or limiting negative impacts ofplanned decisions on the environment. Theproblem is that in practice it is applied only inthe domain of spatial and urban planning.The laws on planning and construction andenvironmental protection have not sufficientlyestablished obligations of coordinatingplanning and guiding the use and protection ofspace and environment, especially betweenspatial and urban plans on the one hand, andthe national environmental protectionprogramme, local environmental protectionaction plans, action and sanation plans atnational, provincial and local levels on theother. Simultaneously, obligations andpropositions for the coordination of sectoralwith spatial and environmental planning andguiding sustainable development are lacking.The Law on Regional Development (2009)established a new system of regional planningfor NUTS II and III planning regions - thenational regional development plan, regionaldevelopment strategy and programs of fundingregional development. It was intended thatthese plans be harmonised with adoptedspatial plans, as well as to represent one ofstarting bases to develop new spatial plans andprogrammes for their implementation. In otherwords, there is formal talk on harmonising butnot coordination of regional plans/strategieswith spatial planning. The manner in which theobligation for spatial plans was formulatedindicates that there will be no verification ofspatial impacts of regional plans/strategies, i.e.that coordinating and integration of thisplanning basis into the spatial planningprocess and the realisation of sustainableregional development will be disabled inpractice. As this law does not mention theobligation of implementing instruments ofstrategic environmental impact assessment, itbecomes cleat that environmental impact ofregional planning basis will not be checked.Owing to this, the environmental policy controltool - strategic environmental impactassessment - will not be able to play its part inestablishing coordination and integration ofplanning basis at regional planning level.A similar constatation can be made for the newset of laws on tourism. The 2005 Law onTourism declaratively mentioned sustainabledevelopment and integral planning of tourismdevelopment among tourism developmentprinciples. That law only established the

obligation to harmonise national sectoralstrategy with the Spatial Plan of the Republic ofSerbia. The new Law on Tourism (2009) isretrograde in relation to its predecessor,because it does not mention integral planning,but planning the development of tourism isreduced only to sectoral planning which wasnot adequately connected to other forms ofplanning. The provisions of the new law makeno mention of coordination with spatial andenvironmental planning, as well as with othersectoral planning bases. The following systemof sectoral plans and programs is establishedunder the title "integral planning": TourismDevelopment Strategy of the Republic ofSerbia, Strategic Marketing Plan of theRepublic of Serbia, Strategic Master Plan forPrioritised Tourist Spaces, Tourist ProductDevelopment Programme, TourismDevelopment Programme and PromotionalActivities Programme. Only the TourismDevelopment Strategy of the Republic of Serbiais intended to contain an analysis of impact oncultural heritage and natural resources, but noton space and the environment. The strategicmaster plan was in no was connected with theprotection of space, environment, resourcesand heritage, but with the economic evaluationof the tourist infrastructure, touristsuperstructure, transport network and utilityinfrastructure, as well as the estimate ofeconomic justification of individual and totalinvestments. It was intended that the strategicmaster plan represents a starting ground forspatial and urban plans, which indicates, and isverified in practice, that there will not be anyverification into spatial impacts of the sectoralstrategy, i.e. that coordination and integrationof this planning framework into the spatialpanning process will be disabled in practice.This law was also not connected with the set ofenvironmental protection laws from 2004, andthere is no mention of the obligation toimplement strategic environmental impactassessment, so that - apart from declarative,no factual protection of the environment andresources - including tourist resources - isprovided. In other words, the new Law onTourism does not provide for even the basicpreconditions to manage and guide sustainabledevelopment of tourism and sustainableterritorial development.In the local planning system, sectoralplanning basis is comprised of general andsectoral/trade plans, strategies, policies andprogrammes which exert major influence onrealisation of management of space, protectionof the environment, resources and heritage,

and sustainable development. The impacts ofsectoral planning are manifested directly orindirectly, in a coordinated or uncoordinatedmanner in relation to general strategies, spatialand urban plans and environmental plans andprograms. A large potion of the sectoralplanning basis has not been connected withspace and environment in Serbia, so that theguiding role from the aspect of use andmanagement of space and protection of theenvironment, resources and heritage, i.e.sustainable development, is realised indirectlyor not realised at all.Formal and informal types of coordinationhave been established in the planning practicefor the process of spatial and sectoral planningin the domains of agriculture, water powerengineering, forestry and protection of naturalresources. An informal type of coordination hasbeen established with several other sectors(transport, energetic and telecommunicationsinfrastructure), but is undergoing difficultiesdue to the underdevelopment of certainsectoral planning basis, which have mostlybeen reduced to short-term buildingprogrammes (reconstruction, modernisationetc.) and technical documents.The problem has been aggravated over theprevious years by adopting or developing amultitude of general and sectoral strategiesand master plans (with various purposes),which are in most cases not in accordance withthe legal basis, so their contents, developmentmethodology, procedure of consideration andpublic inclusion, obligations of harmonisationwith spatial and environmental or other sectoralplanning bases remain unknown, as well asjurisdictions in respect to how they wereadopted and implemented.After the European Union model, Serbia hasadopted a set of general strategies in the firstdecade of the 21st century which have direct orindirect influence over management andguidance of sustainable development. Theseare primarily the following long-term and mid-term strategies: The National SustainableDeveleopment Strategy, Poverty ReductionStrategy, National Employment Strategy for theperiod from 2005 to 2010, National YouthStrategy, Birth Incentive Strategy, RegionalDevelopment Strategy of Serbia for the periodfrom 2007 to 2012, National EconomicDevelopment Strategy of the Republic of Serbiafrom 2006 to 2012, Strategy for theDevelopment of Competitive Small andMedium Enterprises for the period from 2008


7/14


spatium 45

to 2013, National Environmental ProtectionProgramme and other strategies and programs.The legal basis for developing and adopting theNational Sustainable Development Strategyremains unknown. It is based on generallyaccepted principles defined in theJohannesburg Declaration on SustainableDevelopment, UN Millennium DevelopmentGoals and EU Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy, but the conception of sustainabledevelopment of Serbia remained too generaland without the spatial dimension. Althoughadopted general and sectoral strategies wereused when developing this strategy, itremained unclear who and how provides theircoordination and how to elaborate andimplement the National SustainableDevelopment Strategy. One thing is certain,sustainable development can not bbe achievedby partially implementing various strategiesand policies.One can make a similar statement for theRegional Development Strategy of Serbia forthe period from 2007 to 2012, which primarilydeals with the problem of regional disparities,but does not offer a concept of polycentric andbalanced regional development of Serbia, orrepresents a basis for spatial and functionaldifferentiation, specialisation and networking ofregions, preservation and improvement ofregional identity, as well as sustainableregional development of Serbia.The concept of polycentric and balancedregional development and network of urbancentres in our regional planning and regionaldevelopment practice has not been achievedso far. It was only during the development ofthe Spatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia thatan exact analysis of all elements and factors ofregional development was conducted andstrategies for the de-metropolitanization ofSerbia and a functional balancing of the systemof centres and settlements were defined. Theproblem is that political and legal frameworksfor resolving issues of legislative-functionalsubsidiarity, i.e. vertical and horizontaldistribution of competences, obligations andresponsibilities among levels of administrationand planning, have not been established yet.This is why the questions of functionalhomogeneity, transport connectivity andregional networking of urban centres in Serbiaremain open (Toi, Maksin-Mii, 2009).The problem of coordinating spatial andenvironmental with sectoral planning basis ismost pronounced in the tourism sector in

current practice. Tourism DevelopmentStrategy of the Republic of Serbia (2006) hasdefinitely been linked to the Spatial Plan of theRepublic of Serbia, but not with the adoptedsectoral strategies. The largest problem arisesdue to the implementation of certain newsectoral planning tools - such as the 'master'plans (visit the website:www.merr.gov.rs/dokumenti), which were notin accordance with the legal basis for tourismuntil recently. Over the past three years, 12strategies and master plans have beendeveloped for tourist areas. It can generally bestated that a sectoral approach is predominantin these strategies and master plans, withoutanalysing the impact of planned tourismdevelopment to the surroundings and withoutassessing environmental, spatial, social andcultural effects of these impacts. The overallstructure of master plans for tourist areas, as arule, consists of the following: 'as-is' analysis(analysis of resources, capacities andinfrastructure, locational analyses), analysis ofsupply and demand, SWOT and PESTLEanalyses, benchmark analysis, competitivenessanalysis, marketing, directions fordevelopment, tourist products, management,investments and impacts of investments. Dueto sectoral approach and partial overview ofdeveloping tourist areas, substantial negativeeffects of tourism impacts on natural heritage,resources and environment, as well as localcommunity development can manifestthemselves in the realisation of certain masterplans, especially for macro- and mezzo-regional tourist areas and natural resources ofStara Planina, Golija and Kopaonik.Reforms of the planning system and theprocesses of spatial, environmental andsectoral planning to date have not secured theirharmonisation with the approach, policies,concepts and principles of planning andmanaging sustainable and competitiveterritorial development of the European Union.The process of developing and implementingthe planning graounds in Serbia is unsuitablefor guiding and managing sustainable territorialdevelopment of Serbia and its approximation tothe European Union. The integrative role ofspatial and environmental planning can not berealised due to poor coordination and absenceof integration between various forms ofplanning.

REGIONAL SPATIAL PLANNING ANDSUSTAINABLE TERRITORIAL ANDREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INSERBIADue to the undeveloped regional policy,absence of regional administration level andslowness in selecting some form ofregionalisation, Serbia does not have adeveloped practice of developing regionalspatial plans. Two were adopted in theprevious decade, and several regional spatialplans are currently being developed. On theother side, there was a continuousdevelopment of the practice of developingspatial plans for special use areas of macro-and mezzo-regional scope. This is the reasonthe paper analyses the implementation of basicprinciples of spatial planning, the concept ofterritorial development of the European Unionand individual UNECE recommendations forthe regional level of spatial planning, at theexample of regional and spatial plans forspecial use areas with a macro-regionaldimension for the Eastern and South-Easternparts of Serbia - Regional Spatial Plan forSouthern Pomoravlje, Regional Spatial Plan forTimoka krajina and the Spatial Plan for theStara Planina Nature Park and Tourist Regionarea (hereinafter: regional plans).Developing and passing these plans is part ofthe elaboration and implementation of theSpatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia, as wellas the implementation of general and sectoralstrategies, plans and programmes and theiradaptation to regional and local specificities.The possibility to implement concepts andpriorities of the territorial development of theEuropean Union was checked simultaneouslywith the development of regional plans, andprimarily the following:

concepts of balanced polycentricdevelopment, i.e. polycentric system ofurban centres,establishing new forms of developingurban and rural areas at the level offunctional urban areas;strengthening and widening the networkof traffic corridors, improved technicalinfrastructure - energy in particular - anddecentralising services of public interest;conserving and using natural capital(forests, waters, minerals etc.),strengthening ecological structures andcultural resources as developmentpotentials in areas which lag behind in


8/14


46 spatium

development and are classified asecologically and culturally sensitive areas.Regional plans for areas of Jablanica and Pinj,Zajear and Bor counties and Stara planinatourist region (part of Zajear and Pirotcounties) encompasses the territory of 5counties and 23 municipalities with the totalsurface of approximately 14,200 km2(representing approximately 16% of theterritory of Serbia), with about 1000settlements and about 800 thousand citizens(Image 1). Physically and geographically, thisarea covers most of the Basins of Juna Moravaand Timok rivers, a part of lower Podunavljeregion and the highland dominated by the highaltitude Stara planina and Krajite with Vlasinamassives.The following characteristics of the area weredecisive to implement the concept and selectthe vision and planning solutions forsustainable territorial and regionaldevelopment:

It is categorised as undeveloped andboth economically and demographicallydepressive regions;It is peripheral to developmental axesand the largest urban centres in Serbia,with unevenly developed and functionallyinsufficiently networked system ofsettlements, predominated by medium andsmall urban centres;potential cross-border area (with thestate border in approximate length of 500km) between Pan-European transportcorridors X to the West, IV to the East andVII to the North, with natural and culturalareas of international significance andregions with similar developmentproblems in Bulgaria, Romania (EU) andMacedonia;

possesses significant natural capital -exceptional hydroenergetic potentials of"erdap 1" and "erdap 2" hydroelectricplants, agricultural, cattle breeding andforestry area, minerals, natural and touristvalues with exceptional potential for thedevelopment of tourism on Stara planina,Danube, Krajite with Vlasina, spas etc.,water springs of national and regionalsignificance with 8 existing and 7 plannedaccumulation basins, a potential waterwaycorridor, substantial reserves of mineralresources and developed mining industry;chief transport corridors in the areas area section and leg of corridor X (includingpartly built infrastructure systems) and a

section of corridor VII (Danube with partlyutilised waterway and unused nauticalpotentials) etc.Regional plans set the vision, basic conceptsand planning solutions to achieve morebalanced regional and subregionaldevelopment, increase competitiveness andintegrate the area in its surroundings(neighbouring functional areas of SouthernSerbia and autonomous provinces, as well aswith neighbouring border municipalities andregions in Bulgaria, Romania and Macedonia).Special attention has been paid to increasingattractiveness of the area for investment bydefining planning solutions for: activating andmobilising territorial capital, sustainable use ofnatural and man-made resources, long-termreconstruction and development of humanresources, increasing transport availability toPan-European corridors, infrastructureinstallations and energy efficiency,development of the economy and institutions,protection of natural and cultural heritage asfactors for the development of the area,sanitation and protection of the environment(Image 1).

Starting from propositions for the nationalspatial plan and taing into considerationconceptions and priorities of the Union's

territorial development, similarities can beperceived among general sustainabledevelopment goals for the area in question andregional plans as follows:responsible administration of thedevelopment, management and protectionof space inn accordance with realisticpotentials and limitations of natural andman-made resources, as well as the valueand long-term requirements of economicand social development and protection ofthe environment;more balanced development atintraregional and interregional levels,stimulation for the development ofagriculture, tourism, energy, mining andinfrastructure, improvements on theinfrastructure corridor X andwaterway/nautical corridor of the Danube,significant improvement in accessibility ofmountainous and remote parts of the area,initiating cross-border programmes forborder areas;quality of life improvements and creatingconditions for demographic renewal,retention and stimulation of settling and

return of the population, especially intoeconomically disadvantaged rural areas orcentres by way of investment into

Image 1. Area of regional spatial plans for Southern Pomoravlje region, Timoka krajina and Stara planina tourist region.Source: Spatial plan for the area of Stara planina nature park and tourist region (2008), Regional spatial plan of the SouthernPomoravlje municipalities, Spatial Plan Strategy - Concept (2009), Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning ofSerbia; Regional Spatial Plan for Timoka krajina - Spatial Plan Concept (2009), Institute of Architecture and Urban & SpatialPlanning of Serbia


9/14


spatium 47

construction, reconstruction andmaintenance of infrastructure, publicservices, preservation and advancement ofthe natural and cultural heritage,development of economically viable andstatus-appealing activities.

The paper indicates only several key regionalplan solutions to achieve general goals,conceptions and principles of sustainableterritorial and regional development.It was intended to realise twofold achievementof a greater degree of functional integrationof areas by regional plans Intraregionally,within the space of Jablanica and Pinj,Zajear, Bor and Pirot counties, plannedqualitative changes in spatial, transport,economic and social structure shall enableharmonisation of development and networkingbetween subregional entities, especiallyhighlands and border areas with pronounceddysfunctions of social and economicdevelopment. Interregionally, functionalintegration with neighbouring functional areasand Republic of Serbia shall enable therealisation of prioritised planning solutionssignificant for several municipalities andregions, primarily for transport linking withcorridors X and VII, the development of otherinfrastructure systems and regional cluster(economy, tourism, education etc.) formation.Connecting and cooperating with internationalsurroundings, neighbouring bordermunicipalities and regions in Bulgaria,Romania and Macedonia implies preparationand realisation of cross-border programmes forwhich certain planning solutions have beenproposed in the domains of infrastructure,energy, tourism, ecology, urban centrecooperation etc.The support to realising integration, morebalanced and polycentric development of thearea is planned by improving transportavailability and infrastructure installationof the space. This particularly relates toplanning solutions for completing theconstruction, equipping and arranging theinfrastructure corridor for E-75 highway andconnecting the area with E-75 highwaynew sections in the following areas: E75-Bor/Zajear; E75-Stara planina; E75-Trgovite-Bosilegrad; E75-Kriva Feja-Bosilegrad etc;completion of equipping and regulating thesection of the Danube waterway/nauticalcorridor; reconstruction of existing railroadtracks (Ni-Zajear-Prahovo, Ni-Makedonijaetc.) with legs intoRomania and Bulgaria andbuilding E-85 high-speed railroad;

development of energy andtelecommunications infrastructure. Plannedtransport infrastructure construction ought tocontribute to improving transit and mediatoryconnections of Eastern and Southern Serbiaalong corridor X and on roadways to Pan-European infrastructure corridors X to the Westand IV in the East, improving spatial andfunctional positioning, increasingcompetitiveness of the region and quickerdevelopment of regional centres. Therealisation of internal integration, developmentof small towns, micro-developmental ruralcentres, activation of highland and border areashas been supported by planning solutions forthe improvement in the capillary, regional andlocal road network, especially transverseroadways, and their connection with trunkroads and highways in Pan-European corridors.In the application of the balancedpolycentric regional development concept,model of dispersed-concentrated developmentand allocation of population, economic andother activities was used to slow down the rateof population concentration and activities inprimary development axes (infrastructurecorridor X) and stimulation for the dispersionof development in areas with significantterritorial capital and potential. Planningsolutions were intended to resolve thefollowing issues:

Development of functional urbanisedregions in single and dual urban centres(directions Bor-Zajear, Leskovac-Ni,Vranje-Vladiin Han), strengtheningregional functions in Bor, Zajear,Leskovac, Vranje and Pirot anddecentralisation of remaining functions tomunicipal and sub-municipal and micro-development centres in rural areas asexponents of socio-economic developmentof rural communities and their functionalintegration with urban centres;Development of spatially functional links(in Vlasotince, Lebane, Bojnik, Bosilegrad,Trgovite, Dimitrovgrad, etc.), mutuallyand with regional centres in immediate andcross-border surroundings (Vlasotince,Bojnik, Lebane in the functional region ofLeskovac; Surdulica, Vladiin Han,Bujanovac, Bosilegrad, Preevo in thefunctional region of Vranje; Dimitrovgrad inthe functional region of Pirot and Sofia,etc.);Continuing work on the formation of thesecondary development axis in Timok(directions Ni-KnjaevacZajear

NegotinKladovo, to be joined by Bor) andregulation of the primary South Moravadevelopment axis (directionsPreevo/Bujanovac-Vranje-Vladiin Han-Leskovac/Vlasotince-Ni) and regionalfunctional urban systems that link themacro-region of Ni with East Podunavlje,South Serbia and immediate internationalsurroundings;Development of existing successfulsmall and mid-sized enterprises that shall,apart from modernising and specialising inproduction and environmentalrestructuring, become leaders in economicconnections into regional production andservice clusters that compete withcompanies within the region andcompanies from Ni, Belgrade and otherindustrial centres. Development ofeconomic activities and structures will bebased on an increased level of investment,technical-technological equipment,improvement of competitiveness,advancing of the knowledge pool througheducation and development of professionalexpertise, rational and efficient use ofnatural resources and spatial andenvironmental plausibility with priorities inthe fields of energy, mining, transportservices, storage and logistics activities,tourism, etc.One of the main strongholds of planningsolutions to establish new forms ofdevelopment and partnershipsbetween rural and urban areas aresubstantial natural resources andenvironmental structures in rural areas onthe one hand, and economy, scientificresearch, innovative, informative,developmental, administrative, cultural andother functions of urban centres on theother.

The implementation of new forms ofdevelopment and partnership in rural and urbanareas will be achieved by establishing anucleus of socio-economic transformation ofrural and poorly urbanised areas in the region(in accordance with principles of sustainableterritorial development, particularly pertainingto rational use of space, resources, energy andtransportation) and development of daily urbansystems (formation of functional urbanregions). Daily urban systems in Leskovac,Vranje, Zajear and Bor, Negotin, Knjaevacand Pirot include fifteen municipal and sub-municipal centres, and approximately onehundred village community centres and


10/14


48 spatium

settlements with specific functions. It isnecessary to support job creation policiesinvestment and other measures for intensifyingspecific regional, economic, public and socialfunctions in small centres, so as to slow downthe concentration of economic and otheractivities in large urban centres and stimulateeconomic and social development of othercentres in the urban network.Part of planning solutions for more even regionaldevelopment is based on economic prosperity,development and improving living conditions inrural areas, maintaining and promoting ruralvalues, strengthening the economic position ofagriculture and agricultural producers, developinginfrastructure and raising utility and publicstandard in villages. Agriculture, depending on theavailability of agricultural funds, traditionaldependency of local population on agriculture asan economic branch and development of agri-industrial capacities, represents one of the mostimportant developmental resources. Theintensification of agricultural development andvillages as a whole shall be based on increasedmarket competitiveness of local agri-environmental assets, in accordance with specificconditions in rural areas, as well as onimprovement of agricultural structure within thescope of implementing integrated ruraldevelopment programs in accordance with thenew model of Common Agriculture Policy of theEuropean Union.What is of particular importance for futuredevelopment, especially pertaining toperipheral and rural areas, are tourism andcomplementary activities based on preservedenvironment and tourist resources of nationaland international significance. Planningsolutions are aimed at: (i) completion andintegration of the existing tourist offer acrossthe region (littoral of the Danube with erdaplake/erdap National Park, Stara planinaNature Park, Vlasina Lake, Sokobanja, Vranjespas, Bujanovac, Sijarina and Gamzigrad,archeological sites Felix Romuliana, LepenskiVir, etc; (ii) construction and arrangement ofnew contents to generate year-roundexploitation of the regional tourist offer(nautical and tourist infrastructure at theDanube, tourist centres and ski resort in StaraPlanina and Besna Kobila, variety of tourismoptions pertaining to lakes, mountains,immovable cultural goods, Negotin breweries,tourist centres-towns and localities/traditionalevents, spas, villages and hunting grounds,transitory waterways and roadways etc.); (iii)functional integration and

diversification/specialisation of the tourist offerin accordance with regional plans and regionalsurrounding in Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania andMacedonia. The development of tourism willprovide one of the mechanisms forcompensating the local population forlimitations of the regime for the preservationand protection of natural resources andheritage.A portion of regional plans will base theirdevelopment on sustainable use of waterresources and energy, metallic and non-metallic minerals. Planning solutions providefor integrated protection and use of waterresources within the scope of regional waterpower engineering systems as a basis for ruralareas to collect substantial revenue fromrenting resource. The planed solutions furtherstipulate utilising actual reserves indevelopmental function and continuingresearch related to potential copper reserves(with offside elements of gold, coal, lead andzinc, architectural stone, limestone, quartzsand, sandstone and rare minerals);completing the privatisation process,restructuring Radio and Television Station Borand active coal mines with ground exploitation;implementing measures for sanitation ofdegraded environmental areas and reduction ofemission of pollutants to an acceptable level inall phases of exploitation, processing anddisposal of mineral products.The spatial planning process utilises anintegrated approach to sustainable territorialand regional development. On the basis ofavailable potential, limitations and recognisedtendencies and requirements pertaining toregional development, a vision of integrateddevelopment has been offered, and conceptsand planned solutions for sustainable andbalanced regional development have beendetermined. However, the process of regionalspatial planning did not incorporate itscoordinating and integrative function pertainingto the planning basis in terms of general andsectoral strategy, plans and programs. In theprocess of developing spatial plans, principlesand concepts of general strategies wereimplemented and adapted to regional and localspecificities, although they mostly do notpossess a spatial dimension, whichcomplicates their implementation. Sectoralstrategies, plans and programs in the field ofwater economy, forestry, transport, economy,communal waste management were used andharmonised in the same manner. Perceivedproblems, planning concepts and regional

spatial planning solutions as a rule did nothave a corrective impact on sectoral planningbasis, due to unresolved issues pertaining toresponsibilities and mechanisms forcoordinating sectoral with spatial planningbasis.The principle of subsidiarity wasimplemented in the process of regional spatialplanning. Furthermore, all recommendationsand initiatives of local communities, concepts,solutions and local strategy priorities(sustainable development, economicdevelopment, etc), plans (municipal spatialplans, local environmental protection plans,etc), programmes and other developmentaldocuments in local communities were takeninto consideration.Participativeness in the process of regionalplanning was only partially implemented due toinsufficient training and education ofprofessional planners and local management,insufficient knowledge and lack of motivationon the part of local stakeholders andunderdevelopment of institutions at the level ofregional administration. Notwithstanding abovelimitations, cooperation with the NationalSpatial Planning Agency resulted inconsultations and assessment of respectivephases of developing regional plans.Cooperation with competent municipaladministration authorities and services andcertain regional institutions (Jablanica andPinj County Development Centre, RegionalAgency for the Development of East Serbia,regional chambers of commerce, etc.) wasimportant in preparing and developingconcepts/strategies of the plan, and resulted inimproved quality and attainability of plannedsolutions. Local stakeholders expresseddissatisfaction with the amount of fundsallocated by the Republic of Serbia fordevelopment of areas covered by regionalplans. Local stakeholders in Timoka Krajinafurther expressed lack of trust and resistancetowards cross-border programs initiated in thedomain of economic cooperation andinfrastructure development, including jointapproach of local communities from Serbiaand neighbouring countries in applying for EUfunds and assistance by relevant internationalassociations. Initiative at the level of localcommunities pertaining to forming andengaging of regional development agencies isof high importance for planning and managingsustainable regional development. The coretask of such agencies is to initiate andcoordinate development programs and projects


11/14


spatium 49

of interest for several municipalities. Problemsemerged in the cooperation between agenciesand the national administration, whilecooperation with international institutions wasmore successful. Due to above reasons,development of regional plans prioritisedmeasures for cooperation between national,(sub)regional and local administration,including activities pertaining the constructionof institutional framework for managingsustainable regional development, headed byregional development agencies.The principle of prevention was implementedin the process of regional spatial planning byincorporating the aspect of environmentalprotection and preservation of resources andheritage in planning concepts and solutions.This primarily relates to concepts and solutionspertaining to: prevention of degradation ofnatural resources and assets and irrational useof space (especially high-mountain areas ofStare Planine and Krajite, littoral of theDanube and water accumulation basins); airprotection, recultivation and revitalisation ofsoil in areas for exploitation of minerals(particularly in Bor and Majdanpek); protectionof agricultural and forest land from building notincluded in spatial plans in valleys and borderurban zones and infrastructure corridors, etc.The effects of planned conceptions andsolutions were evaluated in the process ofstrategic environmental impact assessment ofregional spatial plans.Proportionality in planning statements hasbeen achieved successfully. The only plannedsolutions, principles, regimes and protectivemeasures with direct/binding effect are thosethat impacted more balanced regionaldevelopment, protection and sustainable use ofsensitive areas and areas with critical naturalcapital, development of regional andsubregional infrastructure systems,development of industrial zones, touristcomplexes, etc. Statements included inremaining planned solutions and proposalshave streamlining capacity on the level ofdeliberations, regulations, criteria andrecommendations, and are thus open/flexibleto be harmonised with developmentalrequirements, changes and innovations.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTASSESSMENT AND SUSTAINABLETERRITORIAL AND REGIONALDEVELOPMENT IN SERBIAStrategic environmental assessment is arelatively new tool in the planning process,both in Serbia and across the European Union.EU Directive on Strategic environmentalAssessment (Directive 2001/42/EC of theEuropean parliament and the Council of 27thJune 2002 on the assessment of the effects ofcertain plans and programmes on theenvironment), including the Protocol onStrategic Environmental Assessment,constitute European legal basis for theimplementation of sustainable developmentand planning ideas. The above documentsconstituted the basis for defining the set ofenvironmental protection laws in the Republicof Serbia that included the environmentalprotection component in the planning anddecision making processes.Accordingly, the process of spatial planning isdrifting further from the previouslyimplemented determinative towards theparticipative principle, given that strategicenvironmental impact assessment ideasintroduced new methodologicalrecommendations, bringing substantialchanges to previous decision makingprocesses (Healey, 1997).Strategic environmental assessment is anenvironmental planning tool that possesses acontrolling, coordinating and integrative role inthe planning process. Strategic environmentalimpact assessment is a process that integratesobjectives and principles of sustainabledevelopment in spatial and sectoral planning(of transport, energy, water power, agriculture,forestry, tourism, etc.). The importance ofstrategic environmental assessment isreflected in the following aspects:

preventive role due to involvement withcauses of environmental problems at thesource, i.e. on the strategic level ofplanning plans, strategies, policies,programs and respective projects;processing of issues and impacts ofwider significance that can not beassessed at the level of respective projects synergy, cummulative and social effects;enabling assessment and evaluation ofimpacts, risks and consequences ofvarious alternative and varyingenvironmental development options;

setting forth an adequate context foranalysis of the impact of concrete projects,including prior identification of problemsand impacts worthy of detailed research,etc.

Depending on the level of hierarchy of theplanning document and specificities of thearea, it is necessary to determine differentstrategic impact analysis goals that shall beused to conduct an evaluation of the planningsolutions in relation to specific planningsegments (environmental protection, tourism,infrastructure, economy etc.). The results of theanalysis shall enable the provision ofrecommendations for adopting or rejectingcertain planning solutions which are not inaccordance with the goals of environmentalprotection, immovable cultural goods, healthand quality of life of the population.The role of the strategic environmentalassessment is primarily to create a cause-and-effect connection between protecting theenvironment and planning development,regulation and construction in a given space,by way of determining measures to neutraliseimpacts certain activities and interventions onlocation might cause. Owing to this, strategicenvironmental assessment must have clear andrealistic goals and indicators based on which itshall adequately assess variants of planningoptions and solutions.Apart from this, representatives of allstakeholders take part in the decision-makingand strategic environmental assessmentprocesses in the countries of the EuropeanUnion (i.e. local government, citizens, privateand non-profit sectors). This provides theplanning process with a participativedimension which also contributes to improvingthe quality of the planning solutions,strengthening environmental and socialdimensions of planning, and confirms thelegitimacy of planning decisions (Bedford,Clark, Harrison, 2002).According to local practice, public scrutiny ismandatory concerning all affairs pertaining tostrategic environmental assessment - i.e.informing the public and its participation in thestrategic environmental assessment report.Such responsibility and practice should beintroduced for strategic sectoral documents,both with an aim to inform and include thepublic, and reduce manipulation in passingsectoral planning decisions. As this is aminimalist approach to exercising citizensfundamental rights, it should be set as widelyas possible; also, the participative approach


12/14


50 spatium

has to be developed in our system andplanning practices.Establishing spatial planning coordination withenvironmental planning tools is a planningchallenge in Serbia. Althoughrecommendations for developing strategicenvironmental assessment are a legalrequirement (Law on Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment, Official Gazette of the Republic ofSerbia No 135/04), a common methodologyfor development of such studies has not beenofficially established. Owing to this, problemsoccur pertaining to the implementation ofmultiple criteria analyses, drawing results anddefining recommendations based on strategicassessment. In that respect, some authors(Stojanovi, Marii, 2008) providedmethodology guidelines for the development ofstrategic environmental impact assessmentstudies that currently - notwithstanding theirusefulness - do not have legal force.Although the spatial planning practice in Serbiahas in the previous five years included theresponsibility to develop strategicenvironmental impact assessment as anintegral part of spatial and general plans (inaccordance with the Law on StrategicEnvironmental Assessment and the Law onPlanning and Construction), such documentsare most commonly declarative due to theinsufficient systematisation and coordination oflaws, since strategic environmentalassessment is undertaken after thedevelopment of strategies/concepts fordevelopment, protection and regulation ofplanning area. Therefore, verification ofplanning solutions is undertaken after definingthem, and is occasionally reduced to a mereconfirmation of already adopted solutions,without detailed analysis of the impact.Notwithstanding the above issues, theintegration of the strategic environmentalassessment into spatial and urban plans inSerbia gets good results in evaluating differentterritorial development solutions andcontributing to the improvement of quality oflife and the environment.Non-implementation of legal requirementspertaining to the development of strategicenvironmental assessments for sectoral plansrepresents a limitation in the implementation ofcoordinating and integrative roles of strategicimpact assessments in our planning system.Simultaneously this jeopardises the realisationof the integrative role played by spatial andenvironmental planning in guiding and

managing sustainable territorial and regionaldevelopment in Serbia.This will be illustrated by the example ofimplementing strategic environmentalassessment on spatial and, indirectly, sectoralplanning of the macro-regional tourist areas inSerbia.The overall conclusion can be that the sectoralapproach is predominant in the new generationof sectoral tourism plans strategies andmaster plans. This is discrepant with the WorldTourist Organisation guidelines that emphasisethe importance of harmonising sectoralplanning in tourism with spatial planning andbenefits of early inclusion of tourism in theprocess of spatial planning identification ofmost suitable areas for sustainabledevelopment of tourism, prevention of anynegative impacts of tourism on theenvironment and negative impacts of theenvironment on tourism (UN WTO, UNEP,2005).Collision between environmental and sectoralinterests in tourism development strategies andmaster plans will increase with theimplementation of the new Law on Tourism,due to the legal obligation to include sectoralplans in spatial plans.In these conditions, the implementation ofstrategic environmental assessment representsthe only control mechanism that enablescoordination of sector-oriented strategies andmaster plans pertaining to the tourismdevelopment with spatial and environmentalplanning. The control role of the strategicenvironmental assessment of sectoralstrategies and plans is implemented throughidentifying negative spatial, environmental andsocial effects that may cause their uncriticisedincorporation in spatial and urban plans. Thecoordinating role of strategic assessmentrelates to reducing or neutralising negativeimpacts of sectoral and spatial planning andcoordinating planning decisions to achievesustainable territorial development.After the adoption of tourism developmentmaster plans for the priority tourist areas inSerbia, a significant problem occurred indeveloping spatial plans for areas of specialuse and regional spatial plans. The problemrelates to the obligation (which has in themeantime evolved into a legal requirement) forthe planning concepts and solutions fromsectoral documents to be incorporated directlyinto spatial plans. Without previous verificationand achieving spatial and environmental

sustainability, concepts and solutions basedexclusively on the sectoral approach cannot beincorporated in planning concepts andsolutions based on the integrated approach.Although strategies and master planspertaining to tourism development do notrequire strategic environmental assessment, itsimplementation in spatial plans may contributeto striking a balance between sectoral andsustainable development.The role of strategic environmental assessmentcan be explained on the example of spatial andsectoral plans for the Stara Planina touristregion and nature park.The Report on Strategic Environmentalenvironmental Assessment of the Spatial Planfor Stara Planina Tourist Region and NaturePark (in further text: SEA Report) concludesthat significant positive effects of theimplementation of Stara Planina Spatial Planwill be particularly effective in the following:protection and improvement of the condition ofnature and environment; preservation,presentation and adequate utilisation of naturaland cultural heritage; overall economic effectsand balanced improvement of the employmentrate in the local population (in the domain oftourism, agriculture and other complementaryactivities); improvement and protection ofpublic health and creation of conditions for restand recreation. It was concluded that accordingto the concept for dispersed development andconstruction, implemented in the major part ofthe territory covered by Stara Planina SpatialPlan (approximately 88% of the territory), noneof the planning solutions will generatesubstantial long-term negative environmentalimpact that cannot be controlled.Due to existing Master Plan solutions for theTourist Resort of Jabuko Ravnite-Leskova,there was a doubling in accommodationcapacities in the mountain zone and in the sub-mountain zone. This brought theaccommodation capacity of the tourist regionof Stara Planina near the maximum capacity forall skiing tracks. SEA Report concludes that aconcept of concentrated building wasimplemented on a minor portion of the territorycovered by Stara Planina Spatial plan(approximately 12% of the territory) in thetourist resort of Jabuko Ravnite, resulting innegative long-term impacts on the nature andenvironment, particularly in the domain ofwater supply, waste water treatment, incomingand internal traffic, solid waste management,electric energy supply and accommodation ofemployees, quality of life in adjacent local


13/14


spatium 51

communities (due to heterogeneous allocationof jobs, predominant employment ofemployees from the vicinity, etc.) that are moredifficult to control than would be the case withthe concept of dispersed development thatwould be more suitable for the protected areaof Stara Planina.Strategic environmental assessment providedrecommendations to reduce establishedcapacities in Jabuko Ravnite to a level thatwill not endanger the environment, and definedmeasures to reduce and neutralise the negativeimpact brought on by the implementation ofplanned solutions. By introducing strategicenvironmental assessment instruments in theresolution of planning conflicts, a certain levelof compromise was achieved to reduce theconcept of sectoral plan, limit planneddevelopment and its negative impact on themost vulnerable area of the Natural Park, atleast in the initial phase of developing thetourist resort.On the basis of the above example we canconclude that collision between sectoral interestsand sustainable territorial development can beprevented by stricter implementation of the legalrequirement to develop a strategic impactassessment for sectoral plans and programs,which would help achieve sustainability ofsectoral planning concepts and solutions.

The above example also indicated the necessity tointegrate strategic impact assessments into theplanning process from preparation toimplementation, monitoring and auditing ofplanning documentation. A proposal for theintegration of strategic environmental impactassessment into the spatial planning process canbe seen on Image 2.CONCLUSIONNotwithstanding the insufficiently developedregional spatial planning in Serbia,implementation of the basic EU territorialdevelopment concepts related to this level ofplanning does exist concepts of balancedpolycentric development and establishment offunctional urban areas; developing the networkof transport corridors, technical infrastructureand decentralisation services of public interest;preservation and use of natural resources,improvements in environmental structures andcultural resources, etc. The strategicenvironmental assessment applies exclusivelyto spatial and urban plans, but it isinsufficiently integrated into the planningprocess. Local practices partial implementfundamental principles of the new EU spatialplanning concepts. Most problems areencountered in realising the roles of control,coordination and integration for spatial andenvironmental planning within the framework of

sectoral planning, as well as in relation to theshift from determinative to participativeplanning.Reforms to the systems of spatial,environmental and sectoral planning in Serbiaundertaken so far do not enable it to beharmonised with the EU approach, policies,concepts and principles of planning andmanaging sustainable and competitiveterritorial development. Processes pertaining tothe development and implementation of theplanning framework in Serbia are insufficientfor guiding and managing sustainable territorialand regional development in Serbia, as well asits approximation to the European Union.What is also important for the reform of theplanning system, including spatial planning, isan adequate reform of the legal framework,planning processes, planning tools andsupport to the implementation of planneddecisions.The principal precondition for the reform of theplanning system and improvement of spatialplanning is the reform of corresponding legalbasis that should ensure the following:

implementation of integrated strategicterritorial approach to planning andmanagement of sustainable development;establishing mechanisms for horizontaland vertical cooperation and coordinationbetween sectors and administration levels,as well as responsibilities of allstakeholders in the assessment ofenvironmental and territorial impact ofplanned development to achieve thecontrolling and integration role of spatialand environmental planning;increased participation of stakeholdersand transparency of decision-makingprocesses in all forms of planning, andespecially sectoral planning;increased flexibility of the planningprocess and planning instruments, etc.

In terms of implementing the strategicenvironmental assessment role, harmonisationof sectoral legal basis with the set ofenvironmental protection laws is sufficient forthe implementation of legal requirementsrelated to implement above assessment to thesectoral planning framework.The precondition to ensure participativeness ofspatial and other forms of planning is trainingand enabling professional planners andpersonnel at all levels of administration;

Image 2. Coordination of spatial planning and strategic environmental assessment


14/14


52 spatium

informing, motivating and including thecitizens and other stakeholders in the processof decision-making and implementation ofplanned decisions.Reform of the planning system should befocused in the upcoming period ondevelopment, coordination and integration ofspatial and environmental planning withregional and sectoral planning to achievemanagement and guidance of sustainabledevelopment of planning regions (functionalurban areas in Serbia) at NUTS II and III levels.REFERENCESAdams, N., Alde, J., Harris N (2006), Regional

Development and Spatial Planning in Enlarged

European Union, Urban and Regional Planningand Development Series, Aschgate Publishing

Ltd, pp. 3-16

Alden, J. (2006) Regional Development and

Spatial Planning, In: Regional Development and

Spatial Planning in Enlarged European Union,

Urban and Regional Planning and Development

Series, Aschgate Publishing Ltd, pp. 17-41

Bedford, T., Clark, J., Harrison, C. (2002), Limits

to new public participation practices in local

land use planning, Town Planning Review,

No3/73, Liverpool University press, Liverpool

European spatial development perspective.Towards balanced and Sustainable

Development of the Territory of the EU

(1999), Committee on Spatial Development

EU, Potsdam

European Commission (2007), Growing Regions,

growing Europe, Fourth Report on Economic

and Social Cohesion

European Commision (2006), A European Union

Strategy for Sustainable Development,

ec.europa.eu/sustainable

Healey, P. (1997), Collaborative planning,

Macmillian press, London, p.p. 5-21

Kruni

N., Tosi

D., Miliji

S, (2008), Problemsof spatial-functional organization of Juno

pomoravlje Regions network of settlements,

SPATIUM, No 19; Institute of Architecture and

Urban and Spatial Planning of Serbia, Belgrade,

Kunzmann, K. (2006), Europeanization of Spatial

Planning, In: Regional Development and Spatial

Planning in Enlarged European Union, Urban

and Regional Planning and Development Series,

Aschgate Publishing Ltd, pp. 43-64

Perisic D., Mitrovic S., Milijic S. (2003),

Belgrade, "Approach to the Regional Plan

Elaboration -the Case of Kolubara District",

SPATIUM, No 9., Institute of Architecture and

Urban and Spatial Planning of Serbia, Belgrade,

pg 1-7

Prostorni plan podruja Parka prirode i turistike

regije Stara planina (PPSP) (2008), "Slubeni

glasnik RS", br. 115/08

Regionalni prostorni plan optina Junog

pomoravlja (RPPJP), Strategija Konceptprostornog plana (2009), Institut za

arhitekturu i urbanizam Srbije

Regionalni prostorni plana Timoke krajine

(RPPTK), Strategija Koncept prostornog

plana (2009), Institut za arhitekturu i

urbanizam Srbije

Stojanovi, B., Marii, T. (2008), Metodologija

strateke procene uticaja prostornog plana

rudarsko-energetskog kompleksa na ivotnu

sredinu, Institut za arhitekturu i urbanizam

Srbije, Beograd. str. 4-76

Territorial Agenda of the European Union.

Towards a More Competitive and SustainableEurope of Diverse Regions (2007), Agreed on

the occasion of the Informal Ministerial

Meeting on Urban Developmen and Territorial

Cohesion in Leipzig

Toi, D., Maksin-Mii, M. (2009),

Funkcionalno-urbani region kao instrument

uravnoteenog razvoja Srbije, U: Regionalni

razvoj, prostorno planiranje i strateko

upravljanje, Institut za arhitekturu i urbanizam

Srbije, Beograd

United nations Economic Commission for Europe,

UNECE (2008), Spatial Planning. Key

Instrument for Development and EffectiveGovern

Documents

Spatial and Environmental Planning of Sustainable Regional Development in Serbia