Serraos Gianniris Zifou

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/292074559
The Greek spatial and urban planning system in the European context
Chapter · January 2005
CITATIONS READS
6 3,115
3 authors, including:
Konstantinos Serraos
National Technical University of Athens
19 PUBLICATIONS 32 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
IKYDA 2015: “New forms of governance and democratic legitimacy of urban planning decisions. Urban planning cultures in the frame of civil society initiatives and
protests”. View project
HeKriS: Challenges of resilience in European cities View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Konstantinos Serraos on 27 January 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Greek spatial and urban planning
system in the European context
Konstantinos Serraos, Assistant Professor NTUA, Architect Dr. Town Planner
Elias Gianniris, Researcher NTUA, Architect Dr. Regional Planner
Maria Zifou, Ph.D. candidate NTUA, Urban Planner
1. National Planning System
1.1. Administrative Structure
1.1.1. National level

According to the current Constitution, the legislature at national level is represented
by the Parliament which establishes, through a series of framework-acts (laws), the
structure and the procedures of spatial and town planning in the country. The Min-
istries, as well as the other related executive bodies (such as Secretaries of the Re-
gions, Prefects and Mayors), are empowered to specialize the planning legislation.
The executive power emanates from the Government which, in the field of spatial
planning, is represented mainly by the Ministry of Environment, Spatial Planning
and Public Works (YPEXODE). Concerning the judiciary powers at the national
level, a significant role in the Greek system plays the “State Council”, the involve-
ment of which in the spatial planning process is already very important, especially in
creating judicial standards for the interpretation of the domestic, community and
international legislation concerning the sustainable development perspective.
(ESTIA, 2000).
1.1.2. Regional and local level

Greece is divided into 13 Regions, which constitute state administrative units,
headed by a General Secretary who represents the national government at the re-
gional level. At the local level, the country is divided into 54 Prefectures (second-tier
local authorities), 900 Municipalities and 133 Communes (first-tier local authorities).
However, the role of the local authorities in the spatial planning system is being lim-
ited to certain responsibilities, stated in the Municipal Code (e.g. parking manage-
ment, street cleaning, refuse collection, construction and maintenance of municipal
roads etc) (ESTIA, 2000).
NTUA, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

Serraos, Gianniris, Zifou: The Greek spatial and urban planning system 1
National Parliament: enacts primary legislation for the whole country
level Government (Prime-Minister and Ministers): prepare and execute public poli-
cies, make secondary or subordinate legislation
Courts: control the application of the laws and the legality of administrative acts
through the enactment of case-law
Regional 13 Administrative regions

level Head: General Secretary (appointed by the Government)
o Chairs the Regional Council (advisory organ made up of local government
representatives and socio-economic partners of the Region)
o Supervises the regional services
o Enacts the administrative acts for the competencies that fall under his re-
sponsibility
Local level Second tier local authorities: 54 Prefectures (Nomoi)

Head: Prefect (elected every 4 years).
Prefectural Council (elected every 4 years)
First tier local authorities: 900 Municipalities (Demoi) and 133 Communes
(Koinotites)
Head: Mayor / or President of the Commune (elected every 4 years)
Municipal / or Communal Council (elected every 4 years)
Table 1. State organization and spatial planning levels. Source: ESTIA, 2000.
1.2. Institutional framework
The Greek institutional framework concerning spatial planning and policy goes back
to a Decree of 1923 about Town Plans. According to that Decree, a great number
of Plans for wide range of towns and settlements of the country were formed.
However, these plans were very often criticised because of their inability to organise
the spatial, economic and social development of the urban space over the long run.
To address this problem, a new generation of town planning laws was created since
1979 (947/79, 1337/83, 2508/97), witch introduced the two-step planning at the
local level. Among them, the 1337/83 law was widely implemented within the
framework of the “Urban Reconstruction Operation”, a policy of the 1980’s which
was aiming to produce new spatial plans for all Greek towns in order to secure new
land for the necessary urban activities, as well as to control unauthorised urban
sprawl. The more recent and currently in use law 2508/97 regulates the spatial plan-
ning on the municipality level (local plans are now being instituted for the hole mu-
nicipality area, including the urban as well as the rural space), regarding the aspect of
Sustainable Urban Development (ISoCaRP 2002).

On the national and regional scale, the recent law 2742/99 concerning “Spatial
Planning and Sustainable Development”, which replaced the previous one that was
never implemented since the mid 1970’s, aimed to attempt an overall confrontation
of territorial issues in Greece, mainly through the institution of spatial plans at the
national and regional level.
Although the recent attempts to update and modernize the legislative framework for
spatial planning, on both micro and macro scale and through the ratification of the
two new laws (2508/97, 2742/99), have to be positively evaluated, it must be noted
that the previous laws are not going to be completely abolished. This policy is obvi-
ously leading to the fact, that the legal context that has been formed over the last 7
– 8 decades is piecemeal and complex and needs codification (EU, 1995). This need
has probably to become one of the main tasks of the Greek legislative power during
the next years.
1.3. The current spatial planning system
1.3.1. National level

The law 2742/99 provides on the national level two spatial planning instruments.
These are, the “General Framework for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Develop-
ment” (GFSPSD), which constitutes practically a national territorial plan and the
“Special Frameworks for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development”
(SFSPSD), which constitute sectoral territorial plans for the whole country. Both
instruments are considered to be mainly in the responsibility of the Ministry of Spa-
tial Planning and Public Works (YPEXODE) (elaboration, monitoring, evaluation,
revision).
The GFSPSD is as multy-sectoral plan containing the general guidelines for the or-
ganisation, management and development of the national territory, according to
European and international spatial policies adopted by Greece. These guidelines
cover the following main aspects (ISoCaRP 2002):
o Main national development poles and axes, as well as international gates of the
country.
o Technical infrastructure - especially transportation networks of national impor-
tance.
o Productive sectors.
o Metropolitan areas, as well as other important urban agglomerations. Relations
with their regions, structure of the urban systems, development of mountain-
ous, rural, coastal and island areas.

o Management of national resources, as well as protection of national natural and
cultural inheritance.
o Creation of viable administrative and development spatial units.
The final draft (text and plans) of the GFSPSD passed last year the consultation
phase by the “National Council for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development”
(NCSPSD), and has now to be approved by the National Parliament, according to
the law 2742/99.
The SFSPSDs specify the general guidelines, set by the GFSPSD, with regard to the
spatial structure of the following aspects of national importance (ISoCaRP 2002):
o Main sectoral economic activities
o Networks and spatial distribution of technical, social and administrative services,
as well as knowledge and innovation infrastructure.
o Special areas (coasts, islands, mountainous and lagging zones, environmental pro-
tection areas and critical environmental, developmental and social problem
zones).
After their consultation by the NCSPSD, the SFSPSDs are approved by the “Co-
ordinating Committee of Governmental Policy in the Sector of Spatial Planning and
Sustainable Development”. Up to the present, only one SFSPSD, concerning the
location of detainment institutions, has been approved, but two additional
SFSPSDs, regarding the coastal zones and the mountainous areas, have already
completed the consultation phase and are now ready to be finally approved.
1.3.2. Regional level

The “Regional Frameworks for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development”
(RFSPSD), which constitute practically Regional Territorial Plans, play a central role
among the spatial planning instruments on the Region level, according to the Law
2742/99. They contain the necessary guidelines concerning all factors that have a
long-term impact on the development and spatial structure of the Region, taking
into account its placement in the international, European and national context, as
well as its competitive advantages.
The RFSPSDs have to take into consideration all the directions set by the GFSPSD
and the SFSPSDs and to formulate specialized proposals for all sectors concerning
the spatial planning on the Region level, respecting at the same time the specific
characteristics of the Region. The RFSPSD is accompanied by detailed Regional
Spatial Programs (RSP), which designate, among others, necessary actions required,
as well as ways of funding (ISoCaRP 2002).

The RFSPSD is being initiated either by YPEXODE or by the Region itself. The
above authorities are also responsible for the monitoring, evaluating and revising of
the RFSPSD. During the last years, RFSPSDs were elaborated, consulted by the
“Regional Councils for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development” (RCSPSD)
and approved by Ministerial Decision, for the 12 of the 13 total Greek Regions. For
the 13th Region, which is the Metropolitan Region of Athens – Attica, YPEXODE
entrusted the School of Architecture (Department of Urban and Regional Planning)
of the National Technical University of Athens, with the elaboration of a “Strategic
Framework of Spatial Development”, which is expected to be finally developed as
the 13th Greek RFSPSD. The project was completed in 2003 and presented to
YPEXODE and published (NTUA, 2004).
Other spatial planning instruments, which have been used during the last years at
the regional or sub-regional level, are the “Special Spatial Plans”, the “Regulatory
Plans” (until now elaborated only for the metropolitan regions of Athens and Thes-
saloniki and approved through special laws), as well as the “Urban Development
Control Zones” (which cover areas outside the statutory town plans).
1.3.3. Local level

It is well-known, that Greek spatial planning policy gives a great emphasis to regula-
tory town planning and zoning. However an important gap exists between official
approved spatial plans and the reality, especially concerning the local level. For ex-
ample, numerous major problems, during at least the 5 last decades, are connected
with the unauthorized development, known in Greece as “illegal construction”
(ESTIA, 2000). The recent institutional system at the municipality level is attempt-
ing to meet such spatial development weaknesses, providing two main spatial plan-
ning instruments: the “General Urban Plan” (GUP) and the “Town Plan Study”
(TPS).
The GUP constitutes the first step of the local spatial planning procedure. It has to
cover the whole area of the municipality, providing the general guidelines for its spa-
tial development. Responsible for the elaboration of the GUP are the local authori-
ties, while the ratification is done through Ministerial Decision. “Local Councils of
Spatial Planning” are entrusted with the public participation procedure.
The second step of the local spatial planning procedure is the elaboration of a series
of TPS’s. According to the general guidelines of the GUP, they have to provide de-
tailed and specific land use and development guidance for certain parts of the urban
area. After their approval by the Minister for the Environment, Spatial Planning and
Public Works, they receive the status of an official “Town Plan”, becoming there-

fore binding, not only for public authorities but also for private individuals, con-
cerning especially street alignments, building lines, land-use designations, as well as
building regulations (minimum plot size and plot dimensions, maximum plot ratios
and floor-area ratio, etc.). The implementation of the Town Plan Study, which in-
cludes mainly property adjustments, is made by another special plan, called “Imple-
mentation Plan” (IP). The IP is being approved by the Prefect and is officially re-
corded in the appropriate Land Registration Office (ISoCaRP 2002).
Table 2. The general structure of the Greek planning system. Source: ISoCaRP 2002.
1.4. Trends
The Greek spatial planning system seems currently to be influenced mainly by two
factors: The first one concerns more general changes in the field of the Greek ad-
ministrative and institutional framework (for example decentralization and deregula-
tion process), while the second one focuses on the impact of European policies on
the Greek spatial planning system. Especially concerning the last factor, we could
distinguish the following main aspects: (a) the increasing concern for national and
regional spatial planning, in connection with the need for better co-ordination with
economic programming, (b) the dimension of sustainable spatial development, and
finally (c) the subsidiarity principle and the partnership approach which are recently
attempting to be introduced into the Greek spatial planning process (ESTIA, 2000).

2. National Spatial Development Challenges
The national spatial planning system faces two major challenges: first, to adequately
address the spatial problems that arise from the socio-economic transformation of
the country which evolves within the framework provided by the globalization of
the economy as well as by European Union policies and second, to effectively influ-
ence and direct the trajectory of this spatial transformation.
2.1. Substantive issues
The first set of challenges includes all the substantive issues that spatial planning is
concerned with and which ultimately frame the goals and objectives of the planning
process. According to the General Framework for Spatial Planning and Sustainable
Development (i.e. the national spatial plan, hereafter referred as the General
Framework Plan) the main issues that frame the development potential of the coun-
try and which must be addressed within the overriding goal of promoting the sus-
tainable development of the country include:
o the redress of regional imbalances and the promotion of spatial cohesion
o the protection and revitalization of areas of critical concern
o the control of the urbanization process
2.1.1. Regional inequalities
The development pattern of Greece is characterized by the uneven concentration of

population and employment activities and the primacy of the national capital, Ath-
ens, and its region, Attica over the country. More specifically, development activity
and the major infrastructure are mainly concentrated in the two metropolitan areas,
those of Athens and Thessaloniki, and to a lesser extent along a growth axis that ex-
tends north of Athens in an “S” shape formation. The four regions that lie along
this growth corridor - out of the total 13 Regions in the country - assemble 80% of
the urban potential, that is urban population, infrastructure and urban economic
sectors, 50% of the national infrastructure network, the highest labour production
rates in all sectors as well as the highest volume and value of production and con-
sumption in the country (YPEXODE, 2003) (Map. 1). However, interregional ine-
qualities in Greece approached in terms of income potential seem to decrease over
the years as indicated by the variance rate in per capita GNP which is very low for
the Greek regions (coefficient variable= 0,14) compared to other member states and
to a lesser extent by the small variance exhibited in employment rates (cv = 0.33)
(YPEXODE, 2003) (Map 2).

Map 1. Transportation network: Main road network. Source: YPEXODE, 2003.
Map 2. Sectoral distribution of GNP. The tertiary sector is denoted by the blue col-
our, whereas the secondary is denoted by red. Source: YPEXODE, 2003.

The issue of alleviating interregional imbalances has been the legitimating argument
for instituting regional planning strategies in Greece, which traditionally took mainly
the form of proposals for the structure of the urban system. However, these strate-
gies have been gradually expanded to address issues that relate to socio-spatial cohe-
sion and spatial integration in view of the changing socio-economic circumstances at
both the European and global level. Thus, a major goal of the national strategy has
become the enhancement of the international role of the country.
The prospect for upgrading the strategic role of Greece at the European level must
be viewed in terms of the dynamics of the European enlargement and particularly of
the geopolitical and economic changes that take place in south-eastern Europe. The
strengthening of the country’s role requires at one level the achievement of internal
socio-economic cohesion and at a second level the improvement of the spatial con-
tinuity and cohesion with the rest of Europe that can be achieved by the develop-
ment of the necessary transportation, energy and telecommunication networks and
infrastructure. However, the prospect of Greece improving its position in relation to
the main trans-European networks is very bleak even in the long term irrespectively
of the progress made in terms of improving the accessibility of isolated regions or of
decentralizing transit nodes and intercontinental linkages because of its location in
relation to the main “locus” of the European space, an issue that has been identified
by the ESDP (Map. 3).
Map 3. Transportation network in the E.U. Source: YPEXODE, 2003.

Therefore, the integration of the Greek economy relies not only on the continuing
effort of the country in improving its external linkages with the centre of Europe
but also on the development of trans-border linkages with neighbouring countries
and the improvement of inter-functionality of the networks and transit nodes
(YPEXODE, 2003). Within that framework, the concepts of polycentric develop-
ment, and the formation of functionally complementary regions constitute strategic
and policy choices for the spatial organization of the country (YPEXODE, 2003).
2.1.2. Areas of critical concern
The transformation of the Greek economy undertaken over the last decades cou-
pled with the particular geography of the country have caused both the fragmenta-
tion of the territory and the formation of different problem-areas that require the
development of place-specific spatial strategies (Map 4). The problem areas identi-
fied in the General Framework Plan and the corresponding challenges that they pre-
sent to spatial planning fall into the following general typologies:
Rural Areas. The rural areas in Greece represent 80-95% of the total area of the
country and they concentrate almost 40% of the population (YPEXODE, 2003).
They are characterized by wide productive, economic, social and cultural variety,
possesses, great geographic diversity and a unique natural diversity. This rural space
though, has undergone intense transformation over the last decades, that is de-
scribed mainly by the diminishing productivity of the agricultural sector and its
gradual replacement by non-agricultural activities, mainly services and tourism. The
issues that the spatial planning system is forced to address regarding the manage-
ment of rural areas include among others: the restructuring of the agricultural sector,
the reduction of employment, the population decline and/or low demographic rates
(especially in the mountainous areas) and the environmental degradation, caused by
unsustainable agricultural practices as well as by activities related to tourism and rec-
reation.
Coastal areas. The coastal areas of Greece are of primary importance since a large
percentage of the population, major infrastructure and prime agricultural land are
located along the coastline. Moreover, Greek coastal areas present a great diversity
in terms of their natural characteristics – i.e. river estuaries, wetlands, living areas
and areas of reproduction for many and important species – and cultural heritage
and in that respect demand protection for the enjoyment of future generations.
Islands. The Greek islands constitute a substantial percentage of the area and popu-
lation of the country, covering 18,8% of its total area and 14,5% of its population
(YPEXODE, 2003). They constitute the most representative sample of a closed sys-

tem and are characterized by “regionality / marginality” as a result of their great dis-
tance away from the main metropolitan and urban centres of the country, as well as
by isolation, since they are surrounded by water. These problems of isolation and
marginality have not yet been alleviated despite the substantial upgrading of trans-
portation and telecommunication infrastructure. As far as their economic base is
concerned, a major transformation has taken place the last decades whereby the ter-
tiary sector in the form of mass tourism has displaced agricultural activities from the
plain and coastal areas.
Borders. Even with the recent European enlargement, a great portion of the E.U.
borders are constituted by the country’s external borders which cover a substantial
portion of the Greek territory a fact that is expected to remain so in the future since
the Balkans will remain outside the EU. The outer borders of Greece, and the EU,
constitute particularly sensitive areas in environmental, social and economic terms
(YPEXODE, 2003: 1-60).
Map 4. Spatial area categories. The map categorizes the different areas of the coun-
try based on a coastal index which equals the area of the prefecture /length of the
coastline. White coloured areas denote mountain areas. Source: YPEXODE, 2003.

2.1.3. Control of the urbanization process
A major challenge for the planning system in Greece is the regulation and control of
land use change and the protection of the physical and natural environment. Even
though a substantial effort was made during the 1980s and early 1990s for the
preparation of local plans, ‘general town plans’, with the purpose to extent the urban
areas in order to incorporate into the plan already built-up, and often illegal, areas,
improved socio-economic conditions shifted building activity in the peri-urban, ex-
urban and coastal areas that lie beyond the boundaries and jurisdiction of these
plans. “Now, the growth of tourism and the demand for second homes was begin-
ning to cause unbearable pressure for developments in areas outside the boundaries
of statutory town plans, in out-of-plan land, where development is regulated, on pa-
per at least, by special nationwide legislation, which constitutes one of the most
anomalous features of the Greek planning system. In addition to building activity
which takes place under this legislation, which is by itself a most unsustainable as-
pect of land development in the country, out-of-plan territory happens to be the
heaven of unlicensed, illegal building activity. Developments of both large tourist
complexes and holiday resorts demanded ad hoc local plans, which under Greek law
required approval by presidential decree” (Wassenhoven, 2003:3).
The impacts from the absence of a generalized and effective system of land use and
environmental planning include among others (YPEXODE, 2003):
o the deterioration of the natural environment and the unsustainable use of natu-
ral resources
o extensive illegal development
o increased urbanization of rural areas at high densities and predominance of
sprawl type development
o neglect of cultural heritage and substantial loss of older buildings
o inadequate legal protection and management of environmentally sensitive areas
2.2. Administrative and institutional formation
The role that the spatial planning system, at both the national and regional levels,
has played in influencing the spatial allocation of activities and infrastructure has
been very minimal, if none. This fact is attributed to several interrelated reasons.
Firstly, there has not been a consistent process for the production and adoption of
framework national and regional plans that would guide the spatial distribution of
development. The last, 1976, legislation on national and regional spatial planning
“…had fallen into disuse and had been effectively frozen long before the new draft
law was produced in 1995. It took another 4 years (!) for this law to find its place in

the statute book in 1999” (Wassenhoven, 2003:4). Therefore, for most of the 1980s
and 1990s, spatial planning on that scale had been totally neglected since the plans
provided for in the 1976 act, both national and regional, were never produced. To
this day, the new, 1999, planning legislation has not yet been fully implemented. The
‘General Framework Plan’ has not yet been officially approved even though its pro-
duction was completed, in January 2000, by a committee of experts from the ad-
ministration, the planning profession and the academic world. On the contrary, 12
out of the 13 regional plans have been produced and officially approved, the last
one being for the Attica region, the region of the country’s capital, whose adoption
is pending. As a consequence, the policy guidance framework for the preparation of
local, urban, plans is not yet complete and its potential influence remains to be seen.
Secondly, there is very limited or non existent, coordination between national and
regional spatial plans and other policies (mainly development policies), programs
and investment plans that influence and/or have an impact on the cohesion and de-
velopment of the national space. The 1999 planning legislation puts a great empha-
sis on the need for the “…"co-ordination of sectoral policies" at the national or re-
gional level, integration of development planning and strategic spatial plan-
ning…coordination of development and spatial planning through the use of the in-
struments introduced in the spatial planning act and use of the General Framework
as a base of reference for other policies” (Wassenhoven, 2003: 6). However, the
most important instrument for the specification of the national development strat-
egy is the Regional Development Plan, known as SPA in Greek, which forms the
basis for the implementation of the European Community Support Framework
(CSF) and is produced by the Ministry for the Economy and Finance with no sub-
stantial input from the corresponding Ministry responsible for spatial planning.
Therefore, the strategy pursued for the regional development of the country and fi-
nanced through the European Structural Funds lacks the spatial perspective pro-
vided by the General Framework Plan, as briefly described in the above section.
Finally, the administrative structure of the country and the powers associated with
the different tiers of government form substantial obstacles in the exercise and prac-
tice of spatial planning at all levels. The administrative reform that was completed in
the 1980s changed substantially the governmental structure by creating, for the first
time, regional administrations, introducing 2nd tier self-government units at the pre-
fectoral level and reducing the number of 1st tier self-government units at the local
level by forming larger more viable municipalities. However, the powers assigned to
these units were still limited and as a consequence the capacity of these units to ef-
fectively guide the development process is also limited.

A case in point is the creation and function of the new regional administrations that
were expected to play an important role in the formulation and exercise of regional
policy. However, the criteria and principles upon which the new 13 regions of the
country were formed were focused on the effort to ‘fit’ the boundaries of the new
units with existing ‘historical’ regions and traditional socio-geographic areas of rela-
tively small size (YPEXODE, 2003). This resulted in the creation of non-functional
units with relatively small size and population that do not possess the ‘optimum’ size
required to foster growth potential and are neither comparable nor competitive with
the corresponding regional units at the European scale. At the same time, even
though the competent legislation defines the 13 regions as ‘unitary decentralized
administrative units’ their powers and role are substantially limited since: (a) their
councils are appointed by the central government, (b) there is no concrete articula-
tion of specific procedures that give substance to the regions’ responsibilities, and
(c) new regional bodies have been established associated mainly with the implemen-
tation of the European Structural Funds which, through the development and fi-
nancing of projects and plans, exercise regional and spatial policy independently of
the regional administrative bodies (Baiba et.al., 2005).

3. Influence of the EU Structural Funds
3.1. Cohesion and structural change
In recent years, Greece has generally succeeded in converging towards the EU aver-
age in terms of GDP per person. Since foreign direct investment (FDI) (as meas-
ured by gross domestic fixed capital formation - GDFCF) has been around 2% in
Greece (Viesti et al, 2004), it has not influence regional disparities in a dramatic way.
Therefore, Cohesion Fund and Community Structural Frameworks have played the
major role in influencing regional development.
One of the major findings concerning the influence of EU policies in Greece is that
national programmes are closely tied to EU funding and generally benefit the whole
economy rather than the lessening of regional inequalities (ibid). Indeed, a high de-
gree of polarisation has been reported, in which –especially - the more dynamic
capital regions (mainly the regions of Attiki and Central Macedonia) have seen the
greater part of the economic development, and although nearly all other regions
have also converged towards the EU average, most have done so to a lesser extent
than the capitals of these two regions (ibid).
To a greater extent than elsewhere, social cohesion in Greece has been a problem,
with inequalities tending to grow in boom times and due to challenges posed by in-
creasing ethnic minority populations. Regional policies in Greece are essentially de-
fined by the central government, as a result of centralised administration. Intermedi-
ate levels of administration (at the regional level) appeared in the mid-eighties, but
lacked real financial autonomy or decision power. The distribution of responsibili-
ties across the different decision levels is not clearly defined and remains subordi-
nated to the central State (ibid).
An analysis of the operational HERMIN model for Greece1 (Bradley et al, 2004)
showed that the respective multipliers of the country appeared to be too low. In
part this can be explained by the structure of the Greek economy, the fact that its
manufacturing sector has many micro traditional business establishments, and the
fact that the Greek economy is the least open in the EU (measured in terms of the
export/GDP ratio) (ibid).
As shown in Diagram 1 (reproduced from Rodriguez-Pose, 2003), the comparison
of the evolution of GDP per capita in the cohesion countries reveals a much slower
growth in Greece.
1. Updated (to 2001) version available, last used on the ex-post evaluation of CSF 1994-99 and ex-ante evaluation
of CSF 2000-2006.

3.2 Influence on policy fields
Greece is included under Objective 1, therefore the CSF are in fact national devel-
opment programs which contain considerable policies with strong relations with EU
policies (agriculture, transport, energy, research and technology etc). Therefore, in
the case of Greece, a critical issue concerns the complementarity between CSF and
the rest of the Community’s policies.
120 Before the Reform After the Reform
110
100 EUR15
EUR15=100
90 Greece
Spain
80 Ireland
70 Portugal
60
50
1977
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
In parallel with CSF there are the Community Initiatives and the Innovative Actions
of the European Commission which influence the development of regional issues in
Greece. Of particular importance are the innovative actions of article 10 of ERDF, as
they concern inter-regional cooperation, urban interventions and regional policies.
The major policy fields of Greece, which are affected by the European policies, are
presented on Table 3.
3.3. The regional impact
Table 4 presents the overall impact of EU and Greek territorial and non territorial
policies on the regions of the country. This Table suggests an inconsistency in the
regional effects and development orientation between EU and Greek policies. In-
deed, although Attiki and Central Mecedonia, the core urban regions of Greece, are
funded below average by EU funds, they are above average in funds associated with
national territorial policies. The opposite is true for one of the most underdeveloped
regions (N. Aegean). Therefore, a closer look upon the CSF influence is needed.
3.4. The CSF regional influence
In order to identify the regional influence of CSF, one may compare the allocation
of funds to the needs of each region. The First (1990-1994) and Second - period

(1994-2000) CSF included expenditures for the 13 Regional Operational Programs
(ROP). The comparison of the ratio expenditures/assessed needs2 for the ROP of
the Second CSF (1994-1999), as shown on Table 5, indicates that the needs of the
regions were not funded proportionally. Of equal importance is the examination of
the difference in the distribution of regional funds between the First and Second CSF.
Fields of Greek European policies Means-funds

policies
Regional policy- Operational Programs of CSF, Com- Structural Funds: ERDF, ESF,
structural actions munity Initiatives, innovative actions FEOGA-orientation, ΧΜPΑ
Environment, transport networks Cohesion Fund
Agricultural • CAP • FEOGA- guarantees

policy • Agriculture, fisheries • Legislative measures
• Other agricultural-fisheries actions • Community budget
Transport • Common transport policy • Legislative measures

policy • Transport • Community budget
• Transeuropean networks (transport) • Community budget
Energy • Energy • Legislative measures

policy • Transeuropean networks (energy) • Community budget
• Community budget
Environment • Environment policy • legislative measures

policy • Environment • community budget
Social • labour issues • legislative measures

policy • public health, education, culture • legislative measures
• education, training, youth • Community budget
• cultural issues, information, other • Community budget
community actions
Industrial policy, • Industry, small-medium Enter- • Legislative measures

policy for business prises (SME) • Community budget
(especially SME) • Industry
Table 3. Major policy fields3 of EU influence (Reproduced from Kafkalas-Andrikopoulou, 2000).
2. If in one Region the ratio expenditures/assessed needs is higher than 1,2 the needs are covered. On the oppo-
site if one region is below 0,8 the needs are not covered satisfactorily. (Kafkalas-Andrikopoulou, p.37-39).
3. Several other policy fields are not present in this table (competition rules, research, commerce, internal market
etc), because their influence is not considered as major.

EU funds National territorial policies National non-territorial
policies
Above aver- Below aver- Above aver- Below aver- Positive ef- Negative ef-
age age age age fect fect
Epirus, W. Attiki, Cen- Attiki, Cen- N. Aegean Central Ma- -

Macedonia, tral Mace- tral Makedo- cedonia,
Ionian is- donia, S. Ae- nia, S. Aegean Western
lands, N. Ae- gean, West- Greece, Thes-
gean ern Greece, saly, Crete, E.
Peloponnese Makedonia-
Thrace, Epi-
rus
Table 4. Overall regional impact of policies in Greece. Source: Viesti et al, 2004.
Technical infra- 13 Regions (all) > 1,2

structure
Productive sectors Thessaly, Attica, S Aegean < 0,8
Social infrastruc- Eastern Macedonia-Thrace, W. Macedonia, Epirus, Thes- <0,8

ture saly, Mainland Greece, Peloponnese
Environment pro- 9 regions (All, except Epirus, Thessaly, Attika) <0,8

tection
Table 5. Expenditures/assessed needs, (Reproduced from Kafkalas-Andrikopoulou, 2000:37-

39) Source: KEPE-1997.
3.5. The allocation of regional funds
Although the total amount of available funds was multiplied by 2,3 (1.771.679 mil-
lion drachma for the First CSF and 4.132.916 for the Second CSF) the distribution
of funds between regions shows considerable divergence between the two periods
(Kafkalas-Andrikopoulou, 2000). It is remarkable that the share of funds between
the First and Second CSF was sub-dubled in 3 regions, that is North Aegean, South
Aegean, and Mainland Greece. Considerable differentiation was also observed at the
level of Prefectures. The overall situation at the prefectural level is as follows. This
readjustment between the First and Second CSF is entirely the responsibility of
Greek central authorities and may be considered as a result of:
o a conscious choice (to increase the share in those regions where the ability to
absorb funds was higher) or
o the lack of concern for the geographical and spatial dimension of development.

Number of prefectures Funding Share between First
and Second CSF
17 prefectures Rise in their share > 1,2
8 prefectures Show relative stability Between 0,9 and 1,1
25 prefectures Decline in their share < 0,8
Table 6. Evolution of funding shares at the prefecture level. Source: Kafkalas-

Andrikopoulou, p. 44.
3.6. The allocation of sectoral funds
A similar situation is presented in the allocation of funds among the various policy
fields. Differences in the hierarchy of priorities between the First and Second CSF
are shown on the following table:
First CSF Second CSF Change in

participation
A B C D E
1. development 34,0 % 1. development infrastruc- 51,5 % 1,5

infrastructure ture
2. Productive invest- 17,4 % 2. Human resources 12,6 % 1
ments
3. Human resources 12,6 % 3. Productive investments 10,2 % 0,6
4. Rural development 11,9 % 4. Environment 8,4 % 0,8
5. Environment 10,2 % 5. Rural development 7,8 % 0,7
6. Local development 5,8 % 6. Local development 3,0 % 0,5
7. Urban development 2,5 % 7. Tourism 2,1 % 1,1
8. Provision of services 2,0 % 8. Urban development 1,8 % 0,7
to SME
9. Tourism 1,9 % 9. Provision of services to 1,5 % 0,8
SME
10. Industry 1,0 % 10. Industry 1,1 % 1,1
11. Technical support 0,7 % 11. Technical support 0,6 % 0,9
100 100 1
Table 7. Allocation of sectoral funds of the First and Second CSF, Source: Kafkalas, p 45.

3.7. The 2000-2006 structural policies in Greece
According to a recent study on the needs of Objective 1 regions (EC, 2002), the fol-
lowing findings are reported for Greece:
o Regional programmes can involve more problems and delays than sectoral
Operational Programes
o The lack of support for project promoters who are not familiar with Structural
Fund procedures can result in delays or even in the cancellation of projects
o The implementation of large projects often requires the establishment of cen-
tral support structures and of specialised bodies
o Evaluation should not be regarded simply as an administrative obligation im-
posed by the Structural Fund Regulation, but as a means of improving per-
formance and management of programmes
o The lack of an information system providing both qualitative and quantitative
data on the progress of projects makes it more difficult to monitor activities,
carry out impact analysis and maximise complementarities between pro-
grammes
This study includes certain “2004-2006 transition provisions” which relate to Greece
and include the following.
The countries will receive much less financial assistance than the current regions eli-
gible for Objective 1 during the 2004-2006 period that can be regarded as a transi-
tional one. During this period, 30% of the overall assistance provided will come
from the Cohesion Fund and will be allocated to large projects, which are simpler to
manage than more complicated Structural Fund programmes. Around two-thirds of
the latter Funds will go on national sectoral programmes, while the remaining one
third will be allocated to regional development projects. In Greece, regional authori-
ties should be involved in project selection and implementation. (EU, 2002).

4. Conclusions
In 1998 an estimation of the emerging trends and future prospects of the Greek
spatial planning system was made which are noteworthy (Giannakourou, 1998):
o The overriding characteristic of spatial planning policy in Greece is its norma-
tive, legalistic and compulsory profile. Nevertheless, despite formal rigidity,
common administrative and societal practice suggests usually greater flexibility,
if not a widespread informal and piecemeal discretion in the policy – making
system (e.g. illegal settlements and informal land development).
o The rather centralized character of policy making and the low degree of decen-
tralization of spatial planning responsibilities
o The lack of efficient mechanisms for public involvement in the planning mak-
ing process at the local level, as well as the absence of consultation mecha-
nisms with the economic and social partners at the national and regional levels
of planning making.
o Formal, legalistic, adversarial and closed patterns of interest intermediation,
with informal and ad hoc bargaining between regulatory authorities and pri-
vate interests
o Great involvement of the courts (especially the administrative courts) in the
policymaking system through the enactment of radical and often proactive
case law.
o Lack of efficient support, control and monitoring mechanisms for the applica-
tion of the spatial planning policy.
It is noted that a major challenge for the Greek spatial planning system is to become
more efficient, operational and at the same time more pluralist and flexible. At an-
other level, the following key policy deficiencies in the regional policy arena in
Greece were identified:
Country Policy Misfit Adaptational Result Mediating factors

Greece Centralized policy mak- Slow change Central structure / clien-
ing tilism
Poor administrative tra- Slow change Centralized institutions
dition
Static system
Institutional building Resistance
Weak civil society
Lack of consensus Slow change
Table 8: Regional Policy Inadequacies in Greece, (Reproduced from Getimis, 2001)

If this is the case, it becomes clear that the change of Greek priorities in regional
and sectoral funding, as described in sections 3.5 and 3.6 above, may have an expla-
nation on the basis of a persistent management inefficiency exhibited below the na-
tional level. This explains the preference in centrally managed procedures and fields
of activity, where the capability to absorb funds is higher, despite the adverse re-
gional impact of these priorities.
Finally, an overall assessment was made in 1993 (Wassenhoven 2003), which fully
reflects the opinion of the authors:
“Both the national and the regional spatial plans started in 1997 and their future is still uncer-
tain. They missed the opportunity of closer interaction with the CSF procedures, with the result that
all funds for individual projects and programmes are by now committed and possibly out of tune
with the proposals contained in the spatial plans.
The perennial problem of horizontal co-ordination in government has ruined a unique opportunity
for spatial planning to make an impact. Sadly, spatial planning, the role of which is recently
stressed in a variety of European Union documents, is a poor relative in the context of the official
power hierarchy. Officials in the economic ministries consider it an embarassment, a nuisance and
an obstacle to economic development. Even within the Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Plan-
ning and Public Works, the "public works" side is openly hostile to the spatial planning and envi-
ronmental policy sections of their own ministry, especially when large infrastructure projects are chal-
lenged.
The spatial planning system at the national and regional level is still finding it hard to assume the
role it deserves.”
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Professor Dr. L. Wassenhowen for his valuable
contribution in the provision of the necessary reference material used in the produc-
tion of this paper.

Bibliography
(1) Baiba A., Serraos K, Tsakiropoulou E, Chatzopoulou – Tsalabouta B. (2005)
Study of Planning systems and levels in European countries, Athens: Technical Cham-
ber of Greece (in Greek).
(2) Bradley J, Morgenroth E, Gács J, Untiedt G., (2004), A Study of the Mecro-
Economic Impact of the Reform of EU Cohesion Policy, The Economic and Social
Research Institute, Ireland, in http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/
sources/docgener/studies/pdf/3cr/macro_impact.pdf
(3) ESTIA, Interreg IIC (2000), European space and territorial integration alterna-
tives, Spatial planning systems and agencies in Southeast Europe, Thessaloniki
(http://estia.arch.auth.gr/estia/eng/docs/index.htm).
(4) European Commission (EC) (1995), Europe 2000+, Co-operation for European
territorial development, Brussels.
(5) European Commission (EC) (2000), The EU compendium of spatial planning sys-
tems and policies – Greece, Luxembourg.
(6) European Commission (EC) (2002), Contract No. 2002 CE 16 0 AT 174
“Needs of Objective 1 regions in the accession countries and in existing EU15 Member
States in areas eligible for Structural Funds” in http://europa.eu.int/
comm/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/ 3cr/ccneed_final.pdf
(7) Getimis P. (1998), Spatial organization and data in Greece, in: European space
and territorial integration alternatives (proceedings), Thessaloniki.
(8) Getimis P. (2001) “Enlargement and Multi-level Governance in European Regional and
Environment Policies: Patterns of Institutional Learning, Adaptation and Europeanization
among Cohesion Countries (Greece, Ireland and Portugal) and Lessons for new members
(Hungary and Poland)”, ADAPT, CONTRACT NUMBER: HPSE-CT-2001-
00097, CO-ORDINATOR: P. Getimis
(9) Gianakourou G. (1998), The Spatial planning system in Greece: a brief over-
view, in: European space and territorial integration alternatives (proceedings), Thessa-
loniki.
(10) ISoCaRP (2002), Planning in Greece, Special bulletin in the frame of the 38th
international planning congress edited by El. Beriatios, Athens.
(11) Kafkalas G. (1998), Spatial development trends in Greece: geographical posi-
tion and spatial structure, in: European space and territorial integration alternatives
(proceedings), Thessaloniki.
(12) Kafkalas G – Andrikopoulou E. (2000), Spatial impact of European Policies,
the Greek experience 1989-1999, Thessaloniki

(13) Leondidou – Gerardi C. (1993), A review of town planning issues in contem-
porary Greece, in: Prospect, Housing and planning concepts throughout the century, The
Hague: International Federation for Housing and Planning.
(14) Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Public Works
(YPEXODE) (2003) General Framework for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Devel-
opment, Athens (in Greek).
(15) National Technical University of Athens (NTUA) (2004), Strategic Framework for
the spatial development of Athens – Attica, research programme for the Ministry of
the Environment, Spatial Planning and Public Works (YPEXODE), Athens.
(16) Rodriguez-Pose A, The European Union: Economy, Society and Polity, London
School of Economics, Oxford Univ. Press ISBN 0-19-874286-X
(17) Serraos K. (1996), Kommunalplanung in Griechenland und Österreich, Wien: L. B.
Institut zur Erforschung von Methoden und Auswirkungen der Raumplanung.
(18) Viesti Gianfranco, Francisco Torres and Miguel Lebre de Freitas, Carmela
Martin, Carlos Mulas-Granados and Ismael Sanz, El Mouhoub Mouhoud and
Sébastien Dupuch, Phedon Nicolaides, Frank Barry, Iain Begg and Vassilis
Monastiriotis (core group of authors), The Impact of Member State Policies on Cohe-
sion, in http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/ sources/ docgener/
studies/pdf/3cr/ impact_member.pdf
(19) Wassenhoven, L. (2003) National and Regional Spatial Plans in Greece: Can they
Contribute to Sustainable Development? Paper presented at the International Sus-
tainable Development Research Conference, University of Nottingham, 24-25
March 2003.

View publication stats

Serraos Gianniris Zifou

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Serraos Gianniris Zifou

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Chapter · January 2005

HeKriS: Challenges of resilience in European cities View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1. National Planning System

1.1. Administrative Structure

1.1.1. National level

1.1.2. Regional and local level

NTUA, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

Regional 13 Administrative regions

Local level Second tier local authorities: 54 Prefectures (Nomoi)

1.2. Institutional framework

NTUA, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

1.3. The current spatial planning system

1.3.1. National level

NTUA, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

1.3.2. Regional level

NTUA, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

1.3.3. Local level

NTUA, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

NTUA, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

2.1. Substantive issues

2.1.1. Regional inequalities

The development pattern of Greece is characterized by the uneven concentration of

NTUA, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

NTUA, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

Map 3. Transportation network in the E.U. Source: YPEXODE, 2003.

NTUA, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

2.1.2. Areas of critical concern

NTUA, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

NTUA, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

2.2. Administrative and institutional formation

NTUA, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

NTUA, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

NTUA, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

NTUA, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

120 Before the Reform After the Reform

3.3. The regional impact

3.4. The CSF regional influence

NTUA, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

Fields of Greek European policies Means-funds

Environment, transport networks Cohesion Fund

Agricultural • CAP • FEOGA- guarantees

Transport • Common transport policy • Legislative measures

Energy • Energy • Legislative measures

Environment • Environment policy • legislative measures

Social • labour issues • legislative measures

Industrial policy, • Industry, small-medium Enter- • Legislative measures

Table 3. Major policy fields3 of EU influence (Reproduced from Kafkalas-Andrikopoulou, 2000).

NTUA, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

Epirus, W. Attiki, Cen- Attiki, Cen- N. Aegean Central Ma- -

Technical infra- 13 Regions (all) > 1,2

Productive sectors Thessaly, Attica, S Aegean < 0,8

Social infrastruc- Eastern Macedonia-Thrace, W. Macedonia, Epirus, Thes- <0,8

Environment pro- 9 regions (All, except Epirus, Thessaly, Attika) <0,8

Table 5. Expenditures/assessed needs, (Reproduced from Kafkalas-Andrikopoulou, 2000:37-

3.5. The allocation of regional funds

NTUA, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

17 prefectures Rise in their share > 1,2

8 prefectures Show relative stability Between 0,9 and 1,1

25 prefectures Decline in their share < 0,8

Table 6. Evolution of funding shares at the prefecture level. Source: Kafkalas-