Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
the network of major European cities
Territorial Cohesion: Territorial Cohesion: what scales of policy interventionwhat scales of policy intervention
Brussels 12 March 2010
One principle: Territorial cohesion = One tool: Integrated Local Development
1. Cohesion policy is encouraging integrated i.e. cross sectoral approaches
2. Integration is highly difficult to achieve except at the local level:- Local authorities can better identify both challenges and relevant actions- As a result they are likely to develop maximum cross sectoral lever effects
3. Integrated local development brings broader and sharper defining of public policies:– Articulating the short term (actions) the medium term (policy/ strategy)
and the longer term (vision)– Combining the geographical scales/levels from neighbourhood to city-
region
Territorial cohesion implies ILD: if regional disparities remain,the main cohesion challenges for Europe are now within local societies, i.e. mainly (the major) urban areas
Why an urban approach is needed
• Most of the major challenges faced by the EU need to be dealt with at the local level :– Competitiveness: main actors in developing and managing
entrepreneurship on their territory; on dealing with schooling and trainin ; on developing innovation, creativity and clustering,…
– Environment: at the frontline for waste management; for water consumption; for CO2 reduction, …
– Cohesion: the firsts to be faced with economic and social integration in their neighbourhoods: migrants, unemployed, …
• Restore citizens confidence in the European Union– EU= democratic process: about people first and then
territories people-based policies imply a place-based approach
– Huge majority of people are living in urban areas (3/4)
Local action = Maximum visibility!
Why the current framework does not match with such an integration ?
• Difficulties to clearly define the urban areas: – Different approaches of the city regions : Morphological
Urban Areas / Functional Urban Areas- Urban reality is moving fast (urban sprawl, commuting
flows,..)
• Administrative mismatch - political/administrative definitions ≠ the urban reality - LAs in Europe are different in competences/ size /
resources
• Lack of adaptation to the context- Cities play different roles in their region- and encompass diverse economic and social realities (e.g.
Paris intra-muros/suburbs ≠ Warsaw intra-muros/suburbs)
• Most of top-down attempts to change boundaries – have proved not effective enough – and/or have been rejected by citizens
Population (in thousands, 2001)
• Stadtkreis : 585
• MUA : 1 703
• FUA : 2 878
Example: Stuttgart
Source : ULB/IGEAT – feb 2010
Population (in thousands, 2001)
• City of Turin : 857
• MUA : 1 308
• FUA : 2 059
Example: Turin
Source : ULB/IGEAT – feb 2010
Example: The central Belgium metropolitan area
Population (in thousands, 2001)
• City of Brussels : 137• Brussels Capital Region : 978• Brussels MUA : 1 498 • Brussels FUA (Leuven & Aalst
secondary MUAs incl.) : 2 933
• All FUAs in the central metropolitan area : 5 000
Source : ULB/IGEAT – feb 2010
Example : The Lille crossborder metropolitan area
Population (in thousands 2001)
• City of Lille : 213• Communauté urbaine : 1 091• Lille MUA : 925• Lille FUA : 1 274• Lille & Coal mining FUAs,
Belgian part incl. : 3 103
Source : ULB/IGEAT – feb 2010
Developing policies at the most effective scales
No “one fits all” definition of metropolitan areas:∙ City region /metropolitan areas: a sole definition for – at
least - two different realities: FUAs & MUAs∙ Cities have different forms : size of the central city,
monocentric vs polycentric sytems ( MUAs and obviously FUAs )
∙ Cities are in different contexts
The “right” scale is obviously not always the metropolitan one - neighbourhood and/ or city level can be more operational for some issues
But for a wide range of strategic issues the MUAs and/or FUAs are: public transport/mobility, land use, water supply, waste disposal, clustering and the knowledge economy, major facilities, etc.
a need for Metropolitan governance
Metropolitan arrangements
Many experiences are already existing : - informal and/or more structured systems- specific and/or more generalist cooperations- at different scales (including crossborder)
Conditions for success:- building trust – defining common interests- associating all relevant public players: multilevel
governance- involving all relevant actors : private and voluntary sector- citizens awareness/support
Specific responsibility for the central city: - democratic legitimacy (directly elected body)- image/representativity- services linked with centrality: transport hub, eductaion,
facilities
Metropolitan cooperations: the Lille example
3 levels/definitions:
• Communauté urbaine• Eurométropole Lille-kortrijk-Tournai (EGTC)• Aire métropolitaine de Lille
Leading role for LAs
But other public authorities (regional/national) formally associated
And the private and voluntary sectors through strong advisory bodies
How could cohesion policy help ?
• Reinforce the «mainstreaming » of the urban dimension
• Support innovation in policy design and delivery: experimentation in a limited number of regions and metropolitan areas on a voluntary basis (sub-OPs, other arrangements?)
• Encourage innovation in metropolitan governance: specific programme for metropolitan cooperation development
• Develop knowledge & awareness:Urban Audit, or ESPON?..
• Facilitate the exchange of experiences URBACT III,…
the network of major European cities: www.eurocities.eu
Thierry Baert:Thierry Baert:Agence de développement et d’urbanismeAgence de développement et d’urbanisme de de
Lille métropoleLille métropole
