1

CITIES Forum 2015 An Urban Agenda for Europe Regional and

Urban Policy

An Urban Agenda for Europe

CITIES Forum 2015

Cities in a regional context (urban-rural linkages)

Joaquim Oliveira Martins (OECD)

Brussels, 2 June 2015

Urban-Rural linkages

• Urban and rural areas have both growth potential and often complementary assets • Urban and rural areas are increasingly integrated in self-organising spaces (functional regions) • Integration between urban and rural areas is important for socio-economic performance

Urban and rural areas are increasingly integrated

In OECD countries, on average, almost 80% of rural population live close to an urban area (2012)

Connectedness to cities benefits surrounding regions

Urban-Rural partnerships are driven by functional linkages

• Labour market flows are key, but there are also other crucial Rural-Urban interactions • The spatial scale to consider depends on the purpose of partnership • The spatial scale of co-operation should be flexible • Physical distance is important

Example: Nuremberg Metropolitan Region • Polycentric region (network of cities) • The partnership covers a geography that extends well beyond labour markets. • Land-based economic complementarities, innovation, public transport network and common territorial identity are functional linkages underlying the partnership boundaries.

The spaces of Urban-Rural co-operation

Rennes Métropole (main rurban partnership)

Planning activity at the level of the Pays de Rennes

Different access to public services (e.g. public hospitals)

there are different regions for different functions high discrepancy among administrative regions and functional territories

The case of Rennes: different geographies for different functions

Urban-Rural partnerships can help reach common development objectives

Category Focus of co-operation

Economic development Territorial promotion

Supply chain

Urban agriculture

Natural assets management Management of water sources

Biodiversity

Land-use management

Landscape and environmental preservation

Service provision Transport

Healthcare, social care, education

Waste disposal

Political relevance/ access to funds

Political relevance/visibility

Advocacy for funding

Building effective and sustainable urban-rural partnerships: a strategy

Matching ..the appropriate scale

Including ..the relevant stakeholder

Learning ..to be more effective

1. Better understanding of Urban-Rural conditions and interactions

2. Addressing territorial challenges through a functional approach

3. Working towards a common agenda for urban and rural policy

4. Building a enabling environment for Urban-Rural partnerships

5. Clarifying the partnership objectives and related measures

The main governance approaches to urban-rural partnerships

Explicit rurban partnerships

Rennes (France)

Geelong (Australia)

Nuremberg (Germany)

Central Zone of West Pomeranian Voivodeship (Poland

BrabantStad (Netherlands)

Implicit rurban partnerships

Forlì-Cesena (Italy)

Extremadura (Spain)

Castelo Branco (Portugal)

Central Finland (Jyväskylä and Saarijärvi-Viitasaari) (Finland)

Lexington (United States)

Prague/Central Bohemia (Czech Republic)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Delegated functions No delegated functions Delegated functions No delegated functions

Rennes (France) Geelong (Australia)

Nuremberg (Germany)

Central Zone of West Pomerania Voivodeship (Poland)

BrabantStad (Netherlands)

Extremadura (Spain)

Forlì-Cesena (Italy)

Lexington (United States)

Prague (Czech Republic)

Central Finland (Jyväskylä and Saarijärvi-Viitasaari) (Finland)

Castelo Branco (Portugal)

Factors that promote urban-rural partnership

Understanding of the

interdependence of rural and urban areas

Mutual understanding of the need to act in concert

Clearly defined

objectives

Representational membership and

democratic participation

Leadership

Rennes, France x x x x x

Geelong, Australia x x x x x

Nuremberg, Germany x x x x x

Central Zone Poland x x

Brabant, Netherlands x x x x x

Prague, CZ x

Forli-Cesena, Italy x x x x x

Extremadura, Spain x x

Castelo Banco, Portugal x x

Central Finland (Jyväskylä and Saarijärvi-Viitasaari)

x x

Lexington, Kentucky, USA x x

Factors that hinder urban-rural partnership

Regulatory and political barriers:

Lack of trust/social

capital

Lack of partnership

buy in/incentives

to partner

Policies that widened vs

shrinking the gap between

rural and urban areas

Low Private sector

involvement

Rennes, France x

Geelong, Australia x

Nuremberg, Germany

Central Zone Poland x x

Brabant, Netherlands

Prague, CZ x x x x

Forli-Cesena, Italy

Extremadura, Spain x x

Castelo Branco, Portugal x x

Central Finland (Jyväskylä and Saarijärvi-Viitasaari)

x

Lexington, Kentucky, USA x x x x

• Fragmentation of a metropolitan area into many municipalities reduces per capita GDP and productivity

– A doubling of the number of municipalities per 100,000 inhabitants reduces productivity by 6%

The link between governance systems and performance of functional metro areas

• Negative impact of fragmentation can be reduced through organisations that coordinate policies in functional metro areas

– Approximately half of the productivity penalty from municipal fragmentation disappears when governance bodies exist

• Metropolitan governance bodies are common throughout the OECD, but only 18% have regulatory powers

Improving the governance of functional metro areas

• Governance bodies also lead to better outcomes in several other dimensions

Other gains from governing functional metro areas at the relevant scale

Sprawl Satisfaction with Public Transport

• Invest using an integrated strategy tailored to different places

• Adopt effective co-ordination instruments across levels of government

• Co-ordinate across SNGs to invest at the relevant scale

Pillar 1

Co-ordinate across governments and policy areas

• Assess upfront long term impacts and risks

• Encourage stakeholder involvement throughout investment cycle

• Mobilise private actors and financing institutions

• Reinforce the expertise of public officials & institutions

• Focus on results and promote learning

Pillar 2

Strengthen capacities and promote policy learning across

levels of government

• Develop a fiscal framework adapted to the objectives pursued

• Require sound, transparent financial management

• Promote transparency and strategic use of procurement

• Strive for quality and consistency in regulatory systems across levels of government

Pillar 3

Ensure sound framework conditions at all levels of

government

A Recommendation on the Governance of Public Investment was adopted in 2014 by the OECD Council

Evaluation toolkit for the implementation of the OECD Recommendation on Public Investment

Initial indicators developed as a follow-up of the Recommendation

Over 70 indicators 20 for Pillar I, 24 for Pillar II and 27 for Pillar

III Comprehensive multi-disciplinary approach

(multi-level governance, public finances, regional policy, public management)

Mix between factual indicators and qualitative indicators based on judgement

THANK YOU

Joaquim.Oliveira@oecd.org

Some OECD references: OECD (2013), Investing Together, OECD Publishing, Paris OECD (2013), Rural-Urban Partnerships: An Integrated Approach to Economic Development, OECD Publishing, Paris OECD(2015), The Metropolitan Century, OECD Publishing, Paris OECD(2015), Governing the City, OECD Publishing, Paris