Presentation on theme: "The network of major European cities Territorial Cohesion: what scales of policy intervention Brussels 12 March 2010."— Presentation transcript:
the network of major European cities Territorial Cohesion: what 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 www.eurocities.eu Thierry Baert: Agence de développement et durbanisme de Lille métropole firstname.lastname@example.org
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.