Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

The network of major European cities Territorial Cohesion: what scales of policy intervention Brussels 12 March 2010.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "The network of major European cities Territorial Cohesion: what scales of policy intervention Brussels 12 March 2010."— Presentation transcript:

1 the network of major European cities Territorial Cohesion: what scales of policy intervention Brussels 12 March 2010

2 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

3 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!

4 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

5 Population (in thousands, 2001) Stadtkreis : 585 MUA : 1 703 FUA : 2 878 Example: Stuttgart Source : ULB/IGEAT – feb 2010

6 Population (in thousands, 2001) City of Turin : 857 MUA : 1 308 FUA : 2 059 Example: Turin Source : ULB/IGEAT – feb 2010

7 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

8 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

9 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

10 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

11 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

12 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,…

13 the network of major European cities: Thierry Baert: Agence de développement et durbanisme de Lille métropole

Download ppt "The network of major European cities Territorial Cohesion: what scales of policy intervention Brussels 12 March 2010."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google