European Metropolitan Authorities (EMA) conclusions

www.amb.cat/ambmetropole

Conclusions from the seminar on territorial competitiveness and social inclusion in European MetropolesBarcelona, 13th March, 2015

Index:

1. Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. European Metropolitan Authorities 2015 Declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3. Conference executive report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

4. Background paper: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Metropolitan governance in Europe: Challenges & Models.

5. Photo gallery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

European Metropolitan Authorities 2015,

Conference of political leaders from European cities and metropolitan gov-ernments. A shared future: tackling challenges and building a competitive and inclusive Europe

Further information on: www.amb.cat/ambmetropole

Territorial competitiveness and social inclusion 3

1. PresentationIt is my pleasure to present you herewith the outcomes of the European Metropolitan Authorities (EMA) seminar or-ganised by the Barcelona Metropolitan Area on 13 March 2015 in Barcelona in which mayors, presidents and polit-ical representatives from fifteen metropolises of 10 Euro-pean Union countries participated.

This seminar aimed at discussing the challenges of future of European metropolitan governance and defining the baseline for a common partnership, based on a political declaration adopted by the participants - which you can find in this publication - in order to be more influential vis-à-vis national governments and the European Union.

It is worth noting that urban development is a key phe-nomenon in the first decade of the 21st century. In the European context, almost 359 million people (72% of the total EU population) live in large cities and metropolitan areas. This is expected to exceed 80% by 2050.

Contemporary metropolises have become complex, au-tonomous and diverse entities, in which all the needs and interests of citizens are manifested. In a context of crisis and austerity in public finance, major cities and metropoli-tan areas have presented higher rates of economic growth, innovation and job creation. According to Eurostat, 85% of the European GDP is concentrated in cities.

Currently in Europe there are about 120 major cities and metropolitan areas. Countries such as France and Italy have begun processes to create new metropolitan areas which will impact on their institutional and territorial gov-ernance. Major European cities and metropolitan areas must build alliances and actively defend their interests by making proposals to the European Union in areas such as the new proposal for a European Urban Agenda and the implementation of European Funds 2014-2020.

Metropolitan governance is really conditioned by the con-tinuous demands imposed on the local political agendas

- these demands rarely have an administrative or economic plan in mind. Globalisation trends accentuate this difficult challenge to tackle metropolitan governance in the 21st century. But the reality is that their impact is received in a very different way depending on the urban, economic and cultural area in question.

Thus, there are different governence challenges in an Asian or Latin American megacity, a European or North Ameri-can global-city, or a metropolitan-city in a region. Howev-er, they all have common threats and opportunities con-cerning basic public services, social exclusion, subsidised housing, safety, or economic, social and environmental sustainability. It is a new Agenda coming from the citizens’ proximity urgent needs, which may differ depending on the characteristics of each metropolitan reality, but that are always transferred to the closet authorities - without them necessarrily having the adequate resources or regu-latory frameworks.

The Barcelona Metropolitan Area (AMB) at this particular moment of closing the first metropolitan political period 2011-2015, wants to share and discuss with representa-tives of European cities and metropolitan institutions the urban realities, methods, initiatives, experiences and inno-vative projects related to urban metropolitan areas.

I hope that the contents and future challenges of Europe-an metropolitan areas presented in this publication will be of interest to you.

Xavier TriasMayor and President of the Barcelona Metropolitan Area

2. European Metropolitan Authorities 2015 Declaration

As the mayors, presidents and political represent-atives of the European Metropolitan Areas, we met in Barcelona to discuss the challenges and opportu-nities faced by the governments of European met-ropolitan cities.

Bearing in mind that, in Europe, more than 70% of the population lives in urban areas and it is in these terri-tories where the highest levels of wealth, competitive-ness, employment, innovation and education are gen-erated, we understand that the strength and quality of the structures of metropolitan governance are specific factors in ensuring social cohesion and quality of life.

We are aware of the fact that the existence of suc-cessful metropolitan institutions is marked by po-litical consensus, leadership and the shaping of the actions of government over a territory which is evolving, has new needs and is promoting new forms of citizen participation and transparency.

However, the actions of metropolitan governments are not always accompanied by well-defined insti-tutional models, with a clear allocation of powers and with the necessary resources to carry these out.

At the same time, and despite the growing metro-politanisation of the European continent, an explicit recognition by national governments and the Europe-an Union of the importance that the development of quality metropolitan governance has on the daily life of European citizens is still needed.

As a result, the European cities and metropolitan ar-eas, gathered together in Barcelona, are committed:

1. To promoting and strengthening the political relations between the European metropolitan institutions in order to position ourselves jointly in relation to regulatory frameworks, powers and funding that affect us all.

2. To driving the political debate among the lead-ers of the European metropolises and to pro-moting joint projects in partnership with the economic agents, the education sector and civil society in our territories. Particular pri-ority is given to the following areas of coop-eration: job creation; the fight against social exclusion; competitive and intelligent growth; sustainability and climate change; transport and mobility; land management and interna-tional positioning.

3. To call for the European Union to integrate sys-tematically and in an organised manner large cities and metropolitan areas in the preparation, definition and implementation of EU policies that affect us and, more broadly, organise a per-manent dialogue City and Metropolis / European Union on major issues and future challenges for the continent and its citizens.

4. To ask the Committee of the Regions to recom-mend that the Member States incorporate a greater number of representatives of the large European cities and metropolises within the re-spective national delegations.

5. To request a differential treatment from the Euro-pean Union in the management of the resources of the European budget for 2014-2020 and post-2020, especially as regards the management of the Structural and Investment Funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (the Juncker plan).

6. To promote the transfer of knowledge, exchange of experiences and best practices in the sphere of metropolitan governance with other regions of the world and promote exchanges with eco-nomic agents, the education sector and the civil society in these territories.


Political representatives and participants.

7. To working in coordination with the local govern-ment networks and associations that represent the interests of large cities and metropolitan ar-eas at a regional and global level, in particular the World Association of the Major Metropolises (Metropolis), United Cities and Local Governments, Eurocities, Metrex, Medcities and the Fonds Mon-dial pour le Développement des Villes (FMDV), as well as with other multilateral organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, United Nations and the World Bank.

8. To have this declaration adopted by the gov-erning bodies of each institution, to dissemi-nate it to the media and make it applicable to other European metropolis so that they can unite with us.

9. To sending this Declaration to the European Union and the Member States.

10. To organise a new edition of the European Met-ropolitan Authorities in the city of Turin in 2016.

Participants 257 people

Local-government representatives

52

European networks and organisations

5

Together, they manage the following territory:

European metropolises 15

Size <52.000 Km2

Population < 36 million

Represented cities 1093

Media presence 21 references

Participation summary

3. Executive report EMA 2015

Executive summary:

The first conference on territorial competitiveness and social cohesion, organised by the Barcelona Metropolitan Area (AMB) took place on March 13th 2015 in the Design Hub building in Barcelona.

This meeting represents the first step on a path towards European cooperation between metropolitan areas that share future challenges to become more competitive, effi-cient and to ensure that better services are offered to their citizens.

The day started with a welcome presentation by the may-or of Cornellà de Llobregat and Executive Vice President of the AMB, Antonio Balmón, followed by a conference by Professor Jean Louis Cohen, architect and historian of New York University. Then two panel discussions took place, the first one on European cooperation and the second on terri-torial competitiveness, which included the participation of mayors, presidents and political representatives from Eu-ropean metropolises - Paris, Liverpool, Oporto, Turin, War-saw, Akershus-Oslo, Rennes, Marseille, Bologna, Brussels, Vienna, Novi-Sad, Toulouse, Lille, Barcelona-, members of the European networks: Metrex, Metropolis, Medcities, Eurocities and UCLG -, the Global Fund for Cities Devel-opment (FMDV) and also the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). As a result of this event, the mayor of Turin proposed to host the European Metropolitan Authorities meeting in his city in 2016.


The day focused the debate around four axes gener-ating different messages:

Competitiveness:o Fostering urban innovation and Smart Cities.o Rebalancing the economy of the metropolises

at territorial and sectorial level.o Strengthening secondary cities and distributing

the economy.o Being attractive as a territory and attracting

knowledge-based economies.o Guaranteeing a sustainable and efficient urban

development.o More funding from national governments and

the European Union for metropolises.o Economy fluxes are increasingly more inter-

metropolitan and less inter-state.

Governance:o Administrative simplification at all levels.o Greater decentralisation from national

governments in favour of metropolises.o Making metropolitan policies reach the

European Union.o Shifting towards direct election in metropolitan

governments.

Social cohesion:o Preventing social fragmentation and

strengthening territorial cohesion.o Creating a metropolis that is not conditioned by

the markets.o Accepting proximity and guaranteeing citizen

participation.o Promoting education as a basis for

competitiveness and quality of life.o Initiating bottom-up participative processes.o Metropolises are the governaments generating

more employment.

Cooperation:o Calling for a much needed cooperation and

innovation space of European metropolises.o Collaboration regardless of political colour.o Cooperation to turn differences into

opportunities.o Having a more significant role in the European

Union system.o Talking about cooperation rather than about

competitiveness.o Work more in depth on public-private

cooperation.o Work together in order to become more

competitive at international level.

Welcome

Antonio Balmón, Mayor of Cornellà de Llobregat and Executive Vice President of the Barcelona Metropolitan Area

Discussing Europe means discussing its cities and their capacity to transform at social, economic and technological level.

Antonio Balmón was responsible for welcoming the partic-ipants and presenting the first conference on metropolitan governance and territorial competitiveness.

Balmón highlighted that the conference was to establish a strategic alliance between large European metropolises. Discussing Europe means discussing its cities and their ca-pacity to transform at social, economic and technological level. He pointed out that 75% of Europe’s population lives in large urban areas. He argued that it is necessary to have spaces for meetings, for gathering ideas and for transfor-mation and renovation that will shape a new future for the upcoming generations, emphasising on social cohesion. Therefore, it is necessary to work in order to maintain the potentiality of metropolitan economies, while avoiding

environmental deterioration and maintaining social cohe-sion that has historically strengthened Europe.

He highlighted that these goals can only be reached with an optimal political management based on the dignity of politics and the defence of public powers and democratic legitimacy. He also reminded that there is no single model for metropolitan governance and that, despite this being a shared need, it should be flexible enough to adapt to each context. Lastly, he called for national governments to ac-knowledge the role of metropolitan areas and their different governance models, and he encouraged them to continue ensuring that the European Union incorporates this vision for the future of Europe.

Antonio Balmón, Executive Vice-President of AMB and Mayor of Cornellà de Llobregat.


Keynote speech: “Metropolises: Europe’s destiny”

Jean Louis Cohen, Architect, City Historian and Professor at New York University

The exchange of experiences is an essential condition for the rebirth of Europe’s metropolises to continue.

Jean-Louis Cohen began his speech by explaining how Modern Europe has been shaped by cities, yet their pre-eminence has long been overshadowed by national pol-icies. Inside city networks, metropolises have become essential agents for material and symbolic production. At the same time, they are spaces where tensions and conflicts between classes, groups of interest and gener-ations appear. Therefore, their political, economic and social governance is highly complex.

Going back in time, he mentioned the creation of the London County Council in 1888, and with it the birth of a new model of urban governance that was extended to New York and Berlin ten years later. Then, he went over the disparity of opinions that the metropolis generates among philosophers like Simmel, Nietzsche and Tönnies. Cohen explained that large cities are affected by a dou-

ble process of standardisation resulting from globalisation and the universal multiplication of repetitive architecture. In order to respond to this, stakeholders have elaborated reconciling strategies reconciling geography and history in order to revaluate heritage, as well as actions to civilise infrastructures and industrial wastelands.

And so, he stated that a new identity in which metropolis-es are becoming spaces for innovation and experimenta-tion is shaping. Despite this, the social mosaic drawn by metropolises still generates opposition and tension due to its growing social inequality.

Lastly, he concluded that despite that there is no ideal metropolis model, the exchange of experiences is an es-sential condition for the rebirth of the European metrop-olises to continue.

Jean Louis Cohen, Professor at New York University.

Panel discussion: Towards Metropolitan Europe

Rudigher Ahrend, Director of OECD Urban Policies pre-sented and moderated the panel discussion and guided the debate on two issues:

o Why do you think that metropolitan areas must have a more active role at national and European Union level?

o How would you improve cooperation between European metropolises to act uniformly and become more competitive at global level?

Rudiger Ahrend, Director of Urban Policies at OECD

If a country wants succeed at econom-ic and social level, it must make sure that its metropolises work properly, since they are the place where social and economic innovation takes place

Rudiger Ahrend focused on the need for a new role for metrol-polises at national and European level. Ahrend urged the speakers to comment on how to improve cooperation be-tween European cities, to discuss whether the European Union does enough to coordinate and define properly the metropoli-tan phenomenon, and the problems and challenges at nation-al and local level. He asked whether resistance and obstacles were found at national level when concentrating powers at metropolitan level. Concerning institutional organisation, he questioned whether political differences make the metropol-itan process more difficult. Lastly, he proposed to reflect on how international cooperation can help in all these aspects.

He insisted on the demographic evolution of the metro-politan reality and linked it to the fact that metropolitan areas and their governments have an increasing degree of importance. If a country wants succeed at economic and social level, it must make sure that its metropolises work properly, since they are the place where social and economic innovation takes place and, therefore, metro-politan policies are more and more important at national level. On the other hand, he argued that metropolitan governments are becoming key to avoiding the fragmen-tation and disorganisation of urban agglomerations that evolve extensively.

First Panel Discussion on European Cooperation.

Arkershus-Oslo Region

Metrex

Liverpool Warsaw

Toulouse Métropole

WienLilleParis Métropole

Novi SadCittà Metropolitana

di Bologna

Città Metropolitana di Torino

Área Metropolitana do Porto

Àrea Metropolitana de Barcelona

Marseille Provence Métropole

Rennes Métropole

Brussels – Capital Region


We must invest in secondary cities.

It is necessary to have a transfor-mation of public organisations and a change in mentality, and all pol-iticians should assume this metro-politan challenge as their own

Wendy Simon alerted about the economic recession and its great impact on European economy. This must make us reflect on the role of capital cities in relation to second-ary cities, and decide whether economic activities must be concentrated in capital cities or if we should distribute production and services. She requested a more active role for metropolitan areas so that countries can be more com-petitive. In the same way, countries that have considerable differences between capital cities and secondary cities are less competitive, such as the United Kingdom or France. On the other hand, she noted that in Germany the differ-ence between Berlin and the secondary cities is not so big, something that reinforces the German economy.

She explained that, in the United Kingdom, there is a pro-cess to rebalance the economy at sectorial and territorial

Wendy Simon, Councillor of the City of Liverpool

level. There are more investments in secondary cities but not at the expense of the potentiality generated by London as a capital. She explained how in the case of Liverpool they are focusing on the metropolitan organisation by uniting regions and getting greater and more autonomous organisational powers, away from central government. The cities and metropolitan areas work better in decentralised government systems. They require national and European support and, in this sense, she argued that the European Commission must have a clear leadership in their policies for the cities and regions of the continent.

Lastly, she highlighted that working at the metropolitan level generates economies of scale that foster resource-ef-ficiency and savings.

Aurélien Rousseau, Deputy Secretary General of the City of Paris

Aurélien Rousseau began his speech explaining that, for many years, Paris was not interested in the concept of metropolitan area, since it is a capital city. However, they realised that the city was at risk if it did not take this step, since many of its competences -housing, transports, envi-ronmental pollution- were not enough at city policy level. The Île de France region, whose capital is Paris, has approx-imately 1300 city councils, 8 départements and the city of Paris is divided into 20 administrative units. According to Rousseau, this administrative fragmentation and the deriving political matters did not allow them to meet the current challenges.

One of the issues that he highlighted was that some ter-ritories next to Paris are experiencing a very different so-cial and economic situation which, at certain points, has explicitly resulted in large urban protests. However, he add-ed that the city has decided to face this challenge, despite acknowledging that it is a highly complicated matter.

On the other hand, he called for a transformation of public organisations and a change of mentality, as well as for all politicians to accept this metropolitan challenge as their own. Otherwise, the territory will be drawn up, planned and built by the markets, and these will not take into account social inclusion, but will accentuate segregation. In this sense, the bigger challenge is to successfully communicate to citizens that it’s necessary to build a metropolitan au-thority, and make them feel included and identified with it.

Lastly, he argued that in order to maintain the attractive-ness of the French capital region, certain issues such as social inclusion, housing and public transport - which are the basic services of a metropolitan area - , should be dealt with better. On January 1st 2016 the Métropole du Grand Paris will be born and, according to Rousseau, they will need the knowledge from other European cities in order to learn and be able to face this new process.

Omar Al-Rawi, Councillor of the city of Vienna

François Chollet, Vice President of Toulouse Métropole

It is necessary to learn how to collaborate regardless of political stances.

Europe must have a clear stance for cities, metropolises and regions.

François Chollet explained that in France the figure of the metropolis already has a legal basis and they are no longer at the stage where mayors must discuss one-off collabora-tions, competences or power distribution. He remarked that the process has already begun and that the competences are defined. Since January 1st 2015, there are 12 metropol-itan areas in France and in all of them the representatives are directly elected.

According to Chollet, governance in the metropolitan scope is more subtle than in a municipal council, since it is nec-essary to learn to collaborate regardless of political stances. In terms of funding, these bodies have some financial au-tonomy that enables them to act. Chollet stated that me-tropolises are a wonderful tool that have the ability to act in a large territory in crucial matters such as economy, hous-ing, transports, culture or territorial planning. Therefore, the metropolitan area has become a political reality where all great structural projects begin from.

However, he announced two large obstacles that derive from these new structures. The first one is their slow gov-

ernance, since commitments must be reached and complex debates must be faced. On the other hand, he warned of the risk that metropolises keep away from citizens, if they stay away from the population and do not acknowledge prox-imity. This may be useful for large territorial planning, but it also has more difficulties when responding to people’s everyday problems through proximity. In terms of collabo-ration among metropolises, he reminded that they compete against each other in many aspects but, on the other hand, he gave examples of successful collaboration between French cities, such as the creation of the competitive pole in the aeronautical and space sector between Toulouse and Bordeaux, or the cultural collaboration between Toulouse and Montpellier.

Lastly, he insisted on the fact that metropolises face nego-tiations with increasingly important economic stakeholders and, if public authorities do not join forces to try to balance things, public means will rapidly expire. Therefore, it is very important to exchange experiences and knowledge among metropolises in order to face these challenges successfully.

Omar Al-Rawi began his speech by putting emphasis on the challenge of proximity towards citizens. He argued that pol-itics must be analysed in order to be able to transmit the challenges and problems derived from urban transforma-tion.

Then, he introduced the example of Vienna. The city, that used to be on the European border, is now at its core since the last enlargement. Al-Rawi highlighted that it is a city that grows by 25,000 citizens per year and that faces this with commitments such as maintaining 50% of the city as green spaces, being a city of short distances and making sure that new housing is accompanied by the necessary services. He also added that 62% of Viennese people live in social housing due to the accessibility of these projects, which enables them to avoid segregation and suburbia. Con-

cerning the metropolitan dimension, he explained that the problem is that they do not have a specific legislation and therefore it is based on voluntary cooperation between mu-nicipalities in areas such as urbanism, transport or mobility. He also insisted on the idea that we are facing the century of metropolises. Regarding this, he argued that Europe must take a clear position on cities, metropolises and regions.

He also added that new perspectives must be drawn in the metropolitan scope, reminding that a society that does not develop its metropolitan areas will have no future. Vienna agrees with the metropolitan dimension to be included in the decision-making process of the European Union and change its focus by giving a voice to political representa-tives of the cities.


In the future, perhaps we will have to forget about the countries and give more importance to the metropolises.

The diversity of European cities, in relation to other continents, is a success factor for Europe.

Claudio Tolomelli, Vice President of METREX

Jean-Luc Vanraes, Chairman of the Assembly of the Flemish Community Commission in the Brussels Capital-Region

Jean-Luc Vanraes began his speech by stating that, in the future, we might have to forget about countries and give more importance to regions.

He explained that there is a metropolitan region in Brus-sels and that, since 1989, they have the tools to develop this metropolitan reality. He explained that they developed a regional plan for sustainable development analysing the great challenges of the metropolitan region: demographic explosion, job creation, education, environment, quality of life, increase of poverty, mobility and internationalisation. In these processes they promote the participation of all stakeholders and draw up a 10-year plan looking for in-terrelations and defining priorities. The result is a shared approach and knowledge to decide the future of the met-ropolitan region.

Vanraes insisted on metropolitan interaction and how it must be analysed at European level. There are intercom-municating areas that make up economic units above the national level, as you can see in the active attractiveness that Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam and the Ruhr metrop-olis maintain in order to improve their knowledge poten-tial and to avoid brain drain due to the recession.

To conclude, Vanraes pointed out Europe’s development plans, which foresee more metropolitan areas, and he also expressed his high hopes for the work that the European Committee of the Regions can deliver in this field.

Claudio Tolomelli claimed for a greater recognition of metropolitan areas, not only at a technical and aca-demic level but also at a political one. This would entail acknowledging the need for authorities at metropolitan level that are able to integrate and coordinate with each other while facing the difficult and complex problems of large conurbations. It is also necessary to recognize the contribution that metropolitan areas can have in social and economic innovation.

He argued that policies at regional and metropolitan lev-el are more efficient than their national counterparts; in this sense, metropolitan areas can make a decisive con-tribution to guarantee greater social cohesion in Europe.

Tolomelli is in favour of developing institutional networks that strengthen metropolitan authorities in relation to other institutional levels. The European Union should create institutional networks, such as the successful pro-gramme Urban II, that shape up the role and institutional competences of local authorities when it comes to devel-oping and implementing urban strategies. He concluded stating that diversity in European cities, in contrast to other continents, is a success factor for Europe and one of its strongest points. In this sense, the recognition of a European metropolitan dimension should not result in uniformity but rather favour the potential generated in cultural and historical differences among regions.

Panel discussion: Metropolitan Visions

o How does governance in your city ensure a balance between policies supporting economic growth and competitiveness and policies for social inclusion and job creation?

o How to build alliances and consensus among the different local stakeholders (institutions, economic and social actors as well as civil society) to ensure efficient territorial management and the provision of high-quality services?

Xavier Trias, Mayor of Barcelona and president of the Barcelona Metropolitan Area

The future of the world lies in metropolitan areas, which concentrate the largest population, competitiveness, jobs, innovation and knowledge

Xavier Trias began his speech by emphasising the need to place cities and metropolitan areas on the European agenda: strengthening collaboration, sharing experiences and creat-ing opportunities so that European cities and metropolitan areas can become more productive and competitive at a global scale. He highlighted that the future of the world lies in metropolitan areas, which concentrate the largest population, competitiveness, jobs, innovation and knowledge.

Regarding Barcelona, he stated that the creation of the Bar-celona Metropolitan Area four years ago was a historical step,

resulting from an intense and complex debate. After its cre-ation, 36 mayors agreed to collaborate and work together in order to become more efficient when managing services, making the metropolis more competitive, fighting against inequality and creating jobs that would guarantee social co-hesion.

He explained that Barcelona and its metropolitan area have a diversified economy with important industries in the textile and automobile fields, while also investing in new technolo-gies. Barcelona is the mobile world capital, a capital of inno-

Second Panel Discussion on Territorial Competitiveness and Social Cohesion.


In Warsaw, we are committed to innovative industries and knowl-edge being the force behind job creation and social inclusion.

The key to attracting a knowledge-based economy is to be attractive as a territory.

vation and a globally renowned Smart City. This does not only apply to the city but also to its metropolitan dimension.

Trias explained that Barcelona is applying new methods of business incubation in the new-technologies sector, by cre-ating a collaborative ecosystem between cities, universities and companies. They are committed to a new economy, to the tertiary sector and to social entrepreneurship through public-private partnership with economic and social stake-holders such as Barcelona Turisme or Barcelona Global. He also pointed out that infrastructures must be strengthened,

despite Barcelona already being one of the world’s leading cities in terms of logistics, both in its port and airport, as well as in the Mercabarna cluster.

Lastly, he insisted on strengthening collaboration between European metropolitan areas in order to become more com-petitive in the global context. He also highlighted Barcelona’s Mediterranean vocation and its commitment to collaborate with Europe’s largest cities. Finally, he called for the European Union to actively include metropolitan areas in urban policies and devote more resources to them.

Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz, Mayor of Warsaw

Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz explained that in Poland the me-tropolis administrative system does not exist formally, but projects to have a metropolitan law are underway. At the mo-ment, they still work with agreements and contracts between the municipal, metropolitan and regional levels.

The Mayor stated that Warsaw has only a 4% unemployment rate. This number is low when we compare it with the 12% unemployment rate of the country. This means that Warsaw generates jobs, investment and European projects. They have

invested many resources in public transport, water manage-ment, roads and airports in order to strengthen the region.

Gronkiewicz-Waltz added that they are committed to inno-vative industries and knowledge being the force behind job creation and social inclusion. Their system of public tender-ing includes social clauses for services that are involved with the city, which allows them to fight against inequality while they reactivate the economy. They also collaborate with uni-versities and NGOs in the city to manage public services in a coordinated and efficient manner.

Anette Solli, Mayor of the Akershus Region, Oslo

Anette Solli began her speech explaining that the region of Akershus works through cooperation between the city of Oslo and the metropolis, with its 22 municipalities. They face challenges that are common among metropolitan areas: economic development, competitiveness, social inclusion and unemployment. Their economy is charac-terised mainly by Norway’s dependence on oil, especially from the region of the capital, Oslo. For this reason, Solli is committed to shifting from an industry based on oil to an industry based on knowledge, and she argued that this is their greatest challenge ahead.

Solli was convinced that the key to attracting a knowl-edge-based economy is to be attractive as a territory.

This can be achieved by having an easy transport sys-tem, high-quality schools, a safe and pollution-free en-vironment, as well as a wide range of other issues that will make people want to live in the region and offer their knowledge to innovative industries.

In this regard, she gave the example of the collaboration between Oslo and Akershus on transport, for which they have created a joint company. Other examples of collabo-ration are the creation of a toll located on the roads around Oslo and the implementation of the electric car, commit-ting themselves to the objective of zero carbon emissions.

Emmanuel Couet, Mayor of Saint Jacques de la Lande and President of Rennes Métropole

The future of the metropolis lies in cooperation, not in competition.

We must deal with the need to guarantee a balance between economic fabric and social inclusion by fostering education, technological training and entrepreneurship.

Emmanuel Couet explained that the metropolitan area of Rennes is the 7th largest agglomeration in Europe at de-mographic level. It is also the regional capital of Brittany, a region with a strong identity. In regard to intensive growth, they are committed to the digital sector, by establishing themselves as an important university city for research. On the other hand, this growth must also be based on the ac-cessibility of the territory, as they are planning the arrival of the high-speed train within two years.

He argued that the future of the metropolis lies in coopera-tion and not in competition. This has led them to structure the Pôle Métropolitain Loire-Bretagne, with the conviction that, to a great extent and with the collaboration of Nantes, they will find strength at national and international level. According to Couet, Rennes alone would not be relevant at international level, but the region as a whole would have more potential and attractiveness. On the other hand, he in-sisted that they want this economic growth to be inclusive,

which is exemplified by the fact that they are one of the few French agglomerations that does not have banlieues thanks to their public housing policies.

Finally, he highlighted that they are committed to the dig-ital sector becoming accessible for the whole population, with projects that have a similar force to those carried out in Barcelona. He concluded that a metropolis that guarantees social balance increases its attractiveness. Social cohesion is not only a moral and political demand, but also an eco-nomic one when it comes to locating businesses.

He concluded by stating that metropolises will be decisive in the future and, in order for them to be effective, they must be accompanied by democratic legitimacy, they must head towards direct election and the confrontation of politi-cal projects at metropolitan level, in the same way that it is done at municipal level.

Hermínio Loureiro, President of the Porto Metropolitan Area

Hermínio Loureiro started his speech by emphasising on the need to guarantee a balance between economic fabric and social inclusion by promoting education, technologi-cal training and entrepreneurship.

Loureiro stated that it is his intention to reinforce research and innovation, as well as consolidate his R&D system. He added that the Porto Metropolitan Area is fully committed to entrepreneurship through start-up networks and collab-orating with business associations in different projects.

He also highlighted the importance of establishing al-liances and consensus with local stakeholders. They are

working along these lines in order to improve the territo-rial management system, focusing on key sectors such as transport, environment, material metropolitan networks - buildings and infrastructures - as well as immaterial ones - social, cultural and tourism.

To conclude, he insisted that the basis to consolidate the metropolitan dimension at institutional level depends on improving efficiency in public administration, strength-ening institutional capacities and on ways to implement these networks. There must be a good interconnection be-tween the 17 municipalities and constantly increase the projects at metropolitan level.


French tradition was top-down and today it is starting to become bot-tom-up, an ascending process that the State does not always understand.

I propose Turin as host city of the next European Metropolitan Authorities meeting in 2016.

Daniel Guiraud, Mayor of Les Lilas and First Vice President of Paris Métropole

Daniel Guiraud highlighted the creation of the Metropolitan Area of Greater Paris, which he hopes will be up and running in 2016. He explained the reason behind the institutional creation of a metropolis in the area of Paris. He argued that if everything worked to perfection it would not have been necessary, but instead they find themselves with great diffi-culties in key issues such as transport, housing or territorial inequality. Concerning housing, he stated that in order to meet the large demand, they would have to be capable of doubling the yearly housing construction rate. Regarding territorial segregation, he stated that, taking the GDP per capita into account, they are the richest region in Europe but also the region that concentrates the largest inequalities.

He then talked about the governance challenge. The French state model stands out for its centralised and pyramidal or-ganisation, which gives a lot of importance to the state in contrast to local authorities. Guiraud believes that, in this

context, governance is too complex and that the adminis-trative operation should be rationalised by removing the départements.

He explained that the State has become narrow due to glo-balisation and that the fluxes are not interstate anymore but rather intermetropolitan. Also, in order for companies to assess location options for their economic activities, they no longer address the national embassy but rather talk di-rectly to metropolitan authorities. He concluded by stating the need to work on an adequate level, taking into account the notion of subsidiarity, and highlighted that French tra-dition used to be top-down and today it is fast becoming bottom-up, an ascending process that the State does not al-ways understand. According to Guiraud, work must continue in order to change the nature of the relationship between the state and local governments.

Piero Fassino, Mayor of Turin and President of the Città Metropolitana di Torino

Piero Fassino insisted that the metropolitan level will contin-uously grow in importance at demographic level and this will mean that metropolitan cities will become the forces behind the economic growth of the countries. In a globalised econo-my, competition does not only occur among companies but also among territories and this attractiveness is based on knowledge, education and the living standard of its citizens.

He was convinced that the production model has changed. In the previous century, each city had an identity derived from their industrial activity. In the case of Turin it was the auto-mobile industry. Fassino stated that, with globalisation, the profile based on a single vocation does no longer work, and cities are forced to diversify their economies by investing in research, innovation and culture. However, he added that the territorial dimension of this change is not only the city but that it has a metropolitan dimension. Since January 1st 2015, there is a new law in Italy establishing metropolitan areas, de-spite the fact that they already had a metropolitan system for transports, water, waste and housing for some time already. This law simply acknowledged this reality.

Fassino stated that the metropolitan dimension is a challenge of the future and that metropolitan areas will be the force be-hind European development. He added that, when creating a metropolitan area, some issues must be taken into account. Firstly, we must make sure that both large and small cities have a sense of ownership of the project, avoiding suspicious-ness and reluctance from small cities who fear that the main city will concentrate all activities. The second important issue is the relationship between the metropolitan institution and other institutional levels in the region and the state. Lastly, he stated that the possibility that metropolitan cities increasing-ly become a strategic stakeholder must be accompanied by a cultural strategy as well as a legal and institutional one.

To conclude, he pointed out that there must be an evolving concept of metropolitan areas. In Northern Italy, there are two large metropolises in Milan and Turin, although they might become two poles of a single metropolis at global level due to the rapid extension they are undergoing. To finish off, he highlighted the utility and great level of interest that this meeting of European Metropolitan Authorities has raised and proposed the city of Turin as host city for the next edition in 2016.

4. Background paperMetropolitan governance in Europe: Challenges & Models

1. Introduction

The 20th Century has witnessed the transformation of the European territory. The first half of the century saw the consolidation of the urbanization process, leading, after the 1950s, to a progressive phenomenon of suburbaniza-tion which culminated in territorial metropolitanization. In other words, the limits of what we understand to be

“urban” have widened and nearly three-quarters of the Eu-ropean population (Eurostat, 2014) currently lives in met-ropolitan and urban areas. But these limits are extended and in constant evolution, resulting in multiple statistical definitions of “urban” (metropolitan areas, metropolitan regions, urban areas, city-regions, etc.). Without going into a strict statistical definition, we understand metropolitan areas and urban agglomerations (treated here as syno-nyms) as a territory with a minimum population (accord-ing to Eurostat, 250,000 inhabitants) with one or more main centers, where there are labour market integration and activities (economical, cultural, leisure) provided by the mobility of its inhabitants.

The challenges posed by the metropolitan phenomena are diverse: social (combating inequalities, ensuring access to public services), economical and financial (guaranteeing competitiveness and efficiency); territorial and environ-mental (the management of urban explosion, mobility and waste); political and institutional (the co-ordination of policies and services, democratic representation). The constant shift between traditional administrative bound-aries and the metropolitan territory has led to several theoretical approaches and proposals about the ideal for-mula for the government of urban agglomerations (for a summary see Heinelt and Küber 2005; Tomàs, 2009). At one extreme the merge of all municipalities in the ag-glomeration to overcome institutional fragmentation is proposed. This option, extended between the years 1950-70 in northern and central Europe, is still proposed and ap-plied (but not without controversy). This is shown in recent examples from Denmark (2007 reform) and from Canada (the creation of the new cities of Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa between 1990 and 2000 as a result of mergers). In the other extreme, there would be the proposal of non-in-terference and letting municipalities freely decide whether they want to share services or cooperate in some metro-politan agency. This has been the United States specific approach, where there are scarce institutionalized models.

In Europe, as we will see later, an intermediate option - via the creation of a metropolitan structure of two tiers (metropolitan and municipal) - has been generally adopt-ed, by taking into account the political balances and how to fit the urban agglomeration in the whole territory. But we cannot talk of a European metropolitan policy or a Eu-ropean model, as there is a great diversity, as a result of traditions and historical richness of the different countries.

2. Metropolitan governance models in Europe

Metropolitan governance refers to the capacity to face the challenges of urban agglomerations. This concept, wide-spread since the 1990s, wanted to distinguish between the classical notion of “government”, and a wider vision which includes the role in metropolitan governance of the public sector but also of the private one (Jouve et Lefèvre, 1999). Metropolitan governance adopts various forms, es-pecially in Europe. This diversity lies in the interrelation of various elements: territorial fragmentation, the com-petencies in metropolitan issues, and the type of funding and representation.

Firstly, there are differences depending on the number of existing administrations and institutions in the metropoli-tan area. Indeed, there are agglomerations characterized by a high level of fragmentation and others in which there is more institutional simplicity. For example, in countries in which municipal reforms have taken place (like nordic coun-tries) there are fewer municipalities whilst countries in the south of Europe are characterized by a high number of mu-nicipalities. Apart from the number of municipalities with a monocentric character (Rome, Paris) or with a policentric one (Randstad in The Netherlands), there are other admin-istrations which carry out metropolitan tasks (autonomous community, province, region, county, etc.) and other public or private institutions, which have also functions at metro-politan level. In fact, there are often public or private institu-tions which promote strategies to strengthen economic and social development (like platforms to promote international competitiveness). There are also institutions of municipal assistance which give technical and legal support to munic-ipalities (for example, to apply for grants from the European Union). In addition in the majority of metropolises, servic-es at metropolitan level are managed by public, private or mixed institutions.


Concerning competencies, these can be framed both in the area of hard policies - that is, related to physical envi-ronment (territorial planning, urbanism, transport, envi-ronment etc) - and in the area of soft policies (education, health, social services etc.). However, various studies show that competencies almost exclusively focus on the field of hard policies and especially on those related to territorial planning, transport and environment (Tomàs, 2009; VVAA, 2009). The other area in which metropol-itan institutions often intervene is economic develop-ment, basically in employment promotion strategies and wealth generation. Nevertheless, it is important to dif-ferenciate between exclusive competencies and shared competencies with other administrations in the same area. One way to identify the policy capacity at metro-politan level is by analysing the binding or non-binding character of the decisions to be taken. For example, de-termining if the set up actions of a metropolitan plan are obligatory or not for the municipalities.

Without doubt, funding determines to a large extent the level of autonomy. Not only with regard to materi-al resources (the quantity) but also to the source of this funding (own funding or via other means). With regard

Figure 1: Differentiation elements of metropolitan governance models

Level of territorial fragmentation:• number of municipalities• number of other administrations• number of other public or private institutions• number of public, private and mixed service management companies

Type of competencies:• hard policies• soft policies

Type of funding:• transfers from the bottom (municipalities) and from the top (other levels of government)• Levies and own taxes

Type of representation:• Direct/indirect election of metropolitan mayors and councillors• Civil society representation

to metropolitan structures, funding comes basically from two sources, usually combined. Firstly, municipal transfers (bottom-up) and from a higher level of government -States or sub-states institutions - in accordance with the political structure of the country (top-down). Secondly, levies and own taxes (the sale of services such as water, collection of taxes related to waste treatment, etc.). As we can see from concrete cases, one of the problems of the existing metro-politans institutions is the lack of financial autonomy, as their resources are very much conditioned by the transfers coming from other levels of government.

Metropolitan governance models are also differentiated by the citizens’ capacity to elect directly their political rep-resentatives and by the type of representation. In the var-ious models we can find both direct election of the may-or/president and councillors, and indirect election (those forming part of the metropolitan structure as represent-atives of their municipalities). In addition, understanding that governance is a concept wider than government, we can find cases in which governance models include rep-resentation of members from civil society (association representatives, chambers of commerce, universities etc).

Bearing in mind these different elements, four big met-ropolitan governance models can be drawn according to their level of institutionalization. This is, depending on the type of institutional arrangements that have been made. In one extreme, the metropolitan governments or structures created expressly to face metropolitan chal-lenges. These structures rely on a metropolitan council (elected directly or indirectly depending on the case) and with competencies and funding established by law. At metropolitan level, metropolitan agencies can also be found which, in contrast to metropolitan governments, have the competence for managing or planning one

Figure 2: Metropolitan governance models depending on the level of institutionalization

Metropolitan governments (direct or indirect election)Metropolitan agencies (sectorial)Vertical Co-ordination (from an existing government level: a region, province, etc.) Voluntary co-operation among municipalities (association of municipalities, strategic plans)

sole service (public transport, environment, police etc.). The third model is the one of vertical co-ordination, in which metropolitan policies are not made by a specif-ic metropolitan institution but de facto by other already existing levels of government (autonomous community, a province, a county, etc.). Finally, the least institutional model is that of voluntary co-operation between munic-ipalities, in which various local representatives organize themselves. This model can be represented by the most traditional form (Union or Association of municipalities) or by a more flexible formula in line with governance postulates (strategic planning).

It must be said that these models are idealistic types and set great tends. In practice, some of them are mixed and models which in theory are the same, in practice are dif-ferent. Elements which are more intangible, related to po-litical culture as well as attitudes and values of local representatives towards metropolitan governance influ-ence the final model. For example in some countries there is more tradition to institutionalize metropolitan co-oper-ation via the creation of new structures (such as in France), whilst in others reforms move towards the reduction of its number (such as in Denmark). In certain countries reforms are made at national level and homogeneous models are sought (such as currently in Italy) whilst in other countries there is a large variety of governance models (such as in Germany and Spain). The political and legal consideration of the municipality has also an effect: whether it is an im-portant government area (with competences and funding), whether it has a main role in the country’s politics (high participation in municipal elections), etc. Also, the failures and successes of various governance formulas are under-stood by the attitudes of metropolitan representatives: the willingness to co-operate and find a common denomina-tor in favour of the general interest. A formal metropolitan institution can exist but so that it works successfully there must be political willingness. In some cases the “ideal” model has not been adopted due to the local or nation-al representatives’ resistances. Later on, each one of the models will be analyzed and presented with illustrative examples.

2.1 Metropolitan governments

By metropolitan governments we refer to the maximum institutionalization level of metropolitan areas; that is, the creation of metropolitan institutions with strong compe-tencies (legal and tax autonomy) and democratic legiti-macy (direct election of their representatives). This model implies the passing of laws and the recognition of the met-ropolitan reality. However, in practice, current structures in Europe do not meet these criteria and we have to consider them like a light version of metropolitan governments. In fact, their autonomy has been limited by sharing compe-tences with other levels of government, by the lack of own resources or by the legitimate democracy weakness. But still, they are co-ordination bodies of metropolitan policies that usually have an integral vision of the agglomeration, as they do not have only one competence such as the sec-torial metropolitan authorities. Some examples of current metropolitan structures are Stuttgart, (1994), London (cre-ated by law in 1999, in effect since 2000), Lisbon (various legislations, the latest in 2013), Lyon (1999), or Barcelona (2010 Law, in effect since 2011).


Name & date of creation by law

Number of munic-ipalities

Type of election Main source of funding Main competencies

Verband Region Stuttgart, 1994

179 Direct: assembly, be-tween 80 & 96 members ( now 87) elected every 5 years

Transfers (municipal, county, länder and federal government ) and transport taxes

Transport, territorial plan-ning, economic develop-ment, waste treatment, tourism.

Greater London Authority, 1999

City + 32 boroughs Direct: mayor & assembly (25 councillors elected every 4 years)

Transfers (mainly from central government )

Transport; Economic de-velopment, international promotion; prevention and fire control, emergencies, police and security

Communauté urbaine de Lyon, 1999

57 municipalities Indirect: council of 153 members (delegates from municipalities)

Fees and own Taxes (TPU) and central government transfers

Economic, social and cultural; development, territorial planning promotion of public housing urban dinamization and revitalization; management of shared services; environment

Metropolitan Area of Lisbon, (2003, 2008 & 2013)

18 municipalities36 parishes (freguesias)

Indirect: council of 55 members (delegates from municipalities)

Transfers from municipali-ties and the State.

Elaboration of plans and investment programs; economic, social and environmental development; Management of regional development programs; Defining service networks and metropolitan facilities; participation in metropolitan institutions on transport and environment.

Àrea Metropoli-tana de Barcelona, 2010

36 Indirect: council of 90 members (delegates from municipalities)

Transfers (mainly from municipalities and consor-tia), taxes

Territory and urbanism; transport and mobility; housing; environment; economic development; social cohesion.

Table 1: Examples of metropolitan governments

Most of these structures are of indirect election and ex-clusive for local elected officials, with mixed funding and mainly dependent on transfers. Their competencies are related to territorial planning, environment, transport, and economic development. Only London and Stuttgart are of direct election. In fact, one of the recurring debates in met-ropolitan governance continues to be the need or not to elect mayors and councillors at metropolitan level. Direct election is explained by the willingness to give visibili-ty and legitimacy to metropolitan institutions, specially in newly created ones. In fact, having direct representa-tion at metropolitan level implies having a campaign and an electoral metropolitan program to discuss and adopt commitments. In indirect elections, there would not be pressure from citizens towards the administration of met-

ropolitan institutions. The mayors and councillors are the ones who, having been elected on the basis of their munic-ipality, have to defend a shared metropolitan interest; this task would be difficult to carry out when one is responsi-ble to municipal voters rather than to the whole metro-politan area. In general, this would imply dedicating little time to metropolitan authorities and would difficult the emergence of a metropolitan leadership. Moreover, the mandate within the metropolitan government is tied to the municipal electoral calendar: in the case of changes in local political majorities, there will also be changes in the composition of the metropolitan government. Therefore, the continuity of metropolitan councillors do not depend on their performance at metropolitan level but at munic-ipal one.

Graph num. 1: Turnout in metropolitan elections in London.

Source: Own data based on Greater London Authority.Graph num. 2: Turnout in metropolitan elections in Stuttgart.

Source: Own data based on Verband Region Stuttgart.

The direct election of metropolitan representatives is a costly economic option which may generate political resistence because of the magnitude of the election (in many cases a considerable number of the population). Re-sistance is especially strong in the case of capitals. In this case, the possibility of creating political rivalry depends largely on the power of metropolitan governments. If these have strategic and management competencies such as in the case of London, the possibility to emerge as a counterpower is minimal. An indicator of democratic legit-imacy of metropolitan governments with direct election is the turnout in metropolitan elections (see Graphs 1 & 2).

In Stuttgart, after a first voting in 1994 close to 70%, turn-out has been stablilizing above 50%. In London, there is a less than 40% stability, except for the 2008 elections (45%), in which the historic mayor, Ken Livingstone was defeated by the conservative candidate, Boris Johnson. In fact the Blair gov-ernment held a referendum before the creation of the Great-er London Authority: 72% of citizens voted in favour, but only 35% of citizens with the right to vote, voted. If we compare this with the electoral turnout for the municipal elections, we see that in both cases the percentages are similar. In other words, the direct election of the metropolitan council in these two agglomerations would not have achieved a greater turnout or have differentiated themselves from the municipal elections.

2.2 Metropolitan Agencies

In this case, there is a medium-level of institutionalization with a sectorial agency with a main function rather that a metropolitan authority with various competencies. For example, in Frankfurt it is regional planning. In the case of Birmingham, there are several sectorial agencies with functions such as transport, police, fire and emergencies. In fact, transport planning is often carried out by a met-ropolitan agency, such as in the case of Barcelona metro-politan region - which covers a territory much larger than the metropolitan area -, in which there is the Metropolitan Transport Authority (ATM).

BirminghamHistory:Between 1974 and 1986, the metropolitan area of Birmingham had a metropolitan government (West Midlands Metropolitan County) similar to other Eng-lish cities. After its abolition, its core municipalities continue to have some shared services, provided by metropolitan authorities with a sole function. Competencies:West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive: known as Centro, is the public body responsible for promoting and co-ordinating public transport ser-vices (buses, train & metro), and it is run by public and private companies. West Midlands Police: the public body responsible for ensuring the safety of citizens. It also performs preventive and educational tasks in relation to crime and violence. West Midlands Fire Service: the public body respon-sible for the protection, prevention and action in case of fire or emergency. Funding:These metropolitan agencies are funded mainly by transfers from municipality members (50%) and State subsidies (30%). The remainder (20%) comes from the payment of fees for the offered services. Representation:The type of representation in the three authorities is indirect. The West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive and the West Midlands Fire Service have a council composed of municipality members del-egates, according to their population (27 members in both cases) and led by an executive committee. In contrast, the West Midlands Police is organized in 10 operating units led by a Chief of Police (chief superintendent). The group of units is co-ordinated by a team of police officers and technical staff.


These two examples are illustrative of how this model of governance works. Firstly, the creation of a sectorial agen-cy involves less institutional changes than metropolitan governments (especially in the case of direct election). Therefore, it is politically easier to perform and cause less political resistance. This does not imply that there will not be any type of conflict. For example, in Frankfurt some municipalities have opposed to the creation of the new planning agency and have tried to halt the process. Sec-ondly, these type of agencies have indirect representa-tion, and are presented rather as a technical than a polit-ical body. Unlike metropolitan governments, however, the metropolitan perspective is fragmented, since they only deal with one area (waste, transport, housing), and lack a global vision.

Agglomerations with various sectorial agencies, each one covering a different territory, are also often found. Today in Helsinki, there is a transport agency for 7 mu-nicipalities (Helsinki Region Transport, HSL) and an en-vironment one for 4 municipalities (Helsinki Region En-vironmental Services Authority, HSY). This was also the case of Barcelona before the coming into force of the Law of 2010, in which a transport entity, an environmental entity and an association of municipalities coexisted and comprised each one a different number of municipalities. This fragmentation was eliminated with the creation the new Barcelona Metropolian Area. In contrast, the case of Birmingham is the opposite: there was a metropolitan structure with various functions and this structure was removed and three sectorial metropolitan agencies were born. Co-ordination between them is one of the agglom-eration’s outstanding challenges.

2.3 Vertical Co-ordination

This governance model includes those cases where an administration not specifically metropolitan develops de facto a role of metropolitan co-ordination. In other words, it has not been created for this function but in practice exercises this function - in the absence of a specifically created metropolitan government. There are numerous examples in Europe: the city-state of Vienna, the Region of Brussels-Capital, Stockholm County, the Regional Au-thority of Dublin, the Hovedstaden region in Copenhagen and the Autonomous Community of Madrid (Comunidad de Madrid).

FrankfurtHistory:Greater Frankfurt extends to three länders and has several institutions responsible for a single func-tion (regional planning, transport, waste, culture, parks) which act in different geographical areas. The Parliament of Hesse, where most of the mu-nicipalities are based, passed the Law on Frank-furt/Rhein-Main, which entered into force on the 1st April 2011. This law involved the creation of Regionalverband FrankfurtRheinMain, a regional planning agency comprising 75 municipalities in the metropolitan area. It is not the first structure created for this purpose, as there have already been several regional planning agencies with dif-ferent names (the last one, Planungsverband Bal-lungsraum Frankfurt/Rhein-Main and just before, the Umlandverband, of direct election).Competencies:The main function of the agency is regional plan-ning, which is carried out by elaborating the Region-al Land Use Plan and Landscape Plan. The aim of those plans is to harmonize the various municipal plans (previously there were other planning agen-cies with less municipality members). The Region-alverband FrankfurtRheinMaint also develops tasks related to technical assessment to municipalities about european funds, analysis of regional data and the management of projects financed by the European Union. Funding:The municipalities fund the agency. Municipal con-tributions (umlage) are calculated based on two criteria: population and wealth (income per capi-ta). Therefore the large and rich municipalities are those that contribute more to the association. Representation:Decisions are taken by the Regional Council, com-posed of municipal representatives (indirect election).

Autonomous Community of MadridHistory:The Autonomous Community of Madrid was found-ed by a statute passed in 1983. Madrid represents the exception to the tendency of southern european cities because of its low institutional density. There are only two governments: the local and the region-al one. It contains 179 municipalities: the reduced size of the municipalities of the second metropol-itan belt contrasts with the large extension of the central city and Spanish capital, as a result of the joining of 13 municipalities between 1948 and 1954. The rapid urban development around the capital occupies nearly all the territory of the Au-tonomous Community of Madrid. Competencies: As an Autonomous Community, Madrid has a wide range of competencies set out in its Statue of Au-tonomy. Amongst them the following can be high-lighted: territorial planning, urbanism, housing, public works, roads, railways, transport, ports and water resources. It also has responsibilities of the former provincial council, such as the co-ordina-tion of municipal entities in order to guarantee the provision of municipal competencies throughout the territory. The Autonomous Community of Ma-drid has other competencies which shares with the State such as: economic planning, industry, security, education and health. Funding:The revenues of the Autonomous Community of Ma-drid come 80% from direct and indirect taxes (on goods and services, property and income). 70% of these revenues are collected by the State and trans-ferred to the Community of Madrid, such as the In-come tax and VAT. The rest of the regional funding comes from transfers from the State. Representation:The Madrid Assembly is the legislative and political representation body of the citizens of the Autonomous Community of Madrid. It consists of 111 councillors directly elected every 4 years. The Assembly elects the President of the Autonomous Community and leader of the Executive power, who sets his own Governing Council and responds to the Assembly.

Region Hovedstaden in CopenhagenHistory:In Denmark in 2007, a municipal reform took place: 14 counties (second level of local government) were replaced by 5 regions and the number of municipal-ities went from 271 to 98. In Copenhagen, the cre-ation of the Regional Capital (Region Hovedstaden) meant the disappearance of the existing metropoli-tan authority. The agglomeration of the Danish cap-ital is characterized by the low degree of institution-al fragmentation: few and large municipalities and the region of Hovedstaden. Before the 2007 reform there were also various transport authorities, which also merged into one (Movia). Competencies: The new regions are desentralised from the State, and their decisions are binding. The competencies of the regions are related to the management of hospitals and its staff, the management of health coverage (health insurance), regional development (economic development, tourism, culture, educa-tion); the environment (regional plans, pollution); public transport (co-ordination of transport agen-cies, planning, fare integration); the co-ordination of institutes working for the population with special needs (social services, education). Funding:Regions unlike municipalities cannot raise taxes. Their funding comes esssentially from transfers from the State (80%) and municipalities (20%).Representation:Each region is represented by a Council of 41 mem-bers, elected directly every 4 years.


These two cases show how in a State decentralization pro-cess metropolitan governments are not created, but sub-states institutions (Autonomous Communities, regions) are the ones to assume in practice metropolitan functions. Both in the case of Madrid and Denmark, the territory ac-tivity is larger than the metropolitan area, and therefore the policies are not specifically metropolitan but are dilut-ed into all policies. In return, those are cases of institutions with outstanding competencies and direct election, which gives them legitimacy. Furthermore these government ar-eas would be difficult to eliminate by change of govern-ment, in contrast to metropolitan governments, which have been subject to political fights (cases of Barcelona & English metropolitan authorities in the 1980s).

In conclusion, the models of vertical co-ordination are characterized by the following elements: Firstly, the gov-ernment areas assuming metropolitan tasks have more or less powers, types of funding and direct or indirect rep-resentation depending on the case (especially depending on the degree of decentralization of the State). Secondly, the territorial area of work of the institution (regional, city-State, county, autonomous region) is larger (cases of Ma-drid, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Dublin) or smaller (Vienna, Brussels) than the metropolitan area. Consequently, the problem with the vertical co-ordination model is the dif-ficulty of building a metropolitan vision as there is no explicit recognition of the metropolitan fact; this depends on the capacity to create metropolitan projects and poli-cies for each institution.

2.4 Voluntary Co-operation between municipalities

Less institutionalized models are characterized by the lack of reforms in existing political structures as they are based on local initiatives and willingness on part of the municipalities, by using flexible formulas of co-operation. The traditional model is voluntary co-operation between municipalities of the same metropolitan area. In the ma-jority of countries there are associations of municipalities to provide some service. For example, in Spain there are more than 1,000 associations of municipalities, including rural areas. In the case of urban agglomerations, the co-op-eration can take place on a more political basis, becoming an element of transition towards more institutionalized metropolitan governance. This was the case in the Manco-munitat de Municipis of the Barcelona Metropolitan Area and later on the Metropolitan Consortium, which served as a transition to the new AMB. This is currently the case of Paris (see 2.5). In other cases, voluntary co-operation is carried out in order to build a common space for metropol-

itan dialogue and to reach agreements between members, as in the case of the Polish agglomeration of Poznan.

The effectiveness of voluntary co-operation structures depends to a large extent on the legal framework under which municipalities act (competencies, funding etc.) and the political willingness of municipal represent-atives. Without a clear leadership and willingness to co-operate, these models of governance are ephemeral. For example, in Warsaw an association was created in the year 2000, (Warsaw Metropolis Association), which was only comprised of municipalities surrounding the Polish capital. Although Warsaw joined the association in 2006, mistrust between the suburban representatives and those of the capital have prevented a real co-opera-tion between them.

During the decades of 1990 and 2000, strategic planning emerged as a governance tool. In this case, municipal rep-resentatives share a space for discussion and debate with other stakeholders such as other administrations, employ-ers’ organisations, chambers of commerce, universities, non-profit organizations, etc. Well-known cases of strate-gic planning are Barcelona and Turin. As in the previous

Poznan Metropolis AssociationHistory:This metropolitan area with more than one million inhabitants is mono-centric and is characterized by the long tradition of co-operation between munici-palities. After various inter-municipal structures in the year 2007, Poznan, its surrounding county and 17 municipalities, created the Poznan Metropolitan Council. Its aim was to develop a strategic plan that would lead to the creation of the Poznan Metropolis Association in 2012. Competencies:Becoming a forum for discussion between mem-bers and co-ordinate the co-operation among them as well as managing European funds (Integrated Territorial Investments- ITI).Funding:The association is financed by contributions from members. It also applies for subsidies from the Eu-ropean Union. Representation:Currently the association includes the city of Poznan, the county of Poznan & 21 municipalities, which are organized into an assembly with representation of the members.

case, they can also be transitional o complementary ele-ments of a more institutionalized metropolitan co-opera-tion. For example, in the Polish city of Wroclaw, the plan-ning strategy has been a stage before the constitution of a metropolitan agency. Indeed, the exercise of intense stra-tegic planning started in 1999, lasted six years, and ended due to lack of results. However, this experience led in 2007 to the creation of a sectorial agency (ARAW-Wrocław Ag-glomeration Development Agency).

Torino InternazionaleHistory:Turin is a fragmented agglomeration, in which the Piedmont region and the Province of Turin have competencies. It has several public and private companies that manage the services and a met-ropolitan structure without coordination. Torino Internazionale is the association created in 2000 to promote strategic planning and reach an agree-ment on the future of the agglomeration. The first strategic plan, pioneer in Italy, came up at a time of a crisis in the industrial sector (especially automo-tive) and the preparation for the 2006 Winter Olym-pic Games. The goal was to renew the international image of the city. The second strategic plan focused on the knowledge society and on how to develop new economic development niches. Currently, its work focuses on the development of a third stra-tegic plan focused on strategies to cope with the economic crisis while promoting sustainable devel-opment for the city, including both social and envi-ronmental aspects.Competencies:To guide the development of the agglomeration through agreements between the various members, setting goals and specific projects to achieve them.Funding:The association has three main funding sources: membership fees; contributions and donations from other public and private entities; and benefits from the initiatives of the Association. Representation:The association is composed of an assembly that has currently 89 members and is chaired by the Mayor of Turin. Members are of various types, in-cluding representatives from public institutions, or-ganisations, universities, cultural centres, business-es, unions and chambers of commerce.

The objective of the strategic plans is to create a vision of metropolitan consensus tracing the main elements which should guide the future of the metropolis. It is therefore a key tool without binding capacity. This charac-ter helps agreements to be reached and to include other representatives who have no voice in formal institutions but have a prominent role in the metropolitan area. In contrast, the strategic objectives can be easily abandoned, either because of lack of leadership, political changes or lack of co-operation with other government areas.

2.5 Ongoing reforms

There are currently several metropolitan reform processes, such as in France and Italy. What do they propose? Are they innovative? How are they framed within the met-ropolity governance models?

In the French case, for the last 8 years there has been a debate on the reform of the various territorial entities that affect large cities, especially Paris. The capital was exclud-ed from the national reform of 1990 (Loi Chevènement 1999) due to its complexity. At the same time the vari-ous legislative and urban development projects (such as Grand Paris), have been consolidating new models of met-ropolitan voluntary cooperation with a broad strong terri-torial base. The adoption of the Law of 27 January 2014 of modernization of public territorial action and affirmation of metropolises (Loi de modernisation de l’action publique territoriale et d’affirmation des métropoles) represents the institutionalization of this co-operation, as it provides for the creation of a new body of intermunicipal cooperation, the Métropole du Grand Paris, on the 1st January 2016.


Recent Chronology of metropolitan co-operation structures in Paris

Metropolitan conference (2006-2009):Following the initiative of the mayor of Paris, a space is created for dialogue to reflect and discuss the most important challenges of the agglomera-tion of the capital. More than 100 entities (munic-ipalities, intermunicipal structures, départements and the region Île-de-France) participate. Paris Métropole (2009-2015):To study in detail a diagnosis of the metropolitan challenges, a mix study group was created (synd-icat mixte d’études), bringing together more than 200 regional bodies (municipalities, intermunic-ipal structures, departments and region) of both the first and the second belt of the agglomeration. These 211 bodies (in February 2015) represent 9.3 million inhabitants. Financed by its members, it is organised in an Assembly in which each member has the same importance, and a smaller steering committee. It also has a Comitè de partenaires to represent civil society. One of the lines of work is the Projet métropolitain which works for the tran-sition towards the new body Métropole du Grand Paris, together with the Mission de Préfiguration.Mission de Préfiguration de la future Métropole du Grand Paris (2014-2016):It is the organ responsible for preparing towards the new Métropole du Grand Paris, through diagnosis and evaluation reports (legal conditions, financial, etc.). Mayors and other stakeholders are represent-ed in order to contribute to the project. Its task will end six months after the creation of the Métropole du Grand Paris.Métropole du Grand Paris (2016-...):It will be the new intermunicipal institution (étab-lissement public de coopération intercommunale - EPCI) that will bring together Paris and the munici-palities of the first belt (about 7 million inhabitants) from the 1st of January 2016. Competencies are re-lated to territorial planning, social and economic development, housing and environmental protec-tion. It will be governed by a metropolitan council (of more than 300 councillors) which will elect - by absolute majority - the presidency.

In Italy, the process of creating “metropolitan cities” be-gun in 1990, never concluded and has been recently re-opened. According to the law 56/2014, the provinces are to be eliminated and replaced by metropolitan govern-ments in several agglomerations, among which there are Milan, Turin, Rome, Bologna, Florence, Naples, Bari, Venice, Genoa and Reggio Calabria. These new institutions will ab-sorb provincial competencies and will take on new com-petencies being responsible for territorial planning and environment, strategic planning, transport and mobility, social and economic development. Currently the cities are involved in the process of approving the new bodies; one of the most advanced cities is Milan, which since the 1st of January 2015 is a metropolitan Città.

Recent chronology of the construction of the Metropolitan Città in Milan

Strategic project Città di città (2005-2009): A space for reflection on metropolitan challenges initiated by the Province of Milan and Milan Me-tropolis Development Agency, with the support of the Polytechnic University of Milan and the par-ticipation of public and private institutions has been created.Towards the new metropolitan Città (2011-2014):2011: appointment of a minister for the creation of the Metropolitan Citta 2012-14: Elaboration of the project “Milano Città Metropolitana”, with municipalities and socio eco-nomic stakeholders 22nd of December 2014: approval of the statutes of Metropolitan Città.Città metropolitana (1st of January 2015-...): Chaired by the Mayor of Milan (Sindaco Metropoli-tano) and governed by a Metropolitan Council (Con-siglio Metropolitano) of 24 members. It also counts with an assembly (Conferenza Metropolitana) rep-resenting the municipality members. If they meet certain conditions stated in the law (decentraliza-tion of the city, definition of homogeneous areas within the agglomeration), the mayor and metro-politan council can be directly elected.

With regard to metropolitan governance models we have previously seen, those two examples are in line with met-ropolitan governments, as they imply a legislative and institutional recognition of the metropolitan reality, with some nuances. In the case of Paris, it is difficult to make a diagnosis because the body is still in a preparatory phase, but the project is framed within the French tradition of in-tercommunalité and brings few new elements. In the case of Milan, the province has been replaced by the metropol-itan città, and now, as in Paris, the Metropolitan Council and the metropolitan Mayor are elected indirectly. In both cases they also share the fact that the areas of the new bodies are smaller than the limits of the real agglomer-ation, reflecting the complex political balance of metro-politan reforms. Moreover, in both examples the creation of a consultative body brings together the socioeconomic stakeholders of the territory (Metropolitan Forum of Civil Society in Milan and the Council of development in Paris).

The case of Milan provides an innovative element: citizen participation at a metropolitan level. According to the statutes of the metropolitan città, popular legislative in-itiatives and referendums may be carried out. This could represent a strengthening of the democratic legitimacy of the metropolitan città. Nonetheless, the fact that currently the metropolitan mayor is also the mayor of the city of Mi-lan seems contradictory, since the latter is directly elected by the people of Milan and not by the whole metropoli-tan population of the città metropolitana. Finally, it must be seen how the different metropolitan città in Italy will evolve and if a diversity or homogeneity in their statutes will be found. In the case of Rome, it must be seen how the state capital combines with the metropolitan città.

3. Conclusions

In conclusion, we summarize the advantages and disad-vantages of the different models of metropolitan govern-ance that we have seen. In addition, we take note of two of the metropolitan governance challenges for upcoming years. On one hand, territorial and metropolitan services management; and on the other hand, the metropolitan fitting within Europe.

3.1 Pros and cons of metropolitan governance models

Metropolitan governance in Europe has adopted a plurali-ty of forms, which we have classified into four types, from more to less institutionalisation: metropolitan govern-ments (direct or indirect election), metropolitan agencies (sectorial), vertical co-ordination (from an existing admin-

istration: a region, province, etc.) and voluntary co-opera-tion between municipalities (association of municipalities, strategic plans). There is not an ideal model, since they all have their advantages and disadvantages.

At one extreme, the way of dealing with metropolitan prob-lems involves institutional changes and the recognition by law of the metropolitan reality. This leads to a number of pros and cons. Firstly, if the new structure has real compe-tencies and adequate resources, this is the option that will allow to tackle metropolitan challenges in a global way and deal with social and fiscal inequality - issues whose responsibility is usually of a higher level of government (region and / or state). However, the autonomy of metro-politan governments is limited by the distribution of com-petencies with other areas, the lack of self-financing or weakness of democratic legitimacy. Secondly, the creation of metropolitan governments help to reduce institutional fragmentation but there are still several institutions and companies (planning, management, economic develop-ment) operating at metropolitan level. Another obstacle of creating a new level of government is its cost (especially if other existing structures are not eliminated).

Fourthly, the creation of metropolitan governments is less flexible to the inherent changes in the metropolitan dynam-ics. Once an institution with competencies is created, fund-ing and political representation are very difficult to change. In contrast, the metropolitan area is not fixed: the area on which the new structure acts is quickly overcome. Finally, the main reason why powerful metropolitan governments are not created is political resistance, both from munic-ipalities and by other existing government areas such as provinces, regions or even the central government. Indeed, few governments dare to create metropolitan governments that group the majority of the country population and / or are its capital. In cases that this option has been imple-mented, metropolitan governments have been given lim-ited competencies (management, planning and execution) in very specific areas (above all transport and environment, and to a lesser extent territorial planning and economic de-velopment).

In contrast, the less institutionalized metropolitan gov-ernments are more flexible and adapt better to a chang-ing environment. In effect, the adherence of new munic-ipalities to the association is easier since it depends on the willingness of municipality members. Similarly, de-pending on the type of local government it is possible to extend or reduce the competencies of the association by changing its statutes. The second advantage is that the less institutionalized mechanisms arise from a local


initiative. In fact, the municipalities are the ones who de-cide to associate and therefore the process is controlled by local actors. Taking decisions during and after the pro-cess is kept at local level and without interference from another level of government. The decentralization of the decisions allows working in a more flexible way and a bet-ter appropriation of goals.

Voluntary cooperation models have three major disadvan-tages. First, such mechanisms may have more difficulty to last because they depend on internal dynamics (political alliances) and the association’s leadership. In practice, the type of actions is arisen in a short term, as the agreement remains voluntary. Another negative aspect of the volun-tary cooperation is possibility to work with the status quo. In other words, the fact that decisions are taken in a con-sensual way may lead to the failure to reach agreements and lack of action. It also depends on the distribution of power within the association (number of representatives per municipality). Depending on the balance of power at the time of voting, it is possible to block decisions and not stepping forward. The risk of paralysis may also occur if members fail to fund the association as a large part of funding comes from municipal transfers. In fact, one of the elements that affect the function of voluntary co-oper-ation between municipals is the distribution of the finan-cial burden among the municipality member as they have very different resources and socio-economic profiles.

Finally associations of cooperation between municipalities usually have limited competencies (service management, assistance to municipal members) and therefore their impact on large metropolitan policies is less than in the case of metropolitan governments. In the case of strategic planning, its consultative nature should also be added to its cons, although as we have seen this can be a useful tool for overcoming institutional conflicts and create a consen-sual metropolitan vision.

In practice, each metropolitan area has a governance mod-el according to the tradition of cooperation, political alli-ances, relationships between governmental areas and the local configuration of the various stakeholders (public and private). These balances modulate the type of governance that evolves over time. There are many examples of cit-ies that have a model of metropolitan governance more or less institutionalized according to the stages: from metro-politan government to sectorial agencies, from a strategic plan to cooperation between municipalities, etc. Currently, the reforming processes in France and Italy show a tenden-cy to acknowledge the metropolitan reality, but with lim-ited competencies and a reduced territory of application.

In the new metropolitan Città in Milan, there is the possi-bility of directly electing the representative bodies (mayor and council). However, the cases of London and Stuttgart show a turnout rate in the metropolitan area similar to the municipal level (around 40 and 50% respectively). In fact, when discussing the models of metropolitan governance one must consider whether the metropolitan area a signif-icant and identification space for citizens such as the mu-nicipality. Perhaps we should wonder whether the fact of electing political leaders makes oneself feel a part of the metropolitan area or the sense of belonging is linked to other variables, such as a similar lifestyle or shared spac-es. The study made in Barcelona indicates so (Tomàs and Vallbé, 2014). In this sense, the most innovative feature of Metropolitan Città in Milan is the fact that its statutes include citizen participation tools at metropolitan level beyond elections.

3.2 The challenges in territorial management and in metropolitan services

One of the challenges in metropolitan governance is terri-torial management and the services they provide. In this regard, there are several aspects to bear in mind.

Firstly, we have seen that one of the obstacles to metro-politan coordination is the gap between institutions and territory. Indeed, as we have seen in several cases, met-ropolitan governments usually do not cover the whole agglomeration. Moreover, with the increasing metropoli-tanization of the territory, any structure created is soon obsolete, unless it incorporates a quick mechanism to ex-pand its perimeter of action.

Secondly, there is a great fragmentation in territorial management. Apart from governments and territorial administrations (municipalities, metropolitan authorities, provinces, regions), in all metropolitan areas there are oth-er organizations with different functions. We are talking about agencies, consortia and associations which perform mainly management, planning and external projection. The creation of metropolitan governments helps reduce in-stitutional fragmentation but even so the plurality of enti-ties operating at metropolitan level is common in all cases.

Management companies are most abundant, especially those related to public transport service, and to a lesser extent, waste treatment. In all agglomerations there is a company responsible for transport in the central city and surrounding towns. For example, Metro Madrid, Barcelona Metropolitan Transport or WienerLinien (Vienna). In many

cases, these companies are integrated within other pub-lic institutions engaged in planning the transport network, fare integration, etc. In the case of Madrid, it is the Region-al Transport Consortium of Madrid, which depends on the Comunidad de Madrid; in the Catalan case, the Metropol-itan Transportation Authority, depends on the General-itat of Catalonia; in the case of the Austrian Association of transport of the eastern region, under supervision of the Länder. Regarding the environment, there are usually management companies of water-related services (water supply, sanitation and sewage disposal) and waste (collec-tion, treatment, recycling), which are also coordinated by metropolitan agencies and metropolitan governments. As we have seen, there are cases in which there are various sectorial agencies (transport, environment) with different territorial areas; in this case, ensuring coordination is the major challenge.

Appart from planning and management bodies, we found a large number of non-profit associations and public, pri-vate or mixed companies with the main objective of eco-nomic development of the metropolitan agglomerations at international level, in order to attract investors and tourists. Some organizations are engaged in institutional marketing and improvement of the competitiveness of the metropolitan area (for example, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Copenhagen), while others are presented as a platform for debate and reflection on metropolitan issues (Dublin City Development Board, the Association of the Barcelona metropolitan Strategic Plan, Torino Internazionale, London First). They are consultative bodies with mixed representa-tion, as apart from mayors and councilors there are also members from the business sector, chambers of com-merce, universities, etc.

In short, in urban agglomerations we find various public, private or mixed capital entities from different territories, with varied and diverse functions. Apart from the coordi-nation of all of them, one of the biggest challenges is to ensure efficiency and economic viability of services man-agement applied to territorial sustainability. In this regard, the growing interest of multinationals to develop Smart Cities tests the governance capacity, as in this field, pub-lic-private cooperation is essential. Indeed, neither the municipal government nor metropolitan governments have the technology or knowledge to deploy the model of Smart Cities, so the articulation between public and pri-vate interests lies at the heart of metropolitan governance.

3.3 Metropolitan fitting within Europe

Given the fact that almost 75% of the European population lives in urban areas, which is expected to be 80% by 2050, the European Commission is giving increasing importance to the urban phenomenon. There is growing concern about the territorial sustainability, understood in its environmen-tal aspect (pollution, resource depletion), but also social (inequality, social exclusion). Several reports, letters and statements have been taking place to set up a European urban agenda. Thus, in 2012, the European Commission Directorate General for Regional Policy changed its name to Urban and Regional Policy. In addition, a growing num-ber of sectorial policies are aimed at urban areas: energy, information society, environment, education and culture, etc. The Europe 2020 Strategy also highlights the need for an integrated planning at metropolitan level.

An outstanding element at the European institutions is that the metropolitan reality contrasts with the territorial allocation of decision-making bodies. In the process of Eu-ropean integration, the role is for Member States. All ma-jor organs of representation have been conceived on a na-tional basis, while regions and municipalities have a very secondary role, through the Committee of the Regions. In the case of metropolitan areas, this role is even minor. In spite of existing networks of cities such as Eurocities, there is not an own representative body. This is ironic when considering that 67% of European GDP is generated in urban areas, while its population represents 59% of the total (Eurostat, 2014). So, one of the European governance challenges is to give voice to the Metropolitan representa-tives, both in policy-making and priority goals in programs. However, the European urban agenda can not be devel-oped independently from the Member States, which must also acknowledge the role of urban agglomerations. As we have seen, this is still, in most cases, a pending subject.


Author:Mariona TomàsProfessor of Political Science at the University of Barcelona.

References:EUROSTAT (2014) Eurostat regional yearbook 2014.Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.HEINELT, H. & KÜBLER, D. (Eds.) (2005) Metropolitan Governance. Capacity, Democracy and the Dynamics of Place. London: Routledge.JOUVE, B. & LEFÈVRE, C. (1999) “De la gouvernance urbaine au gouvernement des villes? Permanence ou recom-position des cadres de l’action publique en Europe”, Revue française de science politique, vol. 49,nr.6, 835-853.TOMÀS, M. (2009). La governabilitat metropolitana a Europa i l’Amèrica del Nord. Barcelona: Diputació de Barcelona.TOMÀS, M. & VALLBÉ, J-J. (2014) “Exploring metropolitan identity. The case of Barcelona”, City Futures Conference III, París, 20 de juny.VVAA(2009) “Aglomeracions Metropolitanes Europees”, Papers. Regió Metropolitana de Barcelona, núm.50.

5. Photo galleryConference of the 13th March 2015, European Metropolitan Authorities

Xavier Trias, President of AMB and Mayor of Barcelona.

Aurélien Rousseau, Omar Al-Rawi and François Chollet. Rudiger Ahrend, Jean Luc Vanraes and Wendy Simon.

Welcome reception at the City Hall.

The audience a the Design Hub Auditorium.


Emmanuel Couet, Anette Solli and Piero Fassino.Group at the Auditorium enjoying views over the Glòries square.

Coffee break moment.

Joan Busquets leading a guided visit.

Visit of the Barcelona Metropolis exhibition.

Joan Busquets, Piero Fassino and Avelino Oliveira.

Guided visit of the Barcelona Metropolis exhibition.

Piero Fassino, Jean Louis Cohen and Daniel Guiraud.

Visit of the Barcelona Metropolis exhibition.


Emmanuel Couet and Xavier Trias.

Piero Fassino and Ramon Torra. Carles Conill and Catherine Carchano.

Claudio Tolomelli, Ramon Torra, Irene Priolo and Xavier Trias.

Mayor Xavier Trias explaining the transformation project of the Glòries square.

European Metropolitan Authorities (EMA) conclusions

Documents

Transcript of European Metropolitan Authorities (EMA) conclusions