7th TED
Strong Local Governments: Community,
Strategy, Integration
COOPERATION AND STRATEGIC PLANNING AT THE
LEVEL OF METROPOLITAN AREAS IN ROMANIA
Bogdana Neamtu
Associate Professor, Babes Bolyai University, Cluj- Napoca, Romania
Research focus
• Current research: the place of land use and spatial
planning within the strategic planning process at the level
of metropolitan areas in Romania
• Past researches: urban sprawl in former communist cities
and tools used to mitigate it
• Why cooperation at the metropolitan level: most of the
tools used in land use and spatial planning in order to be
effective need to be applied at a spatial level that is
broader than the city itself
Research focus (continued)
• Additional evidence:
- cities are sprawling beyond the administrative city limits;
- many important urban centers are already built up so new
investments need to be located to the outskirts/neighboring
communities (sometimes investors look for greenfields as opposed to
urban infill);
- EU cohesion funds commonly available for regional/metropolitan
projects, etc.
• Several examples of planning tools used at metropolitan level:
- master plans/development strategies (non-binding legal documents)
- land use plans (legally binding documents)
- urban service/infrastructure boundaries /urban growth boundaries
Metropolitan areas in Romania
• Legal possibility to create them – since early 2000
• Main challenge: Romanian Constitution defines very
clearly the territorial units which can govern themselves;
metropolitan areas and regions are not among them
• Difficult to change the Constitution
• Cooperation therefore at the local level – based on
association of existing administrative units
• However, no budget (no financial autonomy), limited
responsibilities (delegation)
Metropolitan areas in Romania
(continued)
• The movement to establish metropolitan areas took off very
•
•
•
•
slowly in the early 2000
Problems concerning the leading actor in the creation of the
metropolitan area; competition among the city and the
neighboring communities; local authorities not sure what the
purpose/functions of cooperation at metropolitanlevel could be
Past failures (semi-failures) with other inter-municipal
cooperation forms (associations for intercommunity
development)
It wasn’t until 2008 when the major urban centers were „forced”
to establish metropolitan areas (EU funds/Regional Operational
Program)
The desire to establish a metropolitan area had in many cases
no connection with the size of the urban aglomeration, extent of
urban sprawl, level of economic or spatial integration, etc.
Research methodology
• Survey followed by face to face interviews
• Scrutiny of development strategies/integrated urban
development plans
• Sample: 20 municipalities (7 are growth poles – 1st tier in
the hierarchy of urban centers; the other 13 are urban
development poles (2nd tear) – designation through law in
he framework of one of the operational programs
financed)
• For each municipality (at least 2 elected representatives –
local councilors, where possible the mayor; 2 public
servants dealing with land use planning and strategic
planning)
Research methodology (continued)
• Main areas of investigation:
- Triggers leading to the establishment of metropolitan areas? Any
spatial/urban planning considerations among them?
- When creating the master plan/integrated development plan for the
metropolitan area, was land use planning a priority? What about urban
sprawl mitigation?
- Areas/policy sectors for which the efficiency of metropolitan areas is
already proven?
- Future of metropolitan areas/government: Would you support the
creation of metropolitan government with elected bodies, financial
autonomy?; Metropolitan areas versus regions versus consolidation of
local government; Strategic planning – joint, continuous responsibility of
all units comprized in the metropolitan area?
Creation of metropolitan areas
• For those cities which initiated the creation of metropolitan
areas in early 2000 – an „experiment”; no precise
motivation other than transplantation/adaptation of best
practices from abroad
• Some mayors/presidents of county councils –
participation in various networks at international
level/exposure to metropolitan government
• Later on – attraction of EU funds/possibility to implement
joint projects/other financial incentives
Creation of metropolitan areas (continued)
• Until 2009 no strategic planning efforts undertaken at
•
•
•
•
•
metropolitan level
This changed with the legal requirement under the growth
poles legislation
Metropolitan areas required to draft integrated plans for urban
development
Eligibility condition for obtaining EU cohesion funds (Pregional
Operational Program, Axis 1 – Sustainable cities)
Strategic planning carried out so that the legal requirements
can be fulfilled
The resulted integrated plans were often copy-pasted;
standardized model used by all metropolitan areas; were little
efforts made to adapt it to local context/needs
Land use planning important?
• Spatial planning – especially integration of economic
activities at the level of the metropolitan territory is
present as a concern but not as a priority
• Land use planning seen as something that needs to be
done at the level of each administrative unit
• No strategic dimension of land use planning
• Possible explanation: Way in which planning practice and
profession was established and it is carried out in
Romania
Land use planning important? (continued)
• Planning theory and practice guided by the distinction
between Anglo-Saxon urban planning and Latin urbanism
• Anglo-Saxon planning – rational method and theory of
planning as intervention; separation from architecture as o
profession
• Urbanism – architecture, urban morphology, reintegrating
planning with its mother discipline
• Though our planning system is sometimes described as
comprehensive integrate – in reality more oriented toward
land use regulations/zoning
Land use planning important? (continued)
• In the integrated development plans no clear and
systematic presentation and analysis of data
(migration/comuting flows; shift/share analysis, etc.) to
prove if urban sprawl is a problem
• Mitigation/control of urban sprawl not considered
• More focus on economic development tools and projects
that match the EU funding priorities/objectives
Do metropolitan areas work in Romania?
• Framework for prioritizing and implementing investments/projects
•
•
•
•
•
financed from EU money (Regional Operational Program)
Overlaps with other structures for intermunicipal cooperation – Cluj
county there is one association for integrated waste management;
one
They are all intertwined but still apart – coordination problems
Local actors are discovering that for certain activities they need to redesign the boundaries of the metropolitan area (for public transport
for ex. only first ring rural communities and the city)
Areas with potential for cooperation at the level of metropolitan areas
– provision of public services/utilities; public transportation, economic
development
Land use planning – clear no; competition rather than cooperation;
each administrative unit wants to maximize gains/autonomy wanted
especially by the communities which are able to attract new
residents/businesses
Do metropolitan areas work in Romania?
(continued)
Future of metropolitan areas
• Local authorities aware of the fact that at least for now
•
•
•
•
reformation of metropolitan areas is not a priority for
policy makers/legislators
Most of them agree with this option and with the need to
focus on regions and further decentralization (increased
responsibilities for county councils)
Almost all see no need for elected metropolitan
government – what they oppose in fact is the loss of
financial autonomy
The city/metropolis should have the final
decision/leading/senior partner in the association
Especially wealthy rural communities oppose metropolitan
government
Future of metropolitan areas (continued)
• Currently strategic planning is carried out in a systematic
manner only at the level of each admin. territorial unit
• Integrated plans for the metropolitan area – one time
efforts; seldom do local authorities go back and readjust
priorities; formality needed in order to be eligible for EU
money
• Current institutional framework not conducive towards
continuous strategic planning (no permanent structures;
they meet when needed with staff and assistance usually
provided by the municipality
• Interesting to follow the next programing cycle (20142020) – current integrated plans expire in 2015
Questions for discussion
• Given fragmentation and reduced administrative capacity
at the local level – metropolitan zones/areas seem as a
good solution. Or don’t?
• What can be done to find them a place within the
structure of the Romanian local public government?
Should we even strive for this?
• Perhaps clearly define what metropolitan areas have to
do, what problem they are required to solve
• If strategic planning is to take place at metropolitan level
then some sort of permanent institutional structure needs
to be established