Cooperation and strategic planning at the level of metropolitan areas in Romania

1. 7th TEDStrong 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

2. 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 communistcities 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

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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.

6. 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)

7. 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?

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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 tobe 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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 re-design 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

14. Do metropolitan areas work in Romania? (continued)

15. 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

16. 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 (2014-2020) – current integrated plans expire in 2015

17. 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