Supplementary memorandum by METREX
What defects are there in the current management
and distribution of the Funds?
Metropolitan dimension
By metropolitan we mean the larger European
city regions, with populations of 500,000 or more, and their areas
of influence. Areas of influence can be defined by journey to
work areas, housing market areas and retail catchment areas.
There are about 100 such areas within the wider
Europe of the EU 27+2 (Norway and Switzerland). They contain some
60-70% of Europe's population of 490 million and their social,
economic and environmental well-being is central to both the Lisbon
and Gothenburg agendas. They are the building blocks for a more
competitive and sustainable Europe.
However, the work of ESPON (the European Spatial
Planning Observation Network), in categorising European metropolitan
areas, has revealed that only a very few, perhaps 20-30, are strong
in global and European terms and that most are weak or have unrealised
potential (Framework page 92).
All metropolitan areas can strive to become
as strong, individually, as possible. However, they can also combine
for collective strength in clusters or corridors and there are
a number of examples of this approach. Such clusters can develop
critical mass and enable specialisations to be developed. This
is the Framework approach.
Structural Funds defects
Funds can be allocated either by pointing the
way forward through objectives and criteria or leading the way
forward though visions, frameworks or perspectives.
For example, the EU now has social, economic
and territorial cohesion objectives. The ESDP (European Spatial
Development Perspective 1999) is concerned about the better urban
balance of Europe, with so much of the wealth generating capacity
being concentrated in the core area. It would be possible to produce
an EU vision of what better urban balance would like, as the Framework
attempts to do.
The Structural Funds could then be allocated,
positively, on the basis of those metropolitan regions and areas
that can demonstrate how they can help to progress the realisation
of the EU vision.
In addition, funds could be allocated on the
basis of metropolitan SWOT analyses and an assessment of the resources
needed to address the key strategic issues arising.
Does the creation of metropolregions add an additional
level of bureaucracy?
Metropolitan governance
METREX experience is that there is a range of
key strategic issues that can only be addressed effectively, and
in an integrated way, at the metropolitan level. Informed metropolitan
decision-making is required in the public interest. This can be
through co-operation between existing levels of governance (the
voluntary model) or through bodies or authorities with specific
and targeted competencies (the statutory model). There are examples
in Europe of these models and combinations of them.
Informed decision-making can be through in house
resources (an additional level of bureaucracy), the pooling of
existing resources (the voluntary model) or out sourcing.
7 January 2008
| 
