THE STATUS OF MAJOR CITIES AND THEIR PERIPHERIES Local and Regional Authorities in Europe no 59 - 3 - TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................5 I. SUMMARY FILES ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION ON MAJOR CITIES............................................................................................7 Austria.....................................................................................................................8 Belgium...................................................................................................................9 Finland ..................................................................................................................13 France....................................................................................................................16 Germany................................................................................................................21 Hungary.................................................................................................................24 Ireland ...................................................................................................................25 Italy........................................................................................................................28 Latvia.....................................................................................................................31 Slovenia.................................................................................................................33 Sweden..................................................................................................................35 II. CASE STUDIES .................................................................................................37 Copenhagen...........................................................................................................39 Frankfurt................................................................................................................60 Budapest................................................................................................................90 Rotterdam............................................................................................................104 Warsaw ...............................................................................................................126 III. CONCLUSIONS OF THE CDLR ..............................................................................151 - 5 - INTRODUCTION Major cities are a key element in national economies and have an essential role to play in order to foster a balanced development, the social welfare and a sounder economy. When playing such a role, they and their regions ─ the metropolitan areas ─ have, at present, to face growing competition from other urban areas, not only in the national context, but also in the European context, or in a wider international one. Moreover, major cities' social and economic environment is constantly and rapidly changing. The need for adaptation becomes crucial and it makes it necessary to improve their administrative organisation in order to improve their ability to solve problems and to compete effectively. The major problems that the largest and most populated urban areas have to answer in general can be grouped under three headings: 1) marked social and economic imbalance within the metropolitan area, especially between the centre and the periphery, along with unequal allocation of financial resources; 2) greater needs for infrastructures and services, due to a high population density and the volume of commuting between residential areas and the areas where the economic activities take place; 3) lack of coordination when decisions concerning the metropolitan area (or most of it) are to be taken, especially those concerning planning, environment protection and economic development, and need for a fair but effective decision-making process, particularly when the implementation of appropriate solutions to problems concerning the community as a whole affect the interests of a part of it and therefore cause its reaction (the so-called "not in my back yard" ─ or NIMBY ─ problem). The greater the population of the areas concerned, the greater the intensity of these problems grows and major cities often appear to be overpowered. Actually, their spatial borders, tasks, competencies and means no longer fit together. At the same time, it becomes more difficult to conciliate the interests of the various groups within the metropolitan area, by means of the so-called "traditional" co-operation structures, such as authorities' associations or consortiums, generally responsible for competencies voluntarily delegated by the constituent local authorities, whose representatives comprise, in principle, the decision-making body of the agglomeration. These forms of co-operation are a valid response to the needs of medium-size towns within the same geographical area, to jointly organise certain services and to undertake development actions. On the contrary, they may not be fully suitable in the case of major cities and their relations with their peripheries. - 6 - Tensions resulting from imbalance force relations to become more acute and difficult to overcome. Thus, the competent authorities hesitate about enlarging the powers of such a structure and transferring the financial resources necessary for its action to be really efficient. However, the problems of major metropolitan areas cannot be solved unless powers and financial resources granted allow the body confronting these problems a long-term planning and the necessary resources (financial or others) in order to carry out its programmes. This fact has led to the adoption of specific rules concerning cities of a certain importance and eventually a special regime for the "metropolis" and their surrounding areas, in a number of member states of the Council of Europe. At the 10th Session of the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Local Government (The Hague, 15-16 September 1993), the CDLR prepared a report concerning the particular question of the administrative structures required to ensure the necessary coordination between cities and their periphery1. The aim of the current report is to deepen this analysis and to examine in further detail the current situation. Five case-studies, completed by a summary of national legislations of some member states in this field, give an overview of the problems encountered and of the different solutions adopted in order to ensure a balanced development between the city-centre and its periphery. There are other European major cities not presented in this report, even though they are in a similar situation. Their specific problems should be solved by means of adequate decisions, bearing in mind their particularities and the need for a balance and harmonious development for the whole of the metropolitan area. In the conclusions, the CDLR expresses its views on the questions of structures, competencies, administrative organisation and resources of major cities' authorities. It is important to note that there is no question of establishing one or several models for states, but to highlight the elements to be considered while specific measures concerning major cities and their peripheries have to be adopted. 1 The report on Major Cities and their Peripheries is published in the study series "Local and Regional Authorities in Europe", no. 51. It deals with three types of situation: overcoming the division of agglomerations between several municipal authorities, co-operation between urban centres and their periphery, and co-ordinating the development and management of several urban centres which in practice form a single conurbation. - 7 - SUMMARY FILES ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION ON MAJOR CITIES - 8 - AUSTRIA LEGISLATION In Austria, there is no specific legislation on major cities. LOCAL FINANCES AND EQUALISATION MEANS A particularity is the so-called "progressive population factor" ("abgestufte Bevölkerungsschlüssel") which is a formula for the percentage of sharing of financial resources calculated on the basis of the population. It is based on the assumption that despite the fact that all municipalities are legally equal, those which greater populations require greater financial resources in view of their different demands. - 9 - BELGIUM LEGISLATION The main reference texts are: ─ the Constitution, Articles 165 and 166; ─ the Law of 26 July 1971 on the Organisation of Urban Districts and Federations of Municipalities (and subsequent amendments); ─ the Special Law of 12 January 1989 on Institutions in Brussels; ─ the Special Law of 16 January 1990 on the Financing of the Communities and Regions; ─ the Decree of 10 March 1994 establishing the rules for dividing the overall budget allocated to municipalities in the Brussels region. DEFINITION Belgian legislation sets no criteria for defining metropolitan areas. The Law of 26 July 1971, which provides for the creation of such entities under the name of "agglomérations", directly designated the five areas in which this special authority may be constituted, namely: Brussels, Antwerp, Charleroi, Ghent and Liège. POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES The 1971 Law states that the "agglomérations" are to foster the coordination of municipal activities and provides for the transfer to them of powers and responsibilities for the following sectors,