Functional Urban Regions in Nordic Countries Cooperation for stainable success in spatial planning Sehested, Karina; Harbo, Lisbeth Greve ; Kanninen, Vesa Publication date: 2018 Document version Other version Citation for published version (APA): Sehested, K., Harbo, L. G., & Kanninen, V. (2018). Functional Urban Regions in Nordic Countries: Cooperation for stainable success in spatial planning. Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen. Download date: 01. Oct. 2021 university of copenhagen department of geosciences and natural resource management Functional Urban Regions in Nordic Countries: – Cooperation for stainable success in spatial planning Karina Sehested, Lisbeth Greve Harbo and Vesa Kanninen IGN Report April 2018 Title Functional Urban Regions in Nordic Countries: – Cooperation for stainable success in spatial planning Authors Karina Sehested, Lisbeth Greve Harbo and Vesa Kanninen Citation Karina Sehested, Lisbeth Greve Harbo and Vesa Kanninen (2018): Functional Urban Regions in Nordic Countries – Cooperation for stainable success in spatial planning. Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Frederiks- berg. 179 pp. Publisher Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management University of Copenhagen Rolighedsvej 23 DK-1958 Frederiksberg C www.ign.ku.dk Responsible under press law Claus Beier ISBN 978-87-7903-???-? (internet) Cover layout Jette Alsing Larsen Cover photo Gertrud Jørgensen The report is available electronically from www.ign.ku.dk > Outreach > Publications Summary This report is a reprint of a report made in 2007 for a Danish Ministry paid by The Nordic Council. The report has valuable information and discussions about the development of specific Functional Urban Regions in Nordic countries. The study of Functional Urban Region (FUR) cooperation and planning looks into the use of planning means and organisation in the FUR areas. It investigates how FUR planning evolves between hierarchy and network, how the FUR planning processes are organised and managed, what kinds of governance problems occurs, how different forms of meta-governance and regulation are exercised, and finally how FUR planning is anchored democratically. As an additional layer, the notion of FUR itself is examined as the concept through which, and by the help of which, such cooperation may take place, develop, and gain in importance. The FUR concept is not only a description of the spatial extent of the cooperation, but a constituting part of the identity-building of the urban region. Therefore, the notion has the potential of becoming an important focal point for policies at all levels. Thus, perhaps the most important result of the project is the general recognition of FUR planning as a predominantly governance issue. The notion of FUR itself supports this idea. The study has also shown that the content of FUR spatial planning has mostly derived from the demands placed upon it by the legislative framework (or the lack of it) on the one hand, and the decisions made according to and within the governance settings in each case on the other. Therefore, while some issues do come up as “generic” in the contents of FUR planning, their analysis has been seen as secondary in comparison with the governance settings themselves. In spatial FUR planning, inter-municipal cooperation and strategic planning are by far the most used planning means. The purpose is firstly to create common regional understandings and a common regional identity among the participants (new regional mind maps) and secondly to develop strategies for sustainable development in the FURs. In the cases, the FUR identity building is of greatest importance. The strategic planning concerns political visions and goals, division of responsibilities within the FUR, and specific issues for common action. In the chapter on planning a typical process for strategic planning is presented. The general tendency found in the cases is that FUR planning is typically exercised outside or beside the formal planning system and is exercised in governance settings based on voluntarism, equality and consensus. FUR cooperation and planning can therefore be characterised as a bottom- up governance process in a fragmented and multi-centred political system. FUR planning is without doubt a political project. Politicians are core actors and decisive for the successful FUR planning. Especially municipal politicians are becoming central regional actors either alone or in cooperation with regional politicians - in cooperation on equal, non-hierarchical terms. Municipal politicians want to actively influence core elements at the regional level, constituting the general conditions for local development. In this sense FUR planning illustrates an informal change in the institutional division of labour concerning regional development. The strategic planning in FUR cooperation can also be interpreted as a “reinvention of government” through meta-governance - as an attempt to construct, structure, and influence the interaction in the fragmented policy and planning systems in the FUR areas. Meta-governance makes it possible for urban and regional politicians to regain political and public control and create some form of 3 coherence and integration of governance activities in the fragmented and multi-centred policy systems. To gain any influence on FUR planning, the politicians (supported by administrators) have to become meta-governors which implicate to join the formal or informal FUR policy networks and organisations and govern: Through direct influence in the FUR cooperation Through developing network/cooperation design By setting up frameworks for activities in the FUR areas These are typical indirect meta-governance means. The joint role of becoming a meta-governor is founded on equality between the actors in the FUR planning. Important lessons are learnt in the case studies about how to develop this principle. Strategic planning is often expressed in a physical plan but further implementation strategies differ. One strategy is to leave further implementation to the municipals. Another is to make voluntary and consensus based plans for concrete action. A third strategy is to create joint administrative units for common tasks and a fourth is to combine strategic planning with land use regulation. Land use regulation is developed in two different forms: the soft intentional regulation (indirect meta- governance) and the hard binding regulation (a direct government mean in a governance situation). A precondition for the latter is a transfer of municipal decision-making power to FUR level. The land use planning is developed into a form acceptable for political thinking and action, and it differs according to the political circumstances in the FUR cooperation. Due to the voluntarism of the cooperation this is essential for municipal participation. In the FUR planning cases, two different approaches towards planning are found. One is the focus on plans as the result of the process (the plan approach), the other is plans as a part of a process (the process approach). The closer the FUR cooperation is integrated into the formal planning system, the more focus there is on plans as the result. The process approach is an attempt to constantly change and model the FUR planning according to ever changing planning conditions in the FUR development. Land use planning is clearly not the first issue to bring up in a FUR cooperation – it requires a high degree of trust and commonness within the cooperation to make a hard binding land use plan. Although strategic FUR cooperation and planning is an attempt to create some form of coherence and integration in the policy and planning of the FUR areas, these cooperations also contribute to the fragmentation of the planning at a higher level due to the operation outside or beside the formal planning system in new formal or informal institutions. This is a typical situation in the governance situations in the Nordic countries. Several policy actors take on the task of meta-governance and perform it side by side or in competition of being the meta-governor. In the case studies we find the obvious consequence of coordination problems between plans and strategies formed in different forums. In particular three problems of coordination and integration occur: one is between FUR planning and general regional planning; another is between general FUR planning and FUR business planning; and the third is a lack of cohesion between FUR planning and municipal land use planning. The solutions to these problems are not yet found and FUR planning has to cope with these problems in the future. 4 FUR planning is a political-administrative project and not a popular matter for ordinary citizens. Mayors from local and regional councils and chief executives are the core actors and they form strong policy communities on FUR development. From a democratic perspective this points to the importance of the democratic anchorage of FUR planning. The actors represent the top of the representative democracy and it is important to uphold a broad democratic legitimacy in the cooperation. In the case studies the conflicts between local and regional interests are felt by the politicians and they are difficult to handle within the FUR cooperation. This is why the democratic anchorage has to be strengthened in the FUR cooperation. However, this can be addressed in different ways. The solutions mentioned are: a strong