EN Official Journal of the European Union C 356/9

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Urban-rural partnership and governance’

2013/C 356/03

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

— recognises that there are legislative, administrative, fiscal and financial barriers which make it harder to get urban-rural partnerships up and running. These barriers need to be identified and eliminated so as to ensure a legal framework which will foster the development of partnerships;

— recommends that management authorities in the Member States use the new territorial development instruments rolled out by the EU as part of its regional and rural development policy: Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI), Community-led local development (CLLD), Global Grants and the multi-fund approach;

— emphasises that with regard to funding eligibility, functional regions need to be recognised and the sources of financing made available through the EU's regional and common agricultural policies need to be integrated;

— considers that it is essential to improve the collection of data from functional regions. This will enable a database to be set up so that policy-makers can make informed decisions as regards territorial planning, in compliance with proportionality requirements;

— emphasises cross-border aspects of urban rural partnerships and the way that the funding instruments proposed by the Commission are used in order to promote economic development potential of urban-rural cross border linkages;

— stresses the need to involve the private sector and the social economy, which can both make a very useful contribution as regards performance criteria, business and innovation capacity, seizing opportunities and mobilising communities, and particularly as regards attracting capital and forming public-private partnerships.

Rapporteur Romeo STAVARACHE (RO/ALDE), Mayor of Bacău municipality Reference document

I. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Comments regarding urban-rural partnerships

1. Urban and rural areas are linked demographically and economically, as well as by infrastructure for public service access. Policy-makers at every level of government need to focus on urban-rural connections arising from: the transport of goods, commuting, education, healthcare, water and waste services, business transactions, access to natural resources, culture and leisure activities. The way that these links are managed has an impact on the economic and social development of functional regions and therefore on the quality of life of the people living there.

2. A lack of coordination of relations between rural and urban areas can often lead to undesirable outcomes in towns — and their surrounding areas. Raising awareness of and understanding this interdependency can help solve problems facing rural and urban areas. It would be helpful to promote understanding, on both sides, of the linkages and interdependencies that exist.

3. In order to establish optimal models of urban-rural governance, it is necessary to understand the links and identify the challenges facing both urban and rural areas. A ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach must be dismissed from the start.

4. Challenges for the development of partnerships between urban and rural areas include population decline (particularly in isolated areas), environmental sustainability and landscape conservation, unconditional access to natural and cultural resources, public services and consumer goods, the expansion of urban areas at the expense of rural areas, economic decline, regional competitiveness, links between regions, the efficiency of policies and exploiting external funding opportunities.

5. The broad range of challenges is also reflected in the goals pursued by urban-rural partnerships: economic development, integrated joint planning, exploiting synergies, strengthening regional competitiveness, realising economies of scale by providing services in partnership, promoting joint advocacy and strategic cooperation activities throughout the areas with a view to accessing public or private funding, etc.

6. Urban-rural functional regions can be established on the basis of the economic, social and environmental links between areas. Such regions are necessary because the traditional concept underpinning the development policies of towns and municipalities is limited by administrative boundaries and is not in line with real-life social and economic situations.

7. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) uses the following general concept to define a functional region: a geographical area which generally does not follow the administrative boundaries, with a specific form of territorial interdependency (function) which could require some form of governance.

8. One key feature of urban-rural partnerships is their geometric flexibility. This flexibility derives from: (1) the goal of the partnership which can centre on one or more points of interest, (2) its rationale — management of a project or integrated management of a functional region, and (3) the model of governance chosen (top-down or bottom-up).

9. Past experience has shown that approaches and problems vary between one region and another and one country and another. In some cases the national administration has established a formal procedure for urban-rural cooperation, while in others such cooperation is more flexible. This diversity is a real advantage for the EU, offering opportunities for exploration and innovation, as well as a host of methods and practices.

10. Regardless of the context, one common determining factor for successful cooperation is dialogue and trust between partners, as well as recognising and acting upon needs common to the whole region.

11. Lack of trust between local partners (horizontal) and between public institutions at the various levels of government involved (vertical) can be destructive and generally slows down the cooperation process. Sustained political effort by all policy-makers involved is needed to build trust and identify solutions to complex problems which affect everyone concerned.

Challenges at EU level

12. While differences in development between countries have been shrinking in the European Union in recent years, macro-economic analysis based on statistics from before the crisis indicates that disparities between regions are increasing. The best solutions need to be identified to close the gap between regions, boost quality of life in regions which are lagging behind in terms of economic development, and develop industries, services and ‘green’ farming techniques.

13. Frequently, territorial planning is carried out solely by the territorial administration and not by the functional region, without taking account of the interdependency between urban and rural areas. This can undermine territorial cohesion and reduce opportunities for local synergies which could consolidate economic and social development.

14. For reasons of efficiency, an integrated approach to development policies should not come to an abrupt halt at the administrative boundaries separating urban and rural areas. The functional dimension should be taken into account. The areas surrounding towns — known as ‘peri-urban areas’ — contribute to sustainable economic development and provide energy and environmental and cultural resources, and thus improve quality of life. It is well known that towns are a pole of public services, trade, healthcare, higher education, transport, innovation and jobs.

15. Administrative boundaries at city and town level frequently diverge from the economic geography of the region. Moreover, functional regions are in a constant state of change. Territorial policies therefore need to be adaptable and sufficiently flexible. One example is the most frequent form of urban-rural interdependency, i.e. commuting to work, where the optimal travel time is an hour; above that, workplace accessibility declines.

16. An integrated approach through urban-rural partnerships can create new and dynamic opportunities for economic development. Sustainable, inclusive economic growth at regional level is largely dependent on unleashing the potential of rural-urban cooperation.

17. Starting from the premise that neighbouring urban and rural areas should not be in competition but should rather complement each other, coordinating public action is the real challenge. This is the only way that urban and rural environments will be able to identify win-win solutions, ironing out possible conflicts of interest.

18. Urban-rural partnerships need to take a long-term approach to the preparation of strategies and programmes and particularly the development of governance structures. The chief advantages of such long-term thinking are consistency and the delivery of stable results. Partnerships can help solve real problems by providing responses to local needs in both urban and rural areas and implementing common, practical solutions. Local and regional authorities need to insist that priority be given to a long-term strategic approach to the multiannual planning for and implementation of the EU budget, so as to eliminate drawbacks generated by procedural rules.

19. Case studies of urban-rural partnerships show that their success is not fully dependent on action — such as legislation or funding — by higher tiers of government, whether national or European. However, such measures can have a deciding influence on the development of these partnerships, in terms of motivation, sustainability, efficiency and ability to deliver results. On occasion, setting up and managing partnerships entails costs which the partners cannot bear fairly. In such cases, establishing an effective partnership will require financial and/or technical support. The challenge for the EU is to identify the best way to initiate and support partnerships, without creating dependency on financial subsidies and avoiding the establishment of partnerships which exist only on paper and do nothing to serve local public interests.

20. Multilevel governance in urban-rural partnerships presupposes that all levels of public authorities and relevant institutional partners will be involved. Institutions managing urban and rural policy instruments at national or European level frequently fail to allow for urban-rural interdependency or for the challenges arising from it and the potential dangers and benefits.

21. Border regions were given a real boost as borders within the EU opened up. Promoting cross-border urban-rural partnerships offers significant potential for development. The European Union in particular has a major role to play in exploiting this potential.

The view point of local and regional authorities

22. The added value of urban-rural partnerships lies in the increased efficiency of public action, more consistent use of funding, the promotion of integrated solutions to shared problems and, last but not least, increased solidarity at regional level.

23. Local authority action in urban and rural areas should focus on involving local communities in planning and implementing activities. The effectiveness of such action depends on active involvement of these communities.

24. While efficiency of public action is key for dealing with problems, frequent change and geographical challenges in the regions, governance often needs more time to become properly consolidated. As a result, stakeholders, especially the urban component, need to act altruistically, to be able to face up to prejudice and promote equal treatment of partners despite administrative or economic imbalances, to make firm commitments, to undertake sustained political efforts to build capacity and to demonstrate that they can be flexible.

25. There are legislative, administrative, fiscal and financial barriers which make it harder to get urban-rural partnerships up and running. These barriers need to be identified and eliminated so as to ensure a legal framework which will foster the development of partnerships.

26. Interdependency in the provision of public services, sustainable development and business opportunities created by urban/rural collaboration is a good stimulus, encouraging urban and rural partners to work together.

27. It is imperative to monitor and measure the benefits of partnerships. While tangible benefits are easier to measure, intangible benefits are more difficult to gauge although just as important. Moreover, in the case of action taken by third parties financing the partnership, it is even more important to quantify these benefits even if the partners themselves are satisfied with the progress achieved.

Policy recommendations

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

28. reaffirms its support for the RURBAN initiative proposed by the European Parliament and the European Commission. This initiative is currently in the implementation phase and will lay the groundwork for new EU measures to support integrated territorial development and urban-rural partnerships;

29. welcomes the progress made by the Member States in implementing the 2020 Territorial Agenda and the policy documents adopted by ministers responsible for cohesion policy: the Leipzig Charter on sustainable European cities, the Marseille Declaration on the reference framework for the sustainable city and the Toledo Declaration on the role of integrated urban development in achieving the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy;

30. reiterates the European Parliament's recommendations on Good governance with regards to the EU regional policy: procedures of assistance and control by the European Commission and calls for these recommendations to be put into effect in the new 2014-2020 programming period (1);

31. highlights the need to facilitate the exchange of good practice and knowledge on partnerships and urban-rural governance (2);

32. acknowledges the importance of harmonisation exercise of European rules on cohesion and rural development policies through the new common regulation on the funds which gives more flexibility to local authorities in designing cross-thematic integrated territorial projects, and particularly the proposals on Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) and Community-led local development (CLLD);

33. recommends that management authorities in the Member States use the new territorial development instruments rolled out by the EU as part of its regional and rural development policy: Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI), Community-led local development (CLLD), Global Grants and the multi-fund approach;

34. recommends that the integrated territorial approach be promoted in the new programming period by including and explicitly referring in partnership agreements to the territorial dimension of action and support measures (particularly those targeting urban-rural partnerships) in functional regions;

35. emphasises that local and regional authorities structure their investment programmes around the thematic objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, but they could use functional regions to define the geographical area covered. As regards criteria for funding eligibility, functional regions need to be recognised and the sources of financing made available through the EU's regional and common agricultural policies need to be integrated;

36. agrees that rural-urban partnerships are not an instrument for redistributing economic potential nor for reallocating financing within a functional region. Urban-rural partnerships use existing potential properly and link up partners to promote local development;

37. considers that the dangers of institutional fragmentation in urban-rural partnerships need to be better quantified: potential conflicts of interest between partners and the economic dimension thereof; dangers relating to possible reforms to boost economic efficiency but also to stability in respect of recognising the action's legitimacy, fragility and financial sustainability, possible mismatches between financing needs and available financing; the danger of insufficient involvement of the partners concerned and private partners, etc.;

38. considers that the benefits of partnerships need to be better promoted and recognised at EU level. Consolidating the institutional capacity of local authorities to organise public services, developing and exploiting existing capacities and boosting productivity, rationalising resources and ensuring better access to natural resources should be supported by all governments levels, including the EU. Raising the profile of functional regions, reducing the negative impact of competition between neighbouring administrative entities (particularly as regards taxation), better economies of scale for investments, economic viability, access to services, making use of untapped resources, improving local knowledge by pooling information, curbing the urban sprawl constitute examples of urban-rural cooperation challenges;

39. recommends that functional regions and cross-border urban-rural partnerships be supported as points of reference for the drawing up of multiannual development programmes financed by European Structural Funds and investments;

40. points out that European programmes need to be flexible in order to keep pace with the real-life situations confronting functional regions and to develop tools which will help and encourage rural and urban areas to work together and promote more efficient policy solutions;

41. considers that it is essential to improve the collection of data from functional regions. This will enable a database to be set up so that policy-makers can make informed decisions as regards territorial planning, in compliance with proportionality requirements i.e. the need for planning to be carried out where problems or changes actually occur. Moreover, in order to focus attention on evidence of how these partnerships work (or do not work), examples are needed of the added value and benefits for sustainable economic development offered by these partnerships (3), ESPON analysis will be of utmost importance for policy makers and project practitioners in this respect;

42. firmly believes that better understanding of the benefits, both tangible and intangible, is crucial for evaluating urban-rural partnerships. They prove how urban-rural partnerships have European added value and so can help achieve the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy. It would be useful to develop common indicators for quantifying benefits, which local authorities could be encouraged to use. In the long term, partnerships could be benchmarked, particularly in the case of programmes with European funding;

43. encourages local and regional authorities to plan innovative models of urban-rural governance to maximise the effects of urban-rural cooperation and its results;

44. proposes that urban-rural partnerships should be one of the priorities of URBACT programme and innovative actions, with a view to capitalising on experiences and practices in urban-rural partnerships in the EU and promoting innovative models of governance;

45. is aware of the need for better cooperation, particularly in cross-border areas, and for financial support through EU programmes to co-finance the partnership's business costs which can be considerable (for example administrative and human resources costs). The cost-benefit aspect of these costs must be considered to ensure that the partnership is sustainable;

46. considers that an efficient partnership should include among its key partners the private, social economy and non-governmental sectors, and securing public support;

47. emphasises cross-border aspects of urban rural partnerships and the way that the funding instruments proposed by the Commission are used in order to promote economic development potential of urban-rural cross border linkages;

48. stresses the importance of engaging the general populace; this is absolutely imperative in the process of urban-rural governance in order to reach a consensus on a common vision and objectives and build trust;

49. considers that measures are needed to prevent urban sprawl which has an unwanted impact on sustainable development (with soil-sealing affected, flooding becoming more likely, risk prevention and water supply more problematic and air quality jeopardised), mobility (such as traffic congestion, and additional infrastructure costs) and land-use planning in general. Solutions to these problems can be identified when urban and rural environments work in partnership;

50. stresses the need to involve the private sector and the social economy, which can both make a very useful contribution as regards performance criteria, business and innovation capacity, seizing opportunities and mobilising communities, and particularly as regards attracting capital and forming public-private partnerships;

51. points to the key factors for successful partnerships: building trust, identifying every opportunity, thinking in practical terms, devising win-win solutions for urban and rural areas, attracting funds and ensuring that the partnership is consistent and sustainable.

Brussels, 8 October 2013. The President of the Committee of the Regions Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO

(1) EP report (2009/2231(INI)): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A7-2010-0280+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

(2) Recommendations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) — comprehensive study on urban-rural partnerships; study carried out by the Federal Institute for research into buildings, urban business and spatial development: Partnership for sustainable urban-rural development: the proof; Eurocities report on Towns — cooperating beyond administrative limits: practical experience; and the CEMR report on urban-rural partnership for integrated territorial development.

(3) In this context, it might be worth referring to the PURPLE European network, in which peri-urban regions from different EU Member States work together on the issue of the viability of rural areas surrounding urban areas.