Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘European Metropolitan Areas: socio-economic implications for Europe's future’
Date: 2004-07-01
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU regional policy, economic and social cohesion, economic development, metropolis, urban area, urbanisation

7.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/101

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘European Metropolitan Areas:
socio-economic implications for Europe's future’

(2004/C 302/20)

On 15 July 2003 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of
Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on ‘European Metropolitan Areas: socio-economic implications
for Europe's future’.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible
for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 June 2004. The rapporteur
was Mr van Iersel.

At its 410th plenary session (meeting of 1 July 2004) the European Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 129 votes to none with 2 abstentions.

1. Summary

1.1
In this opinion the EESC draws attention to the impor-
tance of Europe's metropolitan regions in the context of EU
regional policy.

1.2 Metropolitan regions are of great importance for the
future from both an economic and a demographic perspective.
These regions face a whole series of major challenges. So far
the Union and the European institutions have not shown any
particular interest in the subject.

1.3
The EESC argues that the economic, social and environ-
mental development of Europe's metropolises should be firmly
placed on the Community agenda. For this, European data and
an exchange of information through Eurostat, as well as the
Commission's specific attention, are essential.

1.4
It is in the Union's interest that national debates on the
future organisation of metropolitan areas be followed up by a
European debate to see what added value the European Union
can provide. The EESC would refer in particular to the direct
connection between the role of European metropolises and the
Lisbon Strategy.
the Lisbon
Strategy is largely dependent on how it is pursued in metropo-
litan areas.

Indeed, achieving the goals of

1.5
The EESC therefore urges that, besides setting up a
forum to bring together metropolitan areas and the Commis-
sion,
this matter also be discussed in the Competitiveness
Council and the informal Council for Regional Planning and
Urban Issues.

2. Introduction

2.1
The world is changing fast. Everywhere we are facing
innovative economic, technological and social developments.
These developments do not only have far-reaching conse-
the services sector and labour
quences for manufacturing,
markets; of course, they also affect the territorial context and
society and, consequently, how countries and regions should be
governed.

2.2
In this opinion, the EESC focuses on metropolitan areas,
i.e. large agglomerations and their zones of economic influence.
It does so for three reasons: they are at the heart of these rapid
changes;
they are important contributors to the European
growth strategy; and they are also partners to many smaller
centres of excellence in the European Union.

2.3
A metropolitan area is made up of a central core –
either an individual town or an urban agglomeration; and a
periphery – a group of neighbouring municipalities from
which a significant number of residents commute to the central
core every day. The notion of ‘metropolitan area’ is thus close
to that of ‘employment area’ or ‘functional urban region’ (1). It
takes account of the existence of peripheral areas that are
highly focused on a centre, and whose growth depends on the
development of that centre.
In terms of time, metropolitan
areas can extend to up to a one hour commute. They include
urban and rural areas.

The central core must include a minimum number of
2.4
inhabitants (2) or jobs in order to be recognised as the centre of
a metropolitan area. Similarly,
there must be a minimum
commuter intensity between a peripheral municipality and the
central core for it to be included in a metropolitan area (3). In
practice, these minimum thresholds have been set arbitrarily,
and are therefore of varying importance. The lack of harmoni-
sation of the definitions at European level restricts international
comparisons.

(1) In its opinion of 14 May 1998 on Towards an urban agenda in the
European Union, the Committee of the Regions established the
notion of a Functional Urban Region to describe a metropolis and
its area of influence. It is accepted that cities have become agglom-
erations and then metropolitan areas which then extended to form
urban regions. This concept also underlines the mutual dependence
between the territorial units that make up the urban region: labour
market, home-work commute,
shopping
centres,
localisation of new activity, real estate, parks and leisure
facilities, protection of the environment, etc.

transport networks,

(2) For example, 500,000 inhabitants (METREX threshold). A list of
is
European agglomerations with over 500,000 inhabitants
appended.

(3) For example, 10 % of the active population with a job in the central
core, resident in the peripheral municipalities (GEMACA threshold).

C 302/102

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.12.2004

2.5
A new type of metropolitan area has emerged over the
last decade. When several agglomerations operate in network
and their employment areas overlap,
they make up multi-
centre metropolitan areas. Examples are the Randstad, with 7
million inhabitants, the Rhine-Ruhr region, with 11 million
inhabitants, the Vienna-Bratislava region with 4.6 million inha-
bitants, the Oresund region with 2.5 million inhabitants and
the Lille region with 1.9 inhabitants (1).

the time has come for a deeper analysis and to look into how
good regional governance by all stakeholders in these areas can
be beneficial for their inhabitants and for the EU as a whole. A
situation report on metropolitan areas can only be useful if it is
based on reliable, comparable figures on a European scale.
Such figures are, unfortunately, currently lacking. The EESC
therefore believes that the European Union should ensure that
these are provided.

2.6
Depending on their size and function, metropolitan
areas have regional, national, European or global influence. It is
estimated that the enlarged Europe includes some 50 metropo-
litan areas of over 1 million inhabitants.

It

is important

2.7
to note that metropolitan areas as
discussed in this opinion cover areas and socio-economic situa-
tions that do not coincide with the European regional adminis-
trative entities defined in the somewhat rigid NUTS system of
‘regions’ (Nomenclature of Statistical Territorial Units) as used
for official purposes by Eurostat and the European institutions.
The concept of administrative region in Europe is particularly
ambiguous as, apart from a few exceptions, the geographical
boundaries of such regions fall either outside or inside the
boundaries of metropolitan areas (2). Consequently,
it is not
useful
to use administrative areas to compare the socio-
economic development of European metropolitan areas.

2.8
In February 2004 the European Commission published
its Third Report on Cohesion. This report opens up new
avenues
for discussion on regional policy and economic
progress. The same applies to a new focus on spatial and urban
development. For the future, the Third Report highlights the
link between regional policy and the Lisbon Strategy. Competi-
tiveness will
join cohesion policy and territorial cooperation
and employment policy as the third pillar of regional policy. In
this respect, the Third Report underlines in particular the role
of cities and major agglomerations.

The impulse for new approaches and fresh ideas comes
2.9
chiefly from globalisation, the completion of the single market
(including in the new Member States), and from the Lisbon
Strategy. Clearly, for metropolitan areas it is not just a question
of regional policy, but also industrial policy, expertise, trans-
port and European networks, sustainable development and
quality of life.

2.10
A worldwide phenomenon is the increasing attention
paid to ‘urban renaissance’, which is on the agenda of most EU
members.

2.11 Metropolitan areas and their governance have never
been discussed thoroughly at EU-level. Consequently, they have
never been specific targets of EU-policies. The EESC feels that

(1) The Randstad is made up of

the urban agglomerations of
Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam and Utrecht. The Rhine-Ruhr
region includes the urban agglomerations of Bonn, Cologne, Düssel-
dorf, Duisburg, Essen and Dortmund. The Vienna-Bratislava region
comprises
the agglomerations of Vienna and Bratislava. The
Oresund region is made up of the agglomerations of Copenhagen
and Malmö, while the Franco-Belgian Lille region has four medium-
sized cities and a large number of smaller towns and districts.

(2) Examples include London, which has 7,400,000 inhabitants in the
administrative region (NUTS 2) and 13,230,000 in the metropolitan
area, and Département du Nord (NUTS 3), which has 2,600,000
inhabitants and 970,000 in the French part of the metropolitan area
of Lille.

3. Situation of metropolitan areas

3.1 More
than three quarters of Europe's population
currently lives in urban or peri-urban areas. There is a direct
link between the Lisbon Strategy and metropolitan areas. A
large number of
the factors underpinning future European
competitiveness are to be found in these areas. Metropolitan
areas transmit innovation and information to other European
to
cities. The prosperity of metropolitan areas is essential
solving problems of social and territorial cohesion in their own
areas and in other European cities and regions.

3.2 Metropolitan areas,
in European as elsewhere in the
world, are facing a number of major challenges: globalisation,
which is linked to the integration of international markets in
goods, services, capital, expertise and skilled and unskilled
labour, leading to the rapid transformation of their manufac-
turing systems;
for
prudent management of natural resources; social cohesion;
quality of life; and territorial cohesion.

sustainable development, which calls

3.2.1 Many cities and metropolitan areas are successfully
adapting their economic, social and institutional structures.
These powerful urban areas are national and international
communication hubs that are served by all forms of rapid
transport and broadband telecommunications networks, and
whose economy has long depended on diversification, in par-
ticular providing quality services to people and businesses.
Industrial regions that were once in crisis are also excellent
examples of this type of development. Lille, Barcelona and
Bilbao exemplify this restructuring process.

3.2.2
Member States,
Warsaw, Prague and Budapest.

Similar processes are underway in the ten new EU
in particular in the metropolitan areas of

3.3
European regional policy has for years had the objective
of improving the climate for growth, employment and compe-
titiveness in the less developed regions. To that end, specific
programmes have been set up and a fine-tuned system for allo-
cating financial resources has been put in place. Most of the
regions concerned have made economic progress, sometimes
even substantial progress, as a result of these EU policies.

7.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/103

3.4
The evaluation of regions in Europe has consequently
been confined to an analysis of the regions that have benefited
from the Structural Funds.

3.5
The relatively favourable or unfavourable economic and
social trends in other regions cannot be ignored. The EESC
believes that they must also be analysed in-depth at European
level. Such an analysis is desirable anyway in view of the
discussion on the Third Report on Regional Cohesion, which is
intended to open up new avenues. It could also further our
understanding of current economic trends and their impact on
the way societies and living and working conditions adapt.
Finally, such an analysis could enable some EU policies to be
adjusted in order to provide adequate support
for specific
regional developments and requirements,
including those in
metropolitan areas.

3.6
It is significant that there is an ongoing debate – in
centralised and decentralised countries alike – surrounding the
new balance that is needed between centralisation and devolu-
tion. The authorities are looking at new approaches from both
a bottom-up and a top-down perspective. Clearly, these are
often difficult to implement because of governmental traditions
and vested interests in the regions concerned. Despite some
institutional
there is a clear trend
towards recognising the need for integrated management of
metropolitan areas, for the welfare and prosperity of citizens
and businesses.

logjams here and there,

3.7
In Europe we can easily distinguish between several
different categories of metropolitan area. On the one hand, we
have very big metropolitan areas such as London, Paris, the
Rhine-Ruhr, the Randstad and Madrid, with a population of
over 5 million inhabitants; and on the other, a number of
smaller but sometimes successful metropolitan areas with great
development potential and ambition. Examples are those
around the capital cities and major economic centres in nearly
all the Member States.

3.8
As said earlier, some of these economic centres were
previously depressed areas. They owe their renaissance to the
joint efforts of private and public stakeholders in the region. It
should also be said that the metropolitan areas in the new
Member States are in a transitional phase, and are working on
their comparative strengths to become competitive on interna-
tional markets.

3.9
There are a growing number of these areas at European
level. Since 2003 the German metropolitan areas have been
working together on a project called ‘Regions of the Future’. In
2003, the British Government asked the relevant regions to
define their strategies for becoming internationally competitive.
The Danish Government is wholeheartedly behind the specta-
cular cross-border cooperation initiative to make Copenhagen
and Malmö (Sweden) a major economic centre in the Baltic. In
the Netherlands, a fairly recent phenomenon is the promotion
of the Randstad as an international-scale metropolitan area. In
Spain, the regeneration programmes for Barcelona and Bilbao
reflect the same ambition. Other examples could be given.

3.10
Another factor which will have an evident impact on
how governance is organised in metropolitan areas and on
their ability to direct economic development is the increasing
transfer of powers to the regions in the EU Member States. At
the same time, some governments are taking a pro-active
approach to the economic development of major cities. For
example, a British Government initiative setting up a working
party bringing together the 8 ‘core cities’, 9 regional develop-
ment agencies and several ministerial departments in order to
establish an action plan to improve the economic performance
of the metropolitan areas and, consequently, the competitive-
ness of the country (1). In France, following the publication of a
report on European cities (2),
the government drew up a
national strategy aimed at raising the profile of the French
metropolises at European level (3).

3.11
Recent history shows clearly that we are living in times
in which a new attitude is emerging towards the development
of the major urban areas. Where consultation arrangements
exist, they are confined to the national level. Alongside these
initiatives have been launched to
national arrangements,
promote European platforms
for key urban development
players. These include Eurocities, which focuses on the knowl-
edge society, and the more recent METREX network of Euro-
pean Metropolitan Regions and Areas. Generally speaking,
however, meetings and contacts are organised randomly. At the
same time, a more favourable climate for more structured
initiatives can be observed.

4. Ongoing processes

The process of metropolisation involves the multiplica-
4.1
tion of
large conurbations and a higher concentration of
people, activities and wealth creation within an expanding
geographical area with no clearly defined physical boundaries.
This growth often brings with it social and spatial fragmenta-
tion (social segregation, spatial specialisation, crime and a lack
of security). Furthermore, unlike cities, the metropolis has no
institutions. It has to solve its problems through a
political
series of negotiations between different stakeholders. Spatial
fragmentation can slow down and hinder public and private
investment. Consequently, it makes sense to have a regional
policy that aims to reduce this spatial fragmentation by recon-
the metropolitan areas with ongoing
ciling governance of
processes. The Barcelona and Stuttgart areas are positive exam-
ples of this.

(1) Cities, regions and competitiveness, Office of the Deputy Prime

Minister and other public partners, June 2003.

(2) Les villes européennes, analyse comparative – Celine Rozenblat,

Patricia Cicille (DATAR 2003).

(3) www.datar.gouv.fr - CIADT of 13 December 2003.

C 302/104

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.12.2004

4.2
Globalisation: European urban regions are structured
according to processes and dynamics that exist increasingly at
global level. Europe's major cities are hubs in a constantly evol-
ving global network of metropolises. New York, London,
Tokyo and Hong Kong, but also Frankfurt, Paris, the Randstad,
Brussels, Milan and Madrid are foremost among these. These
metropolises ‘steer’ the world economy through the interna-
tional institutions, banks and large international corporations
which have their command and control headquarters there and
thanks to the power of information and communication tech-
nologies. In the next few years, the main Asian metropolises
will also take their place in this global network.

business. ICTs are making a big impact on manufacturing and
service structures. Consequently they also influence spatial
planning and the way cities and metropolitan areas develop.

4.8
The internationalisation of investment, the mobility of
brainpower and the interaction of universities, technology insti-
tutes and the private sector could promote economic clusters,
as in the famous Porter's Diamond model. This is a very impor-
tant basis for the network society, in which metropolitan areas
play a key role.

Europeanisation:

4.3
the interactive process of adapting
economic, social and environmental and spatial planning poli-
cies to European integration and enlargement, the completion
of the single market (still ongoing), and the arrival of the euro
and enlargement, will contribute even further to the integration
and dispersion of economic activity throughout Europe. The
more national borders are blurred, the more there will be a
natural tendency to strengthen the economic poles across the
continent. The gradual organisation of inter-regional poles and
even cross-border poles (Copenhagen-Malmö, Dutch Limburg-
Belgian Limburg-Aachen, the French and Belgian sides of the
Lille metropolitan area) show that economic development will
be increasingly blind to the often artificial political and admin-
istrative borders bequeathed by history.

4.9
These metropolitan areas are also important centres for
culture, tourism and leisure activities. Their architectural heri-
tage is a major component of their history and identity. Their
libraries, museums, theatres, operas and concert
universities,
halls play a key role in protecting and disseminating European
culture and in creating and disseminating culture. It is also in
metropolitan areas that major sporting events and concerts are
held, pulling in crowds.

4.10
The cosmopolitan nature of metropolitan areas is very
important for the development of the media industry. The
television,
media industry (i.e.
films, video, publicity, telecommunications) and the creative
industries as a whole are a rapidly expanding sector of activity
in these areas.

the press, publishing, radio,

4.4 Metropolitan areas are the main focal points of research,
innovation and the creation of new activities. It is there where
activities with high added value are centred, especially business
services. The new information and communication technolo-
gies are also playing a key role here. Economic dynamism is
concentrated mainly in metropolitan regions, which are focal
points for innovation, the knowledge society and training.

4.11
The various socio-economic groups and players and
cultural organisations are joining forces to find new avenues
for integration and participation. In parallel to the measures
taken by the public authorities, civil society is playing an extre-
mely important role in the urban dynamic. In many cases, the
success of a metropolitan area is largely due to the collabora-
tion and interaction of public and private stakeholders.

4.5
These areas are linked to each other by physical and
virtual networks of all sorts, depending on the volume and
significance of the economic clusters in the various regions.
This process is tending to broaden and to deepen. EU transport
policy (Trans-European Transport Networks) rightly encourages
these networks, as does deregulation of the airline sector.

4.6
The Lisbon Strategy for a knowledge-based competitive
economy that takes account of social cohesion and sustain-
ability is particularly important.
Its implementation could
herald a new mission for metropolitan areas.

This cooperation and the interaction of public and
4.12
private interests are crucial
in the context of metropolitan
areas. Experience has shown that this can be achieved more
readily and more productively in the major geographic areas
rather than at national level. The metropolitan area tends to be
the right level for establishing the planning objectives for an
urban area with all stakeholders, and for putting in place the
arrangements to achieve them.

4.13
Unlike the trend in the US, European cities are now
developing both as cities and conurbations. City centres still
serve as hubs of activity and meeting points. Metropolises also
play a crucial part
in consolidating a European model of
society.

This new mission is partly an offshoot of the increasing
4.7
importance of the network society, which creates a changing
basis for prosperity, attracts new investments and is leading to
new approaches to educating young people and to the labour
market at large. Accordingly, there is an interaction between
the recent interest in cities and metropolitan areas, and modern
applied technology, particularly ICT (Information and Commu-
nication Technologies) and broadband internet networks, that
has also a tremendous effect on people's daily lives and on

4.14
The European economy is in a major period of transi-
tion with enlargement and the integration of the single market.
This involves a combination of competition and partnership
between regions, and especially between metropolitan areas,
which play a decisive role in some complex games. The lack of
government at metropolitan area level is a weakness when it
comes to establishing and implementing competitive economic
development strategies and partnerships.

7.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/105

5. Specific social aspects

and, consequently,
in access to housing and public services,
including schooling and health care. Particular attention should
be given to poor areas that are seriously affected by this issue.

5.1 Major cities suffer more acutely than other areas from
serious problems of social cohesion and territorial imbalance.
Metropolitan areas could provide a good example of how to
restore social and territorial equilibrium in the European
Union. However, such improvements can only be achieved if
accompanied by sustainable economic development.

Each metropolitan area has its own profile. But notwith-
5.2
standing differences in culture and in social and economic
development, similar phenomena can be observed all over
Europe. Fortunately, public and private players are in most
cases becoming increasingly aware of the need to improve
living and working conditions for all. It must be admitted,
however, that there is often still a long way to go.

In those cases where economic restructuring has taken
5.3
place or is taking place at the moment, the transition from one
business cycle to the next phase of this process has led or is
still leading to substantial unemployment, in particular among
young people and people over 50. Such a process affects
metropolitan areas. It has also to be noted that this process is
often leading to the creation of completely new activities with
new employment, better equipped for the future.

5.4
Economic restructuring also involves relocation, particu-
larly of labour, and this tends to cause structural unemploy-
ment in regions that are dependent on one type of industry.
This can also happen in metropolitan areas, despite the fact
that they are often able to change their economic base. This
modernisation process often sees the switch from a heavy
industrial base to a society based on services and hi-tech. Exam-
ples of this are Bilbao, Lille and the Rhine-Ruhr.

5.5
The EU is experiencing an ever-increasing influx of
immigrants from third countries. Although there are remark-
able differences in the way countries and cities integrate immi-
grants, Europe as a whole is undeniably facing a tremendous
challenge in this respect and metropolitan areas are a very
special case in point. The EESC has on several occasions called
on the EU to draw up common immigration and asylum legis-
lation. The EU will have to absorb new economic migrants for
demographic, social and employment-related reasons (1). Such
migrants will include both highly skilled and unskilled people.
Community legislation must promote legal
immigration and
curb illegal immigration. Moreover, the EU must encourage the
integration of immigrants into the host society and do its best
to prevent discrimination (2).

5.6
In many cities and metropolitan areas, there is a concen-
tration of immigrants who find it extremely difficult to find
good jobs owing to their lack of professional qualifications,
poor language knowledge, social discrimination and lack of a
proper integration policy. This leads to inequalities in income

(1) COM(2003) 336 final – Communication from the Commission on

immigration, integration and employment.

(2) EESC opinion on immigration, integration and employment, OJ C

80 of 30.03.2004, p. 92.

5.7 Metropolisation often exacerbates social inequalities and
spatial disparities. Less-favoured social groups, e.g. unemployed
young people and elderly people on low incomes, tend to
gather in certain areas, leading to a concentration of disadvan-
tages. The exclusion of less-favoured sectors of the population
and the poor quality of public services in these areas feeds on
itself, eventually becoming a trap from which it
is almost
impossible to escape. Often there is mounting urban exclusion,
even where urban regeneration policies have been in place for
years. Large-scale action coordinated at metropolitan area level
is needed if implementation is to have the best chance of
success.

5.8
Law and order issues in metropolitan areas have become
a worrying phenomenon, and can have serious repercussions
on social cohesion and balanced development. Paradoxically,
the assets and demographic features of metropolitan areas
make them particularly vulnerable to certain types of risk. On
the one hand,
the way they operate as a system can be
weakened by any attack connected – however marginally – to
law and order issues on one of their vital components. On the
other, metropolitan features encourage flows of people and
goods that are conducive to illegal activity linked to national or
international criminal networks. They can facilitate the estab-
lishment of activist groups by offering anonymity,
logistical
support and a recruitment base. The nerve centres of metropo-
litan areas are a particular target for new forms of terrorism.
These trends are worrying in the current international political
situation.

5.9
Environmental protection and compliance with sustain-
able development objectives are another challenge facing
metropolitan areas. They must respect international commit-
ments: Kyoto Protocol, Agenda 21, Maastricht Treaty, and the
1993 and 1998 Community programmes for sustainable devel-
opment. To do this, they need to reconcile economic develop-
ment and environmental protection, which can be mutually
reinforced
(transport
by organising urban development
systems, establishment of centres of habitation, waste and
waste water management, noise reduction, protection of city
centres, and of the natural and agricultural heritage, etc.).

5.10
The fast growth of a number of metropolitan areas in
combination with the widening and deepening of their econo-
mies is challenging for infrastructure and for public and private
transport. For environmental and economic reasons, congestion
calls for hi-tech solutions. All environmental policies are costly
for the public and private sectors. Public funds are, as a rule,
insufficient, and the success of public-private partnerships has
so far been limited.

C 302/106

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.12.2004

5.11
Shortcomings in metropolitan areas are aggravated
when the administrative management of these areas does not
keep pace with economic development and the increase in
population, housing and commuting. Often the administrative
management within metropolitan areas still reflects bygone
times. This in turn hampers effective government and, conse-
quently,
coordination
between the administrative management and economic stake-
holders and, in broader terms, between the public and private
sectors is a prerequisite for good governance in metropolitan
areas.

economic policy.

effective

Proper

5.12
In this respect situations vary widely. Sometimes the
metropolitan area is smaller than the administrative region of
which it is a part. More often it embraces more than one
administrative region. Nearly always there are more municipali-
ties or other administrative units within one metropolitan area.
Most public (regional and national) authorities consider these
situations as a matter of fact and not as a subject for discus-
sion.

5.13
Each government has its own method of looking for
solutions. Big cities are trying to learn from each other, but
there is not enough consultation and exchange at EU-level to
promote benchmarks or good practices.

them. There

regions handle

5.14
Although the abovementioned phenomena are charac-
teristic of metropolitan areas, there are substantial differences
in the way individual
are
outstanding examples in which the regional government, as a
rule supported by the national government, together with the
private sector and organised civil society, are changing the
course of events and are creating a new pattern for the future.
In realising such policies the social and economic conditions
are improving and such regions are visibly becoming more
competitive. The European Union should capitalise on such
examples by setting up consultation rounds to identify best
practices and discuss how the Union can use the means at its
disposal for improvement.

6. Data on European regions and metropolitan areas

sion are often nothing more than vague and incomplete
descriptions. The fact is, they are based on the regional statis-
tics published by Eurostat. These have the advantage of being
harmonised at European level. However, they also have a major
drawback: the regional division used by Eurostat, the Nomen-
clature of Statistical Territorial Units (NUTS), is a patchwork of
national administrative units. The divisions reflect the political
and administrative history of each country. With a few excep-
tions, they are geographically inadequate for a reliable picture
and comparison of the economic, social and environmental
situation in metropolitan areas at European level. The NUTS
division was not designed to do this.

6.3
Eurostat statistics do not, then, make it possible to track
population trends, activities, unemployment or production in
metropolitan areas, nor do they provide for any reliable
comparison of strategic indicators such as: population growth
rates, production value added, employment, unemployment or
overall productivity per job. An analysis of
the results of
studies into metropolitan areas carried out by private consul-
tants or by national public institutions shows that the lack of
any reliable, geographically comparable figures can lead to
incorrect or even contradictory conclusions regarding the
socio-economic trends that have been ‘observed’ in European
metropolitan areas (e.g. with regard to productivity trends
within a single region).

The absence of data on the socio-economic evolution of
6.4
regions and metropolitan areas in Europe is a handicap for two
main reasons:

6.4.1 Metropolitan areas are the engine rooms of growth.
The economic activity they generate and the resulting advan-
tages spread to other urban centres in each country. In order to
make the most of the constraints and opportunities of the
the metropolitan areas
changing international environment,
need a continually updated performance assessment at Euro-
pean level.

6.4.2
It would also be desirable to have reliable analyses and
comparisons at European level on important aspects, including
problems linked to immigration, job quality, poverty and exclu-
sion, the environment, security and others.

6.1
The European statistical system is driven by European
policies. Hence, we know the number of cows and pigs per
region thanks to the CAP. But we do not know the employ-
ment statistics or added value per sector in big cities and their
spheres of economic influence because there is no relevant
policy and because Europe has until recently devoted to few
resources to urban statistics. Eurostat's Cities and Regions unit
consists of only 5 people. Eurostat's resources are not at all
commensurate with its remit.

Comparative socio-economic studies of metropolitan
6.2
regions covering the whole of Europe carried out by institu-
tions involved in economic development and the promotion of
the regions, universities, consultants or the European Commis-

6.5
Over the last few decades, the US has been producing a
large number of up-to-date, comparable data on its 276 metro-
politan areas and these are freely available on the Internet (1). In
Europe, since every country has its own definition of a ‘town’
or ‘city’ (and sometimes metropolis), it is naturally more diffi-
cult to agree on a common definition of a metropolitan area.
Given that, with regard to implementation of
the Lisbon
Strategy, it is now important to have reliable, comparable data
on European metropolitan areas, the EESC believes the time
has come for the latter to defined by Eurostat in cooperation
with national statistics offices, and for a large quantity of data
to be produced within these confines.

(1) http://data.bls/gov/servlet/SurveyOutputSerlet

7.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/107

The European Commission's Urban Audit

6.6
II, now
underway, will produce data on the living conditions of people
in 258 cities and conurbations. This project is an important
step forward in terms of informing the debate on social cohe-
sion. However,
it will not deliver comparable Europe-wide
socio-economic indicators on metropolitan areas. The indica-
tors are assessed in terms of the cities and conurbations of each
country as defined nationally. Moreover,
the indicators for
London, Paris and Berlin will be evaluated within the bound-
aries of the respective administrative regions (Greater London,
Île-de-France and Berlin Land).

6.7
The aim of the ESPON project (European spatial plan-
ning observation network) is to gain a better knowledge of
land use. But
is hampered in particular by the lack of
economic data at local authority level or at NUTS 3 level
throughout the EU. The merit of the project is that it shows up
the many shortcomings of the European statistical system.

it

All these observations highlight the fact that, if Eurostat
6.8
is to be able to produce reliable, comparable urban and metro-
politan data,
it must have the extra budgetary and human
resources needed to achieve this.

6.9
A recent study presenting data from the European
Union Labour Force Survey, carried out in metropolitan areas
with a population of over 1 million in North Western Europe,
is worth reading (1). It shows that for the larger metropolitan
areas, demarcated according to common criteria, it is possible
to produce at a marginal cost a great deal of comparable, Euro-
pean socio-economic data by using an annual survey carried
out by the national statistics offices and coordinated by Euro-
stat.

7. Conclusions and recommendations

The last decade has seen a number of analyses and
7.1
discussions in several Member States and at regional
level
regarding the new phenomenon of metropolitan areas in
Europe. Although these areas are now more visible at national
and international level than was previously the case, their role
in implementing the Lisbon Strategy has yet to be recognised.

7.2 Metropolitan areas are crucial for meeting the economic,
social and environmental objectives of the Lisbon Strategy and
for training, research, innovation, cutting-edge technology, the
creation of new activities and the promotion of entrepreneur-
ship. They are also the main transport and telecommunication
hubs, making it easier to set up networks of businesses, univer-
sities and research centres. The EESC wishes to stress that a

the potential

more effective mobilisation of
for economic
growth in Europe depends on the active support of all the
public and private stakeholders who are striving to achieve
In
sustainable economic development in metropolitan areas.
other words, given the role played by metropolitan areas in
Europe,
the Lisbon Strategy cannot be
achieved unless they are achieved first in metropolitan areas.

the objectives of

One of

7.3
the main reasons this development has not
attracted sufficient government attention is the fact that the
boundaries of the political-administrative regions only rarely
correspond to the geographical boundaries of metropolitan
areas. As a result, apart from a few exceptions, there is no reli-
able or comparable data on a European scale that would enable
the socio-economic situation and dynamics at work in metro-
politan areas to be described.

The EESC stresses that it is in the interests of the Union

7.4
that:

— the metropolitan areas in the 25 EU Member States should

be defined;

— a set of relevant data on such areas should be produced
annually, in particular through the European Labour Force
Surveys;

— the main Lisbon Strategy indicators should be evaluated for

these areas;

— clusters of activity with high value added should be identi-

fied within these areas;

— the Commission should report regularly on the socio-
economic situation of metropolitan areas and their ranking.

Producing such information and making it available for

7.5
all should:

— contribute towards the recognition of metropolitan areas
their social,

and provide more in-depth knowledge of
economic and environmental situation;

— make it easier to assess the strengths and weaknesses of

these areas on a European scale;

— improve the definition and implementation of both Euro-
pean and national policies, adapting them to the specific
characteristics of these areas;

(1) Study carried out as part of INTERREG II by GEMACA (Group for
European Metropolitan Comparative Analysis). Published in Les
Cahiers de l'IAURIF No 135; www.iaurif.org/en/doc/studies/cahiers/
cahier 135/index.htm

— provide local and regional authorities with an assessment of
the competitive ranking of their areas on a European scale.
Today such assessments are either non-existent or drawn
up at huge expense on the basis of incomplete information;

C 302/108

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.12.2004

The EESC believes it

7.8
areas’ unit
responsible for producing the aforementioned data each year.

for a ‘metropolitan
to be set up within Eurostat, which would be

is essential

The possible difficulties in defining the geographical
7.9
boundaries of all
the metropolitan areas and producing
comparable information and data cannot be allowed to justify
inaction. Consequently, the EESC suggests that, in line with the
recommendations put forward above, a pilot project should be
set up in a limited number of metropolitan areas as soon as
possible. It also suggests that this pilot programme should be
carried out in partnership with DG Regional Policy, Eurostat,
the national
statistics offices and the metropolitan areas
concerned.

7.10
The EESC hopes that the European institutions will
agree with the broad thrust of this opinion. The EESC believes
that, against the background of the establishment of a forum
bringing together metropolitan areas and the Commission, the
situation of these areas should also be on the agenda of the
Competitiveness Council and the informal Council for Regional
Planning and Urban Issues.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

— enrich the debate on European regional policy by facili-
tating dialogue between all the parties concerned on the
basis of objective information;

— provide the private sector with information which could

prove useful when defining business strategies.

7.6
The EESC strongly supports the proposal made by
METREX in 2003 to create a European programme for metro-
politan areas (1). This programme – called METROPOLITAN -
could be a forum for meetings and discussions. It could also
include working parties tasked with identifying and dissemi-
nating best practice in the areas addressed in this opinion.

7.7
The EESC welcomes the importance given to ‘competi-
tiveness’ and the link established between the recently framed
regional policy and the Lisbon Strategy in the Third Report on
economic and social cohesion, which has special significance
for metropolitan areas. For these areas, certain objectives under
the titles ‘competitiveness’ and ‘knowledge’ could be supported
through the European Regional Development Fund.

Brussels, 1 July 2004.

(1) METREX – The network of European Regions and Areas – main
declared objectives for the METROPOLITAN European programme:
1 – recognise the important role of metropolises in Europe
2 – support the creation of effective metropolitan governance
3 – support the definition by all stakeholders of integrated metro-

politan strategies

4 – support metropolitan policies to boost competitiveness and

social and territorial cohesion.