Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on European metropolitan areas: socio-economic implications for Europe's future
Date: 2007-04-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, economic consequence, metropolis, social impact, town-planning scheme, urban centre, urbanisation

C 168/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.7.2007

Opinion of

the European Economic and Social Committee on European metropolitan areas:

socio-economic implications for Europe's future

(2007/C 168/02)

On 7 November 2006, the Federal Ministry for Transport, Construction and Urban Development asked the
European Economic and Social Committee, on behalf of the German Presidency, 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 20 March 2007. The rapporteur
was Mr van Iersel.

At its 435th plenary session, held on 25 and 26 April (meeting of 25 April), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion nem. con. with 125 votes in favour and five abstentions.

This opinion is a follow up to the opinion on ‘European Metropolitan Areas: socio-economic implications
for Europe's future’ (ECO/120) (1). The two opinions form a consistent whole.

1. Conclusions

contribute to the objectivity of
Interministerial
conferences on the metropolitan areas involved national and
regional authorities.

the debate.

1.1
Over the last fifty years, Europe has been changing and
globalisation is accelerating the process, with substantial conse-
quences for Europe's centres of gravity,
its metropolitan
areas (2). It is the metropolitan areas that are best equipped to
respond to these challenges and make the most of the opportu-
nities they present.

i.e.

1.2
The EESC believes that the Council and the Commission
should discuss and draw up a series of general guidelines for the
development of metropolitan areas and national
initiatives in
this field. A well-structured European debate would situate
national approaches in a shared perspective, which could also
motivate regional stakeholders.

The EESC is of

the opinion that a better structured
1.3
debate on and between metropolitan areas in Europe should
contribute to encouraging these regions to involve themselves
successfully in the Lisbon-Gothenburg agenda, which could also
be reflected in the National Reform Programmes.

1.4
The EESC notes that recent years have witnessed intense
debate. The link between large metropolitan areas and the
Lisbon Strategy places greater emphasis than in the past on the
socio-economic implications of these large metropolitan areas.
This is a step forward.

In many countries and regions, the public authorities, the
1.5
private sector and civil society are trying to create the conditions
required for the sustainable development of metropolitan areas,
and to ensure their competitiveness in Europe and the world. In
particular, the trend observed in Germany deserves attention.
University studies as well as studies carried out at a federal level

(1) OJ C 302, 7.12.2004, p. 101.
(2) It is important to distinguish between a metropolis and a metropolitan
area. Generally speaking, a metropolis is laid out as a large city or
agglomeration, whereas a ‘metropolitan area’ is an area made up of one
very big city or a number of major polycentric cities surrounded by
other municipalities or rural areas. As a result, a metropolitan area
covers a much wider area than a metropolis.

1.6
The Commission's urban policy and the Council's draft
Territorial Agenda are signs of progress. They provide a frame-
work for an ambitious urban policy. The Agenda underlines
some characteristics that are specific to large metropolitan areas.
Nevertheless, the EESC notes that the draft Territorial Agenda is
still too hesitant in this regard.

1.7
Despite differences in national structures and approaches,
the challenges and ambitions of major urban regions are gener-
ally the same.

1.8
The lack of identity and inadequate governance stand in
the way of balanced development in metropolitan areas. Existing
administrative bodies often go back a very long time. They
prevent flexible adjustment.

several

The involvement of

1.9
levels of authority —
national, regional and urban — is indispensable if metropolitan
areas are to succeed. This means that decentralised authorities
must have legitimacy, which would also facilitate private sector
and non-governmental initiatives.

1.10
The EESC once again draws attention to the absence of
comparable socio-economic and environmental data on metro-
politan areas at EU level. It considers that since this should be
addressed at EU and national levels, the economic, social and
environmental performances of European metropolitan regions
must be monitored annually in order to broaden our knowledge
on each of their situations and enable the relevant metropolitan
areas to take action.

20.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/11

2. Recommendations

2.1
The EESC calls on the Commission to draw up a Green
Paper on metropolitan areas complementing the Territorial
Agenda and the Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion in order to
encourage European debate on the basis of an objective analysis.

2.2
The EESC argues that the challenges and aspirations of
the large metropolitan areas as well as the knowledge and
experience of Member States should be pooled to provide a
shared European perspective and that best practices should be
disseminated.

3.4
At the same time, the main challenges facing Europe in
the coming years are concentrated in metropolitan areas. In par-
ticular, these areas are often faced with poverty, social exclusion
and spatial segregation, with implications for employment and
(international) criminality (5).

3.5
The influence of metropolitan areas is reinforced by the
multiplicity of interactions between them at European as well as
international level. The networks they form help to strengthen
European integration.

3.6
In its 2004 opinion, the EESC notes that there is a
shortage of comparative studies with satisfactory data on their
strengths, weaknesses, constraints and opportunities.

2.3
The EESC is convinced of the need for a policy decision
by the Commission tasking Eurostat with producing reliable and
comparable data on all EU metropolitan areas annually and
providing it with additional funds to carry out its new task.

3.7
It is for this reason that in 2004 the EESC insisted on
the need to define European metropolitan areas and to produce
relevant and comparable data, including the evaluation of the
Lisbon Strategy key indicators, for each such area.

2.4
In order to ensure that Eurostat can assume its new role
as soon as possible, the EESC recommends that a pilot study be
carried out by ESPON or another organisation with relevant
expertise to test possible methods for setting the boundaries of
metropolitan areas according to common criteria and to
propose a limited list of data which could be produced without
delay for metropolitan areas with populations of over one
million between 1995 and 2005, namely by referring to
existing detailed data from European surveys on the labour
force (3).

3. Reasons

3.1
In its 2004 opinion, the EESC drew attention to the
socio-economic implications of European metropolitan areas (4),
which it considered to be largely under-estimated.

3.2
This opinion sought to draw the attention of the EU
institutions to the ongoing, and sometimes striking, concentra-
tion of people and economic activity in the metropolitan areas
of Europe and the world.

3.8
The knowledge-based economy and the networked
society increase the attraction of metropolitan areas for people
and economic activities. Some Member States have engaged in
lively national and regional debates on the policy to adopt for
large metropolitan areas, especially with regard to their govern-
ance. These discussions are sometimes followed by concrete
actions from both the bottom up and the top down.

4. The Commission's reaction in 2004

In 2004, the EESC called on the Commission to carry
4.1
out integrated studies with the participation of
the relevant
Commissioners and to present regular reports on the socio-
economic situation in metropolitan areas and their ranking on a
European scale. This would make it possible to assess the
strengths and weaknesses of large metropolitan areas in order
to improve the framing of European and national policies and
facilitate the dissemination of best practice.

4.2
the
In its reaction to the EESC's recommendations,
Commission stated that it ‘agrees with both the EESC's points
concerning the key role of metropolitan areas in achieving the
objectives of the Lisbon Strategy and the absence at European
level of
reliable and comparable data on these territorial
units’ (6).

In its 2004 opinion, the EESC argues in favour of placing
3.3
the development of European metropolitan areas on the EU
agenda. The EESC was the first to stress the direct link between
metropolitan areas and the implementation of
the Lisbon
Strategy. Metropolitan areas are the laboratories of the global
the economy and
economy. They are the powerhouses of
centres of creativity and innovation.

Despite this shared view, a targeted and more integrated
4.3
approach to metropolitan areas by the Commission has not
materialised. An urban policy is gradually being implemented
but it does not distinguish between ‘cities and metropolitan
areas’. The data supplied by statistics offices are incomplete and
produced on the basis of national definitions. As a result, they
are still not always comparable at European level.

(3) A first successful study on 14 European metropolitan areas has already
been carried out under the INTERREG II C programme (in 2000). The
EESC is referring to a study by GEMACA, Group for European Metropo-
litan Areas Comparative Analysis.

(4) EESC opinion on European metropolitan areas: socio-economic implications

for Europe's future, OJ C 302, 7.12.2004, p. 101.

(5) EESC opinion on Immigration in the EU and integration policies: cooperation
between regional and local governments and civil society organisations,
OJ C 318, 23.12.2006, p. 128.

(6) Reference to the reaction of the Commission's DG REGIO to the EESC's
own-initiative opinion on European metropolitan areas: socio-economic
implications for Europe's future, OJ C 302, 7.12.2004, p. 101.

C 168/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.7.2007

5. National debates and initiatives

either by direct suffrage, as in Stuttgart for example, or by
indirect representation, as in the cities and municipalities of the
Nuremberg region.

5.1
Several national and regional initiatives have been taken
recently which highlight the way metropolitan areas are evol-
ving. These initiatives often include a range of measures to
support a more harmonious development of
infrastructure,
spatial planning, the economy and social aspects, as well as the
development of transport and telecommunications infrastruc-
ture between the metropolitan areas themselves. Examples of
some initiatives in several countries are provided below. This
overview is by no means exhaustive.

5.1.1
An in-depth discussion on metropolitan areas has been
ongoing in Germany since 1993. University studies and
in an
debates were conducted with the aim of drawing up,
appropriate and objective manner, a list of functions carried out
by large metropolitan areas and to identify such areas by refer-
ence to the list.

5.1.1.1
These German studies led to a shift from the tradi-
tional approach, with a national map showing the cities and
to an alternative approach that
municipalities and Länder,
presents a new map of Germany with Leitbilder or patterns. On
the basis of guidelines and spatial planning policy action plans
(dating back to 1992 and 1995), which had stressed the impor-
tance and roles of the metropolitan areas, Germany has had
eleven metropolitan regions since the decision of the interminis-
terial conference of the Bund and Länder ministers for spatial
planning of 30 June 2006. The first interministerial conference
on this matter took place in 2003.

5.1.1.2
The map of German metropolitan regions reveals
incompatibilities between existing administrative organisation
and the geographical boundaries of the metropolitan regions.
For instance, the metropolitan region of Nuremberg includes
Nuremberg city and an agglomeration of neighbouring urban
and rural municipalities. Others, Frankfurt/Rhine-Main and
Hamburg for instance, partially cover the territories of several
Länder, whereas others, Munich and the Ruhrgebiet for instance,
are part of one Land. In several cases, thematic regionalisation is
already in place, e.g. in the areas of culture, sport, sustainability
and the countryside. In all cases, the territory includes major
and minor towns, and rural areas. In this way, it is possible to
define clearly the territories of the metropolitan areas in ques-
tion.

No specific national measures have been planned (as
5.1.1.3
yet). Metropolitan areas have been asked to define their own
specificities and showcase them. The objective is to develop
German metropolitan areas as autonomous entities within the
European and international context. Needless to say, national
policies, such as rail or aviation policies, could be used to
support these areas' ambitions.

In order

to support

this new
5.1.1.4
approach, metropolitan areas were asked to set up democratic
representational systems in line with their specificities and
vision for the future. They are free to define the procedures,

the legitimacy of

for competitiveness; creating conditions

5.1.1.5
The policy objectives which have to be discussed and
realised in the case of these metropolitan areas — whose charac-
teristics vary — are as follows: ensuring the necessary critical
mass
for effective
governance; clarifying the division of responsibilities; developing
polycentric spatial organisation; finding a satisfactory balance
between urban development and the protection of rural areas;
infrastructure and ensuring mobility;
developing transport
supporting innovation and economic clusters; managing techno-
logical ‘risks’ and natural risks; obtaining the necessary public
investment
accessibility;
ensuring the region's promotion.

improving international

resources;

5.1.2
In the United Kingdom, interest in strengthening the
development of metropolitan areas began at the beginning of
the century. In 2004, a government memo was published on
the competitiveness of
than
London (7). The aim was to create conditions for strengthening
the autonomy of the ‘city-regions’ in an international context.
However, the process was blocked, mainly due to the negative
outcome of a referendum on setting up a regional assembly in
the Newcastle region.

the metropolitan areas other

At present, debate in the UK focuses on sharing
5.1.2.1
responsibilities between the national and regional levels on the
one hand, and the cities and municipalities in the most popu-
lated regions identified as future metropolitan areas on the
other. The idea of setting up city-regions still has relevance.
Despite the ambiguity in the ongoing debate, a White Paper on
the subject will soon be published and a new form of spatial
organisation based on recognised criteria, similar to the German
model, is in the pipeline.

5.1.2.2 We need to distinguish between decentralisation
policy and support for the development of metropolitan areas.
The latter is characterised by flexibility and alliances formed
between municipalities in order to make the most of opportu-
nities and overcome challenges together. A good example of this
is the development in the North of England (Manchester, Liver-
pool, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle and York), a bottom-up initia-
tive called Northern Way. This development is characterised by
a number of agreements within the metropolitan area.

A top-down approach in response to local and
5.1.2.3
regional
initiatives is considered indispensable because many
strategic decisions can only be taken by common accord. These
decisions could take the form of three agendas: a competitive-
ness agenda for supporting the best and least performing
regions; a social cohesion agenda for disadvantaged populations;
and an environment agenda comprising measures for improving
quality of life and preserving natural resources. In these three
fields, the metropolitan area is considered to be the most appro-
priate geographical level for implementing these policies.

(7) Competitive Cities: where do the core cities stand? (Core cites refers to
the metropolitan areas outside London mainly located in the North
West of the country).

20.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/13

5.1.3
In France, the debate has been ongoing since 1960.
Until recently, very few concrete measures had been taken
because the political dimension of the debate had been underes-
timated. On a more general level, this lack of political dimension
has been apparent throughout Europe.

In 2004, DIACT (8) launched a call for proposals for
5.1.3.1
metropolitan projects with a view to encouraging cooperation
between major cities and supporting the economic development
of metropolitan regions. Fifteen metropolitan projects prepared
by the local authorities were selected by a panel comprising the
directors of the relevant ministries and experts. The projects
were finalised in 2006. In 2007, metropolitan contracts will
benefit from State financial support for implementing structural
measures. Through this initiative DIACT recognises the impor-
tance of metropolitan regions as having a key role in the
competitiveness of the regions.

In the new Member States there have been comparable
5.1.5
developments to those in the above-mentioned countries.
In
Poland, the government has identified a number of metropolitan
areas or city-regions. One example is the Katowice region,
which recently acquired the specific status of a metropolitan
area. Nevertheless, urban and metropolitan development is non-
controlled as a rule, and therefore arbitrary due to lack of appro-
priate regional governance. This is why some metropolitan areas
are looking for inspiration to the practices and expertise of
countries with a tradition in decentralised policies.

5.1.6
Chambers of Commerce and Industry, being high
profile and active representatives of the business world at local
and regional levels, are also involved in the process of metropo-
lisation, especially Chambers in capitals and city-regions. They
contribute everywhere to the attractiveness and economic and
cultural influence of their regions without losing sight of the
need for quality of life and respect for the environment.

5.1.4
In Italy and Spain, regionalisation is making progress.
This trend, which does not directly concern metropolitan areas,
nevertheless creates new (legal) opportunities for the governance
of metropolitan areas.

6. Pan-European trends

5.1.4.1
In Italy, a law passed in 1990 set out a top-down
approach identifying 14 metropolitan areas. It was not imple-
mented. A new law in 1999 authorised bottom-up initiatives
for creating metropolitan areas. A single assembly comprising
20 municipalities and with a budget was set up in the Bologna
region. Finally, a constitutional reform in 2001 authorised the
establishment of three metropolitan areas around Rome, Naples
and Milan. The implementation of
reform has been
relaunched recently.

this

In Spain,

5.1.4.2
the spatial debate is overshadowed by
regional autonomy. The autonomous regions have sole authority
in this area. As a result, they are responsible for metropolitan
areas. An ongoing process to strengthen major cities co-exists
alongside a trial of strength between the central government,
autonomous communities and metropolitan areas
such as
Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia. Bilbao, a case apart, has been a
success in terms of metropolisation.

such as Centrope,

The existence of metropolitan areas is not restricted
5.1.4.3
to large countries or even to individual countries. Metropolitan
areas
i.e. Vienna-Bratislava-Brnö-Gjör, a
region covering no less than four countries, and Copenhagen-
Malmö (Denmark and Sweden) are among the best known
examples. Both areas are progressing. In the Netherlands, there
is in-depth discussion on the most appropriate governance for
the Randstad in order to eliminate the administrative fragmenta-
tion impeding infrastructural, spatial and socio-economic devel-
opment.

At EU level,

implementing the Lisbon Strategy is the
6.1
Barroso Commission's priority objective. All Commissioners are
involved. DG REGIO has placed the Lisbon Strategy at the heart
of the ‘new brand’ of regional policy, spearheaded by urban
development.

all

‘Lisbon’ and urban development have become priorities
6.1.1
regions benefiting from EU programmes. These
for
programmes do not
explicitly target metropolitan areas.
URBACT is among the more appropriate programmes for the
latter (9).

6.1.2
In addition to DG REGIO, other DGs, for instance DG
Research, DG Environment and DG Transport, run specific
programmes that are often important for metropolitan areas
because they too are more than ever influenced by the Lisbon
objectives. Metropolitan areas per se are not specifically targeted,
but all programmes to strengthen the performance of cities are
relevant to metropolitan areas too.

6.1.3
In June 2006, a Council working group published a
first proposal for a Territorial Agenda (10). The document gives a
good description of trends towards urbanisation in European
society. Nevertheless, a clear distinction between cities and
metropolitan areas is still lacking.

(8) Délégation interministérielle à l'aménagement et à la compétitivité des terri-
tories [Interministerial Delegation for Land Planning and Regional
Competitiveness] (ex DATAR).

(9) The Commission is currently preparing a guide on urban issues.
(10) The Territorial State and Perspectives of the European Union: Towards
a Stronger European Territorial Cohesion in the Light of the Lisbon
and Gothenburg Ambitions, First Draft, 26 June 2006.

C 168/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.7.2007

6.2
Several Informal Councils of Spatial Planning Ministers
have focused on the challenges of (big) cities (11). Spatial plan-
ning is a competence of the Union under the present Treaty,
Title XIX (Environment), Article 175(2) (12).

initiative, which will take effect during the 2007-2013 period
through the territorial cooperation objective (14).

The European Parliament (13) emphasises that ‘towns
6.3
and cities and urban agglomerations or areas, where 78 % of
the European Union population is concentrated, are the place
where most problems are concentrated and the place where the
future is built’. It considers them key players in regional and
local development and in achieving the revised Lisbon and
Gothenburg objectives.

The European Parliament calls on all the Commission
6.3.1
DGs directly or indirectly concerned with urban issues to coor-
dinate their efforts in order to identify specific urban problems
in each field of action and jointly to present
the positive
impacts of their policies. It proposes setting up an interdepart-
mental task force and argues in favour of setting up a ‘territorial
dialogue’.

6.4
The Committee of the Regions is increasingly insistent
in drawing the attention of the European institutions to the
challenges facing urban regions. Its conclusions are based on the
same concerns and principles underlying the EP's and the
EESC's conclusions.

6.4.1
The Committee of the Regions stresses the realities of
‘functional regions’ and cooperation between partners across
administrative borders — national, regional, and local — which
should be promoted by means of special incentives in EU poli-
cies, such as the promotion of strategic development projects
for large areas. It is particularly important that new cooperation
networks should be set up between metropolitan and urban
areas, and existing ones strengthened, in particular through the
cooperation currently being developed under the INTERREG III

(11) The first Informal Council of Spatial Planning and Home Affairs Minis-
ters, where the challenges facing cities were discussed in detail, was
held in Rotterdam in November 2004. It was followed by the Informal
Council of Luxembourg in May 2005 on ‘The Territorial State and
Perspectives of the European Union’. The next Informal Council will
take place in Leipzig in May 2007.

(12) Article 175

‘1.
The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred
to in Article 251 and after consulting the Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions, shall decide what
action is to be taken by the Community in order to achieve the
objectives referred to in Article 174.
By way of derogation from the decision-making procedure
2.
provided for in paragraph 1 and without prejudice to Article 95, the
Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission
and after consulting the European Parliament, the Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, shall adopt:
(a) provisions primarily of a fiscal nature;
(b) measures affecting:

— town and country planning,
— quantitative management of water resources or affecting,
directly or indirectly, the availability of those resources,

— land use, with the exception of waste management;

(c) measures significantly affecting a Member State's choice between
different energy sources and the general structure of its energy
supply.’

(13) European Parliament: Resolution on the urban dimension in the context of
enlargement, adopted on 13.10.2005, OJ C 233, 28.9.2006, p. 127.

6.5
In its March and September declarations, the METREX
network (15) emphasises the need to define metropolitan areas
and recognise them as key components of the EU's Territorial
Agenda. It calls for comparable data on metropolitan areas to be
produced at European level. It calls on the Commission to draw
up a Green paper with three key dimensions: economic compe-
titiveness,
cohesion and environmental protection.
METREX believes that several major problems facing Europe,
such as climate change, demographic ageing or immigration,
can only be solved effectively and comprehensively with the
support of
the metropolitan areas. Finally it considers that
metropolitan areas can play a key role in implementing the
Lisbon objectives, especially with regard to ensuring Europe's
competitiveness at an international level.

social

6.6
The number of regions represented in Brussels has
greatly increased over the last 15 years (16). They hold confer-
ences where the development and challenges faced by metropo-
litan areas are a focus for intensive discussion.

Indeed, a group of regions represented in Brussels has

6.7
been set up under the name ‘Lisbon Regions’.

The ESPON programme has produced extensive informa-
6.8
tion, data, indicators and reports on European regions in recent
years. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that regional administra-
tive boundaries are very different from those of metropolitan
areas, the results of this high-quality work do not provide those
responsible for development, planning, and management of
metropolitan areas with the information and studies they need
to identify the most suitable policies for maximising the poten-
tial of these areas.

6.9
DG Regional Policy and Eurostat launched the Urban
Audit project in order to provide reliable and comparable indi-
cators for a number of cities (17). The EESC welcomes efforts
made to produce data on urban zones. However, the nature of
the information provided does not as yet lend itself to wide-
spread use (18).

(14) CoR opinion on Cohesion Policy and cities: the urban contribution to

growth and jobs in the regions; OJ C 206, 29.8.2006, p. 17.

(15) METREX: Network of European Metropolitan Regions and Areas, an

association of fifty major urban regions.

(16) From 20 in 1990 to 199 in 2006.
(17) The Urban Audit identifies three spatial levels: the Core City, Larger
Urban Zone (LUZ) and Sub-City District. According to the project
organisers, the LUZ corresponds roughly to the functional urban zone.
(18) Relatively few indicators are in fact provided for LUZ for the same year.
The geographical boundaries of LUZ are set according to national
criteria. This does not guarantee the comparability of the indicators at
EU level. These boundaries are still unpublished. The indicators do not
refer to recent years (2001 is the most recent). Eurostat's present
resources for carrying out this important project covering 27 coun-
tries, 258 cities, 260 LUZ and 150 indicators are manifestly insuffi-
cient.

20.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/15

7. Intense ongoing debate

7.1
The EESC notes that the debate on metropolitan areas
has grown far more intensive in recent years for two main
reasons: (i) the growing number of metropolitan areas around
the world has made it clear that a new form of urban organisa-
tion is developing very rapidly (19); (ii) acknowledgement of the
link between the economic, social and environmental develop-
ment of large metropolitan areas and the Lisbon Strategy has
fuelled the debate.

Political and social discussions on the most appropriate
irrespective of

7.2
approach are underway in all Member States,
their size and stage of development.

These discussions occur primarily in a national context.
7.3
Nevertheless,
in many cases, the authorities acknowledge that
the actual territory of some metropolitan areas is not contained
within national borders. The examples of Copenhagen-Malmö
and Vienna-Bratislava have already been cited, but other metro-
politan areas identified by the French authorities, namely Metz-
Luxembourg-Saarbrücken and Lille-Courtrai, should also be
mentioned. The number of cross-border regions in the EU with
the characteristics of metropolitan areas is on the increase.

Despite intensified debate over the years, the EESC notes

7.4
that these new structures are in their first infancy.

level present

The vast majority of cities and metropolitan areas
7.5
wishing to assert their importance at European and interna-
tional
their own situation using national and
regional figures, without always being aware themselves of the
actual size of the area they are referring to. This is one of the
consequences of the difference which exists between metropo-
litan areas and the administrative region(s) they are part of.

The EESC notes that despite different national and
7.6
regional approaches and structures,
there seems to be clear
agreement on the problems involved. The following are among
the most frequently discussed:

— the critical mass of a metropolitan area, city-region or

network of cities and municipalities;

— the balance between urban and rural districts comprising

metropolitan areas;

Brussels, 25 April 2007.

— the various roles of metropolitan areas;

— education and training;

— creativity, research and innovation;

— clusters and the competitiveness of businesses on interna-

tional markets;

— attracting international investment;

— major infrastructure, its financing and public-private partner-

ships;

— transport and telecommunications networks linking large

metropolitan areas in Europe and around the world;

— cultural influence;

— multicultural societies (immigration) and the challenges of

poverty and exclusion;

— employability of the workforce and job creation;

— industrial production and services with high added value;

— climate change, energy efficiency, pollution reduction and

waste management;

— de-pollution and redevelopment of brownfield sites

in

connection with the restructuring of production;

— reduced insecurity, criminality and international

terrorist

risks;

— reduced inequalities between infra-regional territories and a

partnership between the centre and the periphery;

— the thorny issue of governance.

People do not always have a sense of belonging to a
7.7
metropolitan area. European metropolitan areas lack political
legitimacy. The administrative structures of
the past are no
longer adequate — they date back to previous eras — but
national governments are very sensitive to resistance to new
arrangements among stakeholders, in particular existing regional
political and administrative bodies. In addition, the challenges
facing metropolitan areas are immense. In order to overcome
them and manage development appropriately, governance needs
to be re-organised almost everywhere as part of an overall
strategy.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(19) The urban population worldwide exceeds 3 billion. The population of
400 metropolitan areas is over 1 million in comparison with 16 such
areas a century ago.