Functional Urban Areas and Their Contribution To Economic Growth

THE ROMANIAN TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
Governmental to Government Project The Netherlands and Romania

GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT PROJECT
THE NETHERLANDS – ROMANIA
Functional Urban Areas and

their contribution to economic growth
CONTRIBUTION
The Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment,

NL AGENCY Energy and Environment, The Netherlands
for
The Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration, Romania
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
Mrs. Antoinet SMITS, project coordinator, NL AGENCY Energy and Environment
Mr. Ge HUISMANS, senior advisor, NL AGENCY Energy and Environment
Mr. Joost HAGENS, expert, BUREAU BUITEN
Mr. Joep de ROO, coordinator DISC initiative, EURODITE
2
ABBREVIATIONS
AID Associations for Inter-community Development
EO Emergency ordinance
FUA Functional Urban Area
GD Government Decision
G2G Government to Government
IDA Intercommunity Development Associations
ITI ITI - Integrated Territorial Investments
L Law
MA Metropolitan Areas
MRDPA Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration
PA Public Administration
PPP Public Partner Partnership
PUD Details Urban Plan
PUG General Urban Plan
PUZ Zonal Urban Plan
RTDS Romanian Territorial Development Strategy
RUR Romanian Urban Planning Register
UD Urban (Planning) Documentation
3
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Content .............................................................................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Objective ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Structure ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
1.4 Economic development in relation to spatial planning ..................................................................................... 6
1.5 Demographics and economic performance in Romania ................................................................................... 6
1.6 Evolution of the Romanian planning system .................................................................................................... 8
1.7 Current Spatial Planning Systems in Romania ................................................................................................. 9
1.7.1 Definitions in the Romanian legislation (law 350 / 2001) ...................................................................... 10
1.7.2 Polycentrism in Romania ........................................................................................................................ 11
1.8 Metropolitan areas........................................................................................................................................... 11
1.9 Mobility........................................................................................................................................................... 14
2. VISION ......................................................................................................................................................................... 16
2.1 Cities as drivers of innovation and economic growth ..................................................................................... 16
2.2 Strengthening Romanian urbanization ............................................................................................................ 17
2.3 Functional Urban Areas, Metropolitan Areas and Daily Urban System(s) ..................................................... 18
2.4 Defining the sectors on which FUA cooperation should focus ....................................................................... 18
3. EXAMPLES AND BEST PRACTICES FROM THE NETHERLANDS ..................................................................................... 20
3.1 WGR+ ............................................................................................................................................................. 20
3.2 Examples ......................................................................................................................................................... 23
4. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES .................................................................................................................................. 27
4.1 Applicability in the Romanian context ........................................................................................................... 27
4.2 Short term no regret policy options ................................................................................................................ 28
4.2.1 Concentration .......................................................................................................................................... 28
4.2.2 Voluntary cooperation............................................................................................................................. 29
4.2.3 Smart Specialization .............................................................................................................................. 30
4.2.4 Coherent spatial and transport policy ..................................................................................................... 30
4.2.5 Financing/Funding (short term) .............................................................................................................. 31
4.2.6 Supporting soft skills .............................................................................................................................. 31
4.3 Long run implementation strategy ................................................................................................................. 31
5. RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................................................. 33
6. ROADMAP (preliminary) ........................................................................................................................................ 35
4
ANNEX 1: European policy documents relevant for strategic vision ................................................................... 36
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Content
Cities can no longer be analyzed strictly within their administrative boundaries, without considering the
support role of the peri-urban territory in providing elements such as goods, workforce and land-resources.
Defining strong urban centers, that rely (through workforce, land resource) on the adjacent territory as well,
would improve an efficient territorial management and resource exploitation, as well as lead to an increase
in the general access to services and facilities for the population.
The present document outlines an overview of key aspects pertaining to the theoretical approaches to
functional urban areas and their respective mechanisms for implementation within the context of the
Romanian Territorial Development Strategy. The chapter analyses functional urban areas as integrated
spatial planning instruments, applicable and proficient in directing and accelerating economic growth,
suitable to present conditions of Romanian territorial planning, and identifies areas to be optimized in the
process. Starting from the present economic and social context of Romania, the overview presented also
builds on current scenarios for future development.
1.2 Objective
The present document aims to formulate guidelines on national integrated spatial planning practices based
on Dutch and international experience and to propose recommendations concerning the elaboration of
instruments for the implementation and coordination of the Romanian Territorial Development Strategy
focused on functional urban areas (including options for delimitation criteria for FUA’s and instruments for
their management. Starting from several major desirable actions identified for future territorial development,
the present proposal correlates local conditions of spatial planning to successful methodologies and
approaches in the Netherlands, aiming at an integrated action for development.
1.3 Structure
The perspective on key instruments for coordinating and implementing the Romanian Territorial
Development Strategy briefly outlines economic approaches to territorial development, from the perspective
of spatial planning, based on patterns of mobility and polycentric urban development nationwide.
Consequently, the recommendations and vision (chapter 2) presented in the document acknowledge cities as
the main driver of development. The second part of the document (chapter 3) details several successful
integrated spatial planning practices in the Netherlands and their respective implementation strategies
(chapter 4). The document is concluded by a set of recommendations (chapter 5) on the advisable steps for
5
implementation and an indicative roadmap for the short term (chapter 6). This introduction continues with
the role of cities for economic development and the relevance of that for spatial planning.
1.4 Economic development in relation to spatial planning
Economic activities are not evenly distributed geographically and “the World is NOT flat, the world is
spiky” (R. Florida). Thus, spatial planning can contribute to the realization of (positive) agglomeration
effects since size and density correlate positively with economic growth (Glaeser and many others).
Consequently, spatial planning influences economic development as it plays an important role in the
decision-making processes related to concentration or sprawl of activities and often facilitates local and
regional growth by prioritizing public investments.
Spatial planning also has a strong influence on the economic development, since it shapes the accessibility
(international, national regional, local/ road, rail, water, ICT) and mobility conditions of cities and regions; it
also deals with the different accessibility demands for various types of activities (e.g. production, logistics,
business services, creative industry). Thus, by creating differences in accessibility, spatial planning has the
power to enhance places opportunities for economic development.
Furthermore, spatial planning determines business site locations, in various qualities and for different target
groups, thus creating favorable conditions for private investments. As a result, spatial planning can have a
major contribution to a region’s attractiveness.
Therefore, specifically in the Romanian context of relatively poor economic performance/low GDP, with on
average low population density and a shrinking population, spatial planning should take the role of a tool for
enhancing the economic development by promoting urban concentration, with potentially positive economic
benefits.
1.5 Demographics and economic performance in Romania
Romania is one of the large EU-member countries, both in size (238,391 km2, the 8th position) and
population (20.1 million inhabitants, the7th position). However, the population densities are low on average
(ca. 85 inhabitants/km2), even in cities, the exception being represented by Bucharest (ca. 7050.4
inhabitants/km2).
In terms of economic performance, Romania’s GDP is relatively low compared to the EU average.
Romania’s GDP is 131,7 billion (2012, Source: Eurostat) which represents, for example, approximately 22%
of The Netherlands’.
6
Figure 1. GDP per Capita across Counties in Romania, 2009

Data Source: EuroStat
As the figure above shows, there are substantial regional disparities in GDP per head, between Bucharest for
example and the lagging areas that are mostly located outside the Carpathian arch, more exactly in the
southern and eastern parts of Romania.
In terms of demographics, according to the 2011 census, Romania’s population is currently 20,1 million
inhabitants, but with a strong shrinking tendency (see figure 2) due to several factors: the negative balance
between births and deaths rates and the negative migration balance. There is a positive inward migration
towards Bucharest and its metropolitan area.
Figure. Evolution of the Romanian population between 1980- 2012
Moreover, according to the ESPON report on Demographic and Migratory Flows affecting the European
regions and cities” (DEMIFER), all four development scenarios‘ (Growing Social Europe, Expanding
7
Market Europe, Limited Social Europe and Challenged Market Europe) prognosis related to Romania’s
population are quite strongly negative.
1.6 Evolution of the Romanian planning system
After the end of the Second World War, the communist political system radically changed the economic,
cultural and social system. This aspect had a huge impact on the spatial planning aspects. The territorial and
urban planning system was very centralized and imposed from the national level (top down). From 1948 all
the land and properties were owned by the state. In this context complex projects could be developed: large
industrial areas, infrastructure and civic centers.
After the collapse of communism in 1989, Romania experienced a period of transition and adaptation. The
year 1990 marks the division between an excessively centralized system and a strongly decentralized
system. As a reaction, there was a tendency towards minimizing planning and facilitating real estate
8
developers as much as possible. As a consequence cities have undergone a spontaneous, unregulated

development. The specific legislation suffered numerous amendments meant to re-adapt norms to the
demands and trends of economic development.
In this new context, territorial and urban planning was carried out with limited state control and - with
hindsight - based on unclear and insufficient laws and regulations. The national economy had big difficulties
to compete in a larger capitalist market, a reason for which the territorial and urban investments were limited
and generally of a small scale.
After 2000, the Romanian economy began to grow and the number of foreign investors began to rise (also
encouraged by the Romanian entry into the EU). The real estate market experienced a rapid and
uncontrolled expansion. This translated in renewed territorial and urban planning activities, often focusing
on projects (small, medium and large size) and mostly with (just) the aim of making a rapid profit for the
investors. The projects were predominantly of a bad and medium quality. The peak of investments was
reached in 2006-2008, when financial interests also created pressure on eluding the laws. This period
negatively affected opportunities and values of numerous territories and also created numerous new
deficiencies. After the economic and financial crises from 2008, the real estate market decreased, leaving
many projects at an unfinished stage. At present (2013), the real estate sector is more equilibrated and more
careful to the feasibility of the investments they make.
For a better understanding of the current reality, some relevant aspects regarding the territorial and urban
planning in Romania (that occurred after year 2000) are important to be mentioned.
First of all there were numerous changes of the laws focused on or related to urban planning.
In addition to this there were numerous changes of the national administrative structure (ministry, general
directions, departments, services and offices) with a trend in reducing the importance and size of territorial
and urban planning departments. The last changes took place in July 2013 when the Territorial and Urban
Planning Direction was transformed in a service inside the ministry.
During 2000 and 2008 (mainly)”derogatory” urban planning (RO: “urbanism derogatoriu”), had a complex
and profound impact on the Romanian environment. It has led to frequent changes in the provisions of the
General Urban Plan (GUP), thus undermining its value as a planning strategy.
Other aspects that have impact on the territory are:

1. The law specifies that the provisions of the plan with a higher level of complexity and scale of approach
are readdressed and detailed in the lower ranked plans.
2. There are no possibilities to sanction a local authority if they don’t foresee special budget for territorial
and urban planning activities or if they don’t use it.
1.7 Current Spatial Planning Systems in Romania
The current legal framework of the Urban Planning Documentation (U.D.) is following a pyramidal
structure based on the size of the area for which the U.D. it done. The U.D. varies from national level to the
level of detail of one single plot. This is offering a diverse level of detailing of the territory.
9
The Romanian territorial and urban planning laws are presenting the following U.D.:
1. The Romanian Territorial Development Strategy (STDR)

2. The National Territory Plan (PATN) NUTS I1
3. The County Territorial Plan (PATJ)
4. The Zonal Territorial Plans: (PATZ)
a. The Regional Territorial Plan (PATZR) NUTS II
b. The Inter-county Territorial Plan (PATZIJ)
c. The inter-communal Territorial Plan (PATZIC)
d. The Border Areas Territorial Plan
e. The Inter-municipality Territorial Plan (PATZIO) NUTS III
f. The Peri-urban Territorial Plan
g. The Metropolitan Territorial Plan (PATZM)
5. The General Urban Plan and related local norms of urbanism (PUG) NUTS IV
6. The Zonal Urban Plan + related local norms of urbanism (PUZ)The Detailed Urban Plan (PUD).
The territorial and urban planning system is coordinated mainly by the Ministry of Regional and Public
Administration.
The main territorial and urban planning laws in Romania are2:

L. 350/ 2001 regarding Territorial and urban planning
L. 351/2001 regarding the National Territorial Plan- section IV the network of localities
1.7.1 Definitions in the Romanian legislation (law 350 / 2001)3
Urban system: neighboring localities that set up relations of economic, social, cultural cooperation, in
spatial planning and environmental protection, technical equipment, while preserving their administrative
autonomy.
Metropolitan area: territory surrounding big agglomerations, defined by professional studies, where mutual
influence relationships are set up in the fields of communication, economics, social, cultural, other technical
infrastructure. The territory is bigger than the administrative limits of the agglomeration.
Periurban area: territory surrounding towns and cities, defined by professional studies, where mutual
influence relationships are set up in the fields of economics, infrastructure, commuting, recreation areas,
food supply.
Functional zone: part of a locality defined by specific studies and by a dominant activity.
1
http://www.mdrt.ro/en/dezvoltare-teritoriala/amenajarea-teritoriului/cadrul-legislativ
2
A detailed list of applicable legislation available on http://www.mdrap.ro/dezvoltare-teritoriala/amenajarea-
teritoriului/cadrul-legislativ
3
Based on presentation by Arch. Gabriel Pascariu from Ion Mincu University, November 2013
10
Functional hierarchy of urban and rural settlements: ranking of human settlements according to their
territorial role and importance, in order to provide an efficient system –economically and socially -of
services for the population and a balanced development of the territory.
Metropolitan area: area set up by voluntary association of the big urban centers(capital city and county
seats) and other urban or rural surrounding settlements up to 30km distance, where multiple cooperation
relationships are developed.
Area of influence: the territory and the localities surrounding an urban center, which are directly influenced
by its evolution and by the mutual relationships developed in the economic field, in food supply, access,
social equipment, recreation facilities, tourism. The size of the area are directly related to the size and
functions of the polarizing center.
Associations for inter-community development: association of two or more local administrative units
(communes, towns, cities, counties) aiming to serve a common purpose, to provide a common service, to
achieve common development projects. The local autonomy of each administrative unit is preserved
according to law. The association is supported by the Government by national development programs.
1.7.2 Polycentrism in Romania

In order to align with the EU requirements Romania undertook some strategic territorial and urban decisions
in order to create a more polycentric and decentralized system. In annex 1, an overview of the most relevant
EU policy documents that have an influence on spatial planning are elaborated in more detail.
In 2008 (Government Decision no. 998 of 27 August 2008) Romania classified the cities in three main
categories: growth poles, development poles and urban centers.
The Romanian Growth Poles and Urban Development Poles are nominated and are defined as large urban
areas where priority is given to the investments under Community programs (European funds) and national
financing.
The Romanian growth poles are the following cities: Brașov, Cluj-Napoca, Constanța, Craiova, Iași, Ploiești
and Timișoara. In these cities, priority is given to investment from community (European funds) and
national funding programs.
The Romanian urban development poles are the following cities: Arad, Baia Mare, Bacău, Brăila, Galați,
Deva, Oradea, Pitești, Râmnicu Vâlcea, Satu Mare, Sibiu, Suceava, and Târgu Mureș. In these cities,
priority is given to project implementation under Priority Axis 1 - "Supporting the sustainable development
of cities’ under the Regional Operational Program 2007-2013.
The urban centers are cities with more than 10.000 inhabitants, other than the one mentioned above.
1.8 Metropolitan areas
Another step towards developing a polycentric system was the creation of the Metropolitan Areas (MA).
Romania has no specific law regulating the status, attributions and instruments of activity of metropolitan
11
urban areas, and no criteria for their delimitation. The law 351/ 2001 and law 215/2001 on public
administration mentions that M.A. are areas established based on free association, established on
partnerships made voluntarily between the big urban localities (the capital and the municipalities of first
rank) and the urban and rural localities that are around the urban center, on a distance smaller the 30 km and
which have cooperation relations on multiple levels.
In Romania, there are 620 registered inter community development associations (IDA), out of which 186
include at least one urban settlement (30%). Out of these 186 IDAs, 8 represent the metropolitan areas for
Braşov, Cluj-Napoca, Constanţa, Craiova, Iaşi, Oradea, Târgu-Mureş and Timişoara. One other IDA is
associated to the Ploiesti growth pole, and for Baia Mare an urban system is set up.
The present context and law framework is not substantially supporting the real development of these MA.
There are a number of aspects that restrain the possibility to improve the MA and to implement territorial
and urban projects. The main limitations are:
 The lack of clarity of the role, competence and responsibilities between the MA administrations, the
local public administration and the county public administration.
 The relation and support of the MA with the de-centralized institutions of the national public
administration at local level.
 The limited number of financial opportunities for MA.
 The limited number of management and implementation instruments.
The lack of regulations on territorial design, create in many cases the possibility for the development
associations to exclude localities from the support/influence area of the nucleus-city, causing discontinuities
in the approach and in activities, as well as a failure in insuring spatial contiguity, an aspect which lessens
the capacity of associations to constitute a powerful and attractive urban pole. Also due to this cause many
partnerships are initiated for solving specific problems and not as a result of sharing a common integrated
vision. Presently, the majority of associations are constituted for purposes such as water supply and sewage
(51 of IDAs - 27%); waste management (40 IDAs - 21%) or for transport and emergency situation
management; only 16 IDAs have as main scope the coordination of territorial and urban planning and
development.
Another aspect that can influence the support or the stagnation of existing MA it is local socio-economical
context of the territory. For example Brașov MA, that it is considered to be a functional and successful
example, has a complex structure. The MA includes 3 municipalities (well connected), 4 cities and some
communes. The development level of the main localities is close to the main urban center development
(Săcele municipality has a development standard very close to Brașov development level). In comparison
Cluj-Napoca MA has a municipality and the rest are all communes. In this case the difference between the
development level of the urban center and the rest of the communes is much larger. Additionally, in some
cases, the local political and economic interests prevent MA’s from becoming functional.
12
Photo source - page 45 in the Competitive Cities / WORLD BANK REPORT
In recent years, it has been concluded that there are numerous cases in which Urban Planning
Documentation (UD) in a territory does not create synergy between different territorial administrative units.
The UD is not correlated with other UD from neighboring administrative areas. There is also no clear
coordination between proximate General Urban Plans. There are examples of GUP’s that have common
territorial limits but did not correlate the proposals of the plan. For example, some GUP’s have included
13
functions and/or services of regional importance (that have a limited possible number) in more than one
locality.
1.9 Mobility
Romania has a system of mobility infrastructure that includes diverse types of infrastructure: roads,
railways, airports and ports.
In the last 20 years, there was some improvement and expansion of the road infrastructure, but still highway
construction is slow and considered to be in-efficient.
The railways system suffered a significant decrease in passenger traffic, caused by low quality services, in-
efficiency and the appearance of new railway companies on the market. At the same time the industrial
railways which could have been used for insuring connections to the metropolitan areas were dismantled.
This evolution was also accelerated by the continuous rising of prices caused by the alignment to the EU
prices and needed to cover the economic losses of the system.
The airports in Romania had an upward trend having more voyages, more destinations. The passenger
number has constantly increased, also helped by the Romanian accession to the EU. Important developments
have been made in Bucharest and Cluj-Napoca. In the first case the Otopeni (North of Bucharest)
International Airport was extended with a new terminal and Cluj-Napoca International Airport is
inaugurating this fall (2013) a new runway.
The Romanian ports system is limited to the south and south-east part of the country and has a very limited
direct impact on passenger transport.
The road infrastructure had seen some developments. For example some cities benefited by new road
infrastructure- especially bypass systems (Sibiu, Brașov) but good infrastructure is still a major issue in
attracting investors.
One impeding factor for the development of the public transport on a metropolitan level is the provision of
the law 92/2007 according to which public transport falls in the responsibility of the local or county
administration.
It is also important to underline that other mobility aspects as integrated public transport and bicycle
infrastructure is lacking almost completely although underlined as elements of sustainable development and
competitiveness for the area.
In the case of MA, the mobility issues represent an important aspect concerning proper development. The
connections of the areas around big urban centers with the main city are generally insufficiently developed.
One of the aspects related to this is the lack of communication and cooperation between the local
administrations (at all levels and also between departments of the same institution). In some urban areas the
transport service is offered by private companies with different quality of services. These companies are
offering services exclusively in the areas where there is a minimum economical guaranteed return. There are
limited public transport services within the functional urban areas existing around urban centers. This
14
hampers economic development of the FUA as a whole and often leads to negative impact on the
environment (due to more car traffic compared to the situation with an optimal network at the level of the
FUA).
A final remark in this section is dedicated to the lack of regional cooperation. The evolution of Romania has
led to a context in which society does not have (now) a culture of cooperation, a reality that creates
difficulties in translating Western European tools and concepts for the implementation of projects.
15
2. VISION
2.1 Cities as drivers of innovation and economic growth
As argued before, spatial planning can have an important role in creating positive agglomeration effects and
thus generating economic growth of cities. This can be explained through Glaeser and Florida’s theories
related to cities as drivers of economic growth.4
According to Florida, “cities are cauldrons of creativity”, and it is creativity that has become the principal
driving force in the growth and development of cities and regions. Furthermore, according to Glaeser,
“cities magnify humanity’s strengths”. It is by facilitating face to face interaction that innovation is brought
to light; since cities attract talents that are shaped and sharpened through competition, Glaeser argues that
there is an almost perfect correlation between urbanization and prosperity.
Building upon these lines of thought, and taking into account the Romanian economic and demographic
realities and trends, the focus of the Romanian Territorial Development Strategy on the concept of
polycentric territorial development is an appropriate approach. Furthermore, it is recommended that the
Romanian Territorial Development Strategy emphasizes the need for improving the position of the urban
centers, seen as economical engines of national and international significance.
The concept of polycentric territorial development is not a new one and it has started being used as a basic
element for a balanced social and economic development since the 90’s when the European Spatial
Development Plan (ESDP) was drafted. The concept of polycentric development is used as a tool to ensure
an efficient territorial integration that increases cohesion and local competitiveness through an integrated
development, while still taking into account the local specificities.
Functional urban areas may be considered as one of the basic elements of a polycentric territorial
development. In the Romanian territorial-administrative context, the functional urban areas might be
composed of an urban settlement with a central role (e.g. city or municipality) and the surrounding urban
(e.g. cities) or rural settlements (e.g. communes).
Taking into account the low population densities, the Romanian economy will probably benefit from a
further concentration of population in the bigger cities: the growth poles and the urban development poles.
Although this kind of approach might look harmful and a threat for the rural areas, in the end it might bring
them benefits as well; although their share of the “economic cake” may diminish, they could end up with
“more cake” (see figure).
4
Glaeser, E. "Review of Richard Florida’s The Rise of the Creative Class, 2004.
16
Solutions for shrinking population numbers in rural areas should be sought in a concentration of facilities
(e.g. education, health, commercial) in larger villages or in the urban centers that have a central function for
the surrounding villages (e.g. creation of school bus systems). Rural problems, albeit important as such,
should not be a reason to drop the idea of strengthening FUA’s.
2.2 Strengthening Romanian urbanization
Currently the Romanian urbanization policy is mainly based on the Growth Poles (7) and the Development
Poles (13).
To strengthen the Romanian urbanization, clear analyses and sharp choices have to be made. Several maps
with different indicators show that Romania accounts some 15-20 cities/regions with a major economic
impact.
To get the best potential out of the cities, the following is needed:
 Name the most promising/important cities-regions/conurbations/ FUA’s in Romania; put them on a

map.
 SWOT-analysis of the region, taking into account the industrial and services base and its potential for
the (near) future, but also the more soft issues that make the ‘quality of life’ and which attract
(potential) employers and employees: culture, parks, schools, doctors, kindergartens, restaurants, etc.
Rationale for this: be authentic, start from your roots.
 Design a smart specialization strategy on a national level between the conurbations/FUA’s, in order
to complement and not compete with each other.
 Draw up integrated social-economic development strategies (spatial-infrastructure-economic drivers)

on a regional level, including the urban core(s) and its neighboring area.
 Draw up the needed connections within and between the several conurbation(s), prioritize them.
17
 Seek actively for cooperation with other parties (companies, cultural entrepreneurs, NGO’s, citizens)
for the (further) development of urbanized regions, e.g. for housing, infrastructure, transport systems,
green, culture etc.
 Create/guarantee a fund to ensure support for the regions: direct investments, co-financing for e.g.
EU projects and advisory support.
 Learn from the neighbors: in Romania itself, but also in European and global networks that represent
regions.
2.3 Functional Urban Areas, Metropolitan Areas and Daily Urban System(s)
In the previous sections the relevance of FUA’s has been shown: regional cooperation within a limited
number of regions with core cities is important to enhance economic development in Romania. However,
there is no legal definition of a Functional Urban Areas yet. So there are no criteria to evaluate and confirm
the status of FUA’s.
In the ESPON study 1.1.1 ‘Potentials for polycentric development in Europe’, as many as 59 functional
urban areas are identified: Bucharest, 40 county seats and 18 cities which are secondary county seats. From
the spatial-economic perspective this number seems way too high, specifically in the context of
demographic shrink.
Based on international literature and experience within the Netherlands, we suggest using the concept of
Daily Urban System (DUS) as an alternative to arrive at a useful and pragmatic definition for FUA’s. We
define a DUS as an urban core (main center/city/community) and its direct surroundings in which there are
many functional relationships on a day to day basis. Usually this is made operational by looking at the
work-living-leisure relationships as illustrated by origin-destination matrices. It is nearly impossible to
indicate a razor-sharp border where a functional urban area or DUS ends (presuming it starts in the center of
the main city). Pragmatically one could use a virtual circle of approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour travel
time around the urban core to define a DUS. And in order to limit the number of Functional Urban Areas it
is advised to define these FUA’s as the Daily Urban Systems of the growth and development poles only.
Appendix 1 ends with a lengthy step-by-step strategy to delimitate FUA’s, as drawn up by EOCD. It uses
commuting time as indicator.
2.4 Defining the sectors on which FUA cooperation should focus
The Romanian territorial and urban planning system is based on plans regulating mainly the land-use and
construction characteristics aspects, but there are no clear and formal links to economic development plans
on a regional or local level. Often the economic strategies of cities and regions in Romania are focusing on
opportunities as they come by without a clear vision and strategy for the future. Planning of investments and
growth in the last 7 years has been organized mainly in the framework of the Integrated Development Plans
(PIDUs) which was related to the opportunities linked to the funding under the Regional Operational
18
Program and other OP’s. More strategic oriented economic planning is required on smaller territorial level
than the national one.
Taking in consideration the Romanian territorial and urban planning system, the socio-economic aspects and
the Functional Urban Areas we consider it necessary to focus the attention of FUA development in Romania
on:
1. Economic development
2. Mobility (including public transport)
3. Spatial planning (including housing)
4. Implementation structures
With this recommendation, we follow the ideas of the World Bank in their report on the competitiveness of
Romanian cities: “As such, it is important that larger economic and urban zones are designated as such.
This will enable more strategic planning of public investments and provide a more coherent framework for
policymaking. In sum, national authorities in Romania should identify and define the larger urban zones in
the country, and consider the opportunity of having metropolitan management – even if only for specific
issues (e.g., urban planning, or the development of transport infrastructure at the metropolitan level).”5
5
‘Competitive Cities, reshaping the economic geography of Romania’ World Bank , Ministry of Regional Development and
Tourism, The Ministry of Economic Affairs, Romania, 2013, p.54
19
3. EXAMPLES AND BEST PRACTICES FROM THE NETHERLANDS
The Netherlands has three legal governmental levels: community/municipality, province and national
government, each with its own responsibilities. E.g. As regards the spatial planning the Dutch national
government draws a strategic national plan. The provinces detail this plan to a more concrete level. The final
decision making of what exactly is built where, is taken on a local level. This local plan has a binding legal
status.
Officially every ‘higher’ governmental level (province over local government; national government over
province) has the power to overrule the other level, but in practice this power is hardly used, as the common
understanding and feeling is that it is more beneficial and workable when relations are amiable: the need for
collaboration in order to overcome challenges is constant, power structures can change over time or for
another issue; a supporter can turn into an opponent and an opponent can turn into an ally.
Waterboards are separate governmental bodies with the specific task of controlling the qualitative and
quantitative aspects of water.
While this working relation accounts for governmental bodies, approximately the same could be stated for
NGO’s and other involved stakeholders for specific issues. Their involvement in the (early stages of the)
planning process is taken into account thoroughly. The reasoning behind this is that for the process as a
whole, it is more beneficial, being it for content of the plan, as for its final approval and implementation of
the plan in a later stage. So, on most issues (even where big differences occur in vision) a consensus or a
conclusion where other visions have a place is looked for.
Only for issues with national relevance (e.g. a main freight transport line) this power is being used, but never
without (some sort of) compensation of other stakeholders’ complaints/wishes.
3.1 WGR+
Due to ever growing travel distances (especially for work), the regionalization of the housing market,
transport market, planning of work areas (offices, factories), in the 1990s the Dutch parliament decided to
create, in eight dedicated urban areas/conglomerations, a mixture of cities and provinces: ‘cityprovinces’.
This incentive was turned into a law ‘Wet Gemeenschappelijke Regelingen-Plus (WGR+): Law for
Common Regulation - Plus. Due to this name, the regions also were called ‘Plusregions’, or Cityregions.
The eight regions are: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht, Enschede/Hengelo (regio Twente),
Eindhoven, Arnhem/Nijmegen and Heerlen/Parkstad.
20
The background for all this is that the economic performance of regions improves due to better cooperation
and overcoming/ preventing possible regional imbalances and (unwanted/unneeded) competition.
On a governance level, this creates an extra level of administration, although both the decision making
processes as well as the number of supporting staff are generally speaking rather light or small. As the board
of the Plusregion is not directly elected by the inhabitants, some critics call it a layer with a democratic
deficit. But as the board of a Cityregion is elected by the aldermen of the participating municipalities, the
election can be labelled ‘indirectly democratic’.
Apart from the spatial coordination on a regional level, the Cityregions have other legal tasks for the
economic development:
- Developing a regional-economic development strategy/vision periodically
- Setting up policy for industrial sites, office sites and retail that have importance on a regional level
- A regional promotion- and acquisition strategy, aimed at attracting companies and tourists
Besides this, a regional policy for development areas may have rules for acquisition, maintenance and
distribution of space, building/construction of utilities and how the investments are shared amongst the
municipalities.
Other (voluntary) tasks taken up by cityregions are:
- Drawing up agreements for spatial development and funding
- Regional funds: besides the official task of managing a regional fund for transport investments (in
which money from the national government is being put), the cityregion can start other funds also,
e.g. for strategic spatial projects
- Monitoring: mostly used for monitoring of the housing developments and hectares of needed and
developed business areas.
21
- Regional project office or pool of project leaders: implementing the regional vision/strategy can be
led by project leaders who can work for several municipalities, when working from ‘shared-services’
on regional level.
In 2008 a third (6,4 million) of all Dutch inhabitants lived in one of the eight ‘Cityregions’, in 112
municipalities. The national government in 2009 paid 1,741 billion euro’s to the eight regions, for specific
tasks, e.g. transport and infrastructure.
The costs of projects and operations varied from 13 million (Amsterdam) to 30 million (Eindhoven) in 2009.
The majority of the costs is paid by the municipalities, apart from the contribution of the province.
Voluntary cooperation on a regional level
Legal instruments are, according to the (former) director of one of the Cityregions Jaap Modder, not a
decisive factor for success. The regional level needs flexible guiding instruments with a less internally
binding and a more inviting external character. In such a sphere, there is more space for input from and
influence by ‘society’ and NGO’s, e.g. in debates, design workshops and/or policy making itself to reach
some form of consensus.
Voluntary regional cooperation is based on content driven cooperation in open relational networks of public
and private parties, aimed at implementation -at the same time making use of several ways to record
agreements and projects. Modern practice proves that cooperation between public and private parties is
necessary and wanted.
The cityregion can also act as a mediator, e.g. when municipalities disagree on specific topics, or even as
facilitator for cross-border area development. The cityregion has a role that goes beyond the municipal
borders. In this role it can facilitate and organize ‘debates’ between municipalities, but also between NGO’s,
private parties and citizens. It can also act as a ‘common voice’ in the media, to explain new visions, wishes,
ideas on spatial development, which could attract (private) parties that might be interested to invest.
The regional level can also function as a platform for effective cooperation between public parties,
knowledge institutes, and entrepreneurs, where regional innovation nuclei are developed. Cityregions were
‘invented’ to serve and further develop the spatial-economic developments network relations with e.g.
knowledge institutes and entrepreneurs are needed.
The current national government of The Netherlands has ended the ‘Cityregions’ from Jan 1 2015 onwards,
arguing that a topic must be decided on at a maximum of two governmental levels. This is debatable.
Nevertheless, voluntary cooperation is still is possible.
22
3.2 Examples
Example 1: City Region of Amsterdam (Stadsregio Amsterdam)
The Stadsregio Amsterdam ('City Region of Amsterdam') is a partnership between 16 municipalities in the
Amsterdam region (Amsterdam, Zaanstad, Haarlemmermeer, Amstelveen, Purmerend, Aalsmeer, Edam-
Volendam, Uithoorn, Diemen, Waterland, Wormerland, Ouder-Amstel, Landsmeer, Oostzaan, Beemster,
Zeevang). These municipalities work together in the sphere of spatial development, traffic and transport,
economic affairs and housing. De Stadsregio focuses on direct results for participating municipalities in the
form of improvements to quality of life, accessibility and economic development. The total amount of
inhabitants is 1.406.500.
De Stadsregio encourages cooperation between municipalities and promotes the interests of the region at
upper government level. De Stadsregio also strives towards an efficient and customer-oriented way of
working.
Tasks
The Stadsregio has a number of statutory tasks such as implementing the national housing policy, acting as a
commissioning authority for public transport and subsidizing regional infrastructure.
23
It is also dedicated to the acquirement of investment grants. The harmonization of municipal plans helps to
create a greater willingness on the part of the national and European government as well as the business
community to invest in the region.
When participant municipalities so require, the Stadsregio can play a role in partnerships with other
authorities or social organizations. It is for example represented in BONroute, in the Platform
Bereikbaarheid Noordvleugel, in the partnership between authorities from the urban conurbation situated in
the west of the Netherlands (Regio Randstad) and the Regionale Samenwerking Amsterdam (Regional
Cooperation Amsterdam).
The Stadsregio has set out its work program in the Regional Agenda for 2010-2030. This comprises
activities such as:
• Deployment of the regional development program: the Regional Structure Vision forms the basis of
future regional spatial policy. Included therein are regional projects for housing construction, infrastructure,
business parks, parks and recreational areas for the next decades. The Stadsregio is intent on promoting
regional cooperation with respect to land policy in order to support spatial planning. This involves, amongst
other things, the development of business locations, housing locations, parks and recreational areas.
• Improving accessibility and deployment of the Regional Traffic and Transportation Plan: this plan
aims to boost accessibility and quality of life in the Amsterdam region. The plan comprises policies relating
to infrastructure, public transport, RegioNet, road safety, location policy, traffic junctions and bicycle traffic.
It sets out priorities in policy and subsidizing. The Stadsregio is also responsible for the operation of urban
and regional transport in the Amsterdam region. As a commissioning authority, the Stadsregio grants
concessions to transport companies, giving them the exclusive right to provide public transport within a
particular area.
• Formulating and deployment of a regional economic development strategy: a healthy and

differentiated economy with international competitive power is the aim of the Stadsregio. The mechanisms
through which this can be achieved are laid down in the regional economic strategy, called OPERA. It
contains policy and projects, e.g. joint coordination of the development of business locations, a regional
promotion and acquisition policy towards industry, a regional tourist policy and measures to strengthen the
regional knowledge infrastructure.
• A regional housing policy: the housing market operates at a regional level. Therefore the Stadsregio
sets out a policy on housing in the region. The Stadsregio also regularly carries out studies on trends in
supply and demand. A coherent housing policy is also formulated whereby attention is paid to the quality of
the housing supply, the differentiation of housing environments, housing allocation, restructuring and
monitoring of developments in the housing market.
• Maintaining the quality of the landscape and reinforcing the urban 'green structure'
24
Organization
The highest body within the Stadsregio Amsterdam is the Regional Council; it has 56 seats. The
administrative bodies of the Stadsregio municipalities choose their own representatives for this council. The
council convenes four times a year. The Executive Committee comprises aldermen and mayors from the
Amsterdam region. The chairperson is the mayor of Amsterdam. The Portfolio Holders Councils comprise
alderman or mayors from the municipalities. There is a Portfolio Holders Council for the Physical
Environment (spatial development, economic affairs and housing), Traffic and Transport, Youth Care and
General Affairs. The Portfolio Holders provide important recommendations to the Executive Committee.
It also has several Advisory Committees (chosen from the Council), e.g. for the Regional Housing Policy,
Regional Economic Development Strategy
Public transport vision
Example 2: Eindhoven Cityregion (Samenwerkingsverband Regio Eindhoven/ SRE)
The cityregion Eindhoven (SRE) is located between the economic centers of the Dutch Randstad
conurbation, the Ruhr conurbation of Central Germany, and Brussels and Antwerp in Belgium. The region
covers an area of 1370 km², representing 3.3% of the total area of the Netherlands, in 21 municipalities. The
region has 725,000 inhabitants and 32,000 businesses. The region includes the municiplaities Eindhoven,
Helmond, Veldhoven, Geldrop-Mierlo, Deurne, Valkenswaard, Best, Gemert-Bakel, Nuenen, Laarbeek,
Cranendonck, Bladel, Someren, Eersel, Bergeijk, Oirschot, Waalre, Asten, Son en Breugel, Heeze-Leende,
Reusel-De Mierden. The economic structure is characterized by the presence of a high quality high-tech
industrial base, and a service sector which is continuously undergoing steady growth.
The SRE is known in the Netherlands as the Industrial Mainport. Key industrial clusters include
mechatronics, the automotive industry and electronics. New sectors are industrial distribution,
environmental technology, medical technology and information technology. Research and development
activities are particularly prevalent in the region. Of the total amount spent annually on research and
25
development in the Netherlands, some 50% goes to the Eindhoven Region. The slogan for the Eindhoven
region is therefore justifiably "Leading in Technology". The presence of a sound industrial base and high
quality service sector calls for an excellent regional infrastructure. Eindhoven is located at the hub of a
number of international transport routes. The region is highly accessible by road, rail and air (Eindhoven
International Airport).
Besides this excellent physical infrastructure, the region also has a consistent knowledge infrastructure,
being home to a large number of centers of knowledge, all of which have an influence which extends far
beyond the region. These include the Eindhoven University of Technology, Fontys Hogescholen, the
Innovation Center, TNO Center for Industrial Research, the Center for Microelectronics, the Frits Philips
Institute for Quality Management, the Mikrocentrum Nederland and the High Tech Campus.
Tasks and Competences
The SRE looks after the common interests of the municipalities in the region, for example in the field of
spatial planning, traffic and transport, housing, the environment, recreation and tourism, education, health,
culture and socio-economic affairs. The purpose is to bring about a balanced development of the region, in
which there are rural districts in addition to a clearly defined urban district, each with its own set of
problems and opportunities. The Regional Council task is to define town and country planning, an
environmental policy plan and a socio-economic policy plan.
Implementation is left to the municipalities. However, there are some large-scale regional projects under the
control of the SRE, mainly recreational projects.
The region is known for its close cooperation between research institutes, knowledge intensive companies,
high-end production companies and an innovative agro-food complex – all this in close cooperation with
public authorities that support and stimulate companies and their cooperation. In 2011 the region was voted
‘smartest region in the world’.
A large area of over 3.000 hectares next to one of the most heavily trafficked highways in The Netherlands
(A2), is developed – under the monger ‘Brainport Avenue - as settlement for high tech knowledge and
production industry (Philips, NXP, ASML, FEI, TomTom, Technical University Eindhoven etc.).
In order to be the most effective in convincing companies to settle down in the region, a 1-counter policy has
been developed. Also for issues like balancing demand and supply on the labor market, a regional strategy is
followed, which brings together educational organizations (high schools, schools for advanced education,
universities), companies and governments. A smart region needs smart people, so excellent education
facilities are a regional priority.
General support for municipalities and companies (large, SME) is available in the form of subsidies (e.g. for
projects that stimulate the regional economy), development service (advice given to public bodies, NGO’s,
clusters of companies etc.) for e.g. financing opportunities and management. A specific subsidy is dedicated
for mobility projects, to improve connectivity and accessibility within municipalities, e.g. for transport,
safety and cycling routes.
26
4. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
In the previous paragraphs it has been shown that cities play a vital role in creating and/or facilitating
economic growth. Therefore, the RTDS should strengthen the spatial-economic position of urban
agglomerations. And within the Romanian context of a decreasing population, this is even more important.
How could the Romanian government proceed with the idea of creating FUA’s and giving them an
important role in the RTDS? This is the subject of the paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3. Before that, 4.1 is devoted to
answering the question whether the Dutch examples could be followed in Romania.
4.1 Applicability in the Romanian context
In the previous chapter we have highlighted several examples of cooperation on functional urban scale from
The Netherlands. There are some essential elements in the Dutch context which have made it possible for
the Dutch city regions to increase their economic performance:
1) Awareness at the local political level that economic performance of regions improve by better
cooperation
2) Strategic vision documents/ strategic development agenda’s for the city regions on economy,
mobility, spatial development and other specific issues relevant for the city regions
3) Financial support from the central government (WGR+ law) on key policies and projects
4) An implementation oriented approach, creating tangible outputs with added value on city-region
scale
The possibilities for implementation of the same ‘model’ in the Romanian context is apparent. All
conditions are present in Romania to justify additional efforts for cooperation on the scale of functional
urban areas.
1) Awareness. Local politicians can be introduced to the benefits (and urgency) of cooperation on larger
scale through various means: training, missions, campaigning. However it will help if the benefits
are made clear in their own context and supported by a Romanian pilot with concrete results.
2) Strategic vision documents/ strategic development agenda’s can assist in awareness raising and
setting clear and joint development agendas on city region scale. The costs of making strategic vision
documents are not high. If the quality of the vision and proposed tools for implementation are
realistic and custom made to each city region (and not of a copy / paste quality), the economic and
social benefits for city regions can be substantial. Romania is becoming more and more aware of the
usefulness of strategic planning documents. However, local politicians must be supported in seeing
the benefits of strategic planning processes. This could be done by setting up national support
schemes and stimulating participation in European funded programs and projects on this topic. The
national government could highlight the need for good strategic planning documents on local level
and give financial incentives to stimulate this.
27
3) Financial support from the national authorities is a political decision. However, the roll-out of the
functional urban area concept is close to the priorities of the European development agenda.
Therefore, EU funds could be allocated to support the implementation of this concept. Next to this,
the national authorities could create financial and legal support measures (like the Dutch WGR+) to
stimulate planning and investments on city region scale.
4) Romania is ready for a more result oriented approach in urban development. The past seven years,
the urban development investments have been oriented towards EU funds via so-called PIDU’s.
Roll-out of the functional urban areas concept within the current Romanian institutional setting could
give a quality boost to local development initiatives and increase future independency on external aid
schemes.
The logical next step is to think of implementation. What should be arranged within the RTDS to foster the
position of urban agglomerations? And what geographical scale and governmental level(s) would be
optimal?
It is relevant to distinguish here between the short and the long term. For the short term there are no regret
policy options that are feasible within the current legislation. While on the long run, one can even think of
changes in terms of governmental levels, different models for voluntary or obligatory cooperation between
local authorities, changes in the tax system etc. However, not all those steps will be necessary or feasible.
4.2 Short term no regret policy options
4.2.1 Concentration
In terms of spatial policy, the concept of concentration of spatial developments forms an essential building
block in a strategy that strives for strengthening the position of cities. By concentration it is meant that (the
larger) developments – housing, business sites, leisure and retail initiatives, major infrastructural projects –
are prioritized in favor of cities or functional urban areas. Literature or empirical research does not give a
clear picture of what would be an optimal level of spatial concentration. It is clear however, that in Romania
the economic development is hampered by a lack of spatial concentration. Especially in the situation of
demographic decrease, the number of cities to focus on should be limited.
There are several logical and legal frameworks for defining the FUAs. First it is emphasized that economic
and societal coherence – in terms of a Daily Urban System – is considered to be the most logical starting
point from the perspective6 of content. A general definition establishes it as the area of a regional central city
and a travel radius around of approximately 45-60 minutes.
From the legal perspective the Romanian government has two different possibilities of defining FUAs:
considering the growth and development poles as basis for potential FUAs (or a selection of them) or using
the existing and developing Metropolitan zones (11 existing and 5 in developments) as the basis for FUA’s.
Although this is primarily a political question, the latter do seems to be the most relevant as MA have a large
6
The ESPON definition of a FUA could be an alternative, but leaves to much room for FUA’s that are too small to be of major
influence on regional economic development and is therefore discarded by the authors of this paper.
28
overlap with the growth poles, are (still) somewhat limited in numbers and have already (some kind of)
cooperation established.
4.2.2 Voluntary cooperation
The functional urban area is a relevant scale for fostering the development of urban systems. In general,
functional urban areas consist of a center city and surrounding communities. For a coherent spatial and
economic development this implies a need for cooperation between the different local authorities involved.
In the current legislation there is only one option for formal cooperation between local authorities, the
development intra-community associations ((DIA) – Law 215/2001). It is a voluntary but formal form with
the limitations described previously in the report
In addition to or even as a substitute, voluntary cooperation between local authorities is a feasible and
worthwhile option to explore. It starts with the recognition of mutual interests and interdependency.
Generally the city offers facilities relevant for the surrounding community as well (e.g. hospital, secondary
or tertiary education, culture/theatre, shopping areas etc.). Usually the urban core plays an important role for
the regional economic development. People living in the surrounding areas may commute to the central city,
either by public or private transportation. The periphery offers more spacious housing possibilities, ‘green’
recreational facilities or may represent a solution for a lack of space for certain functions within the
boundary of the central town.
In terms of housing, labor market and transport, it is clear that demand and supply are relevant on a regional
scale. That implies that both the central city and the surrounding communities much to gain by a coherent
spatial development and cooperation on planning (of housing, business sites, transport infrastructure, public
transportation).
For services, e.g. waste collection, there are in general economies of scale that form a driver behind seeking
cooperation between local authorities. For public transportation there are economies based on an improved
network, which may lead to a better quality as well as lower costs. But the latter advantages are less direct,
so it might be tempting for local authorities to stick to sub-optimal systems and less coordinated planning.
In the end voluntary cooperation between local authorities on the level of a FUA requires a willingness to
cooperate and to recognize win-win-situations. It helps if the central city does not have a ‘winner takes all’
attitude. An obvious drawback of voluntary cooperation is that agreements are not easily reached and that as
a result decisions procedures take a lot of time (this is also the case for the DIA’s). However, many argue
that it fits quite well in a knowledge intensive society, where persuasion must come from convincing
arguments and not so much from power. But it has its limitations, specifically in terms of financial
contributions. It is tempting for the surrounding suburbs or villages to have the central town pay for the
services that are to the benefit of the FUA as a whole. This is a clear limitation to voluntary cooperation. It is
added that in this paper the focus is on spatial-economic development. There are other drawbacks of or
doubts on voluntary cooperation, e.g. about the democratic control of DIA’s, but not much attention is paid
to that here.
29
4.2.3 Smart Specialization
The RTDS should contribute to creating favorable conditions for functional urban areas. Whether or not the
number of FUAs to be distinguished is small or large, the FUA-concept also implies a polycentric approach
for Romania. In a polycentric approach some level of competition for economic activities between regions
and cities may be inevitable and even have some positive effects. It is advisable to develop possibilities of
creating different profiles to the market and to limit competition for e.g. scarce infrastructure.
To some extent, this specialization is literally natural: e.g. the logistic hub function for Constanta is of
course connected to its position at the Black Sea (and the connection to the Danube by the Danube-Black
Sea Canal). But in other cases, e.g. the strong position of the electronics industry in Cluj – it is due to other
factors, in this case the skilled population/universities.
The European Commission has introduced the term ‘Smart Specialization Strategy’ or Regional innovation
Strategy for Smart Specialization (RIS3). The general reasoning behind the RIS3 is that within a Europe of
the regions, only strong clusters will survive or will be able to add growth potential to the EU economy. The
corollary is that a policy strategy as in “our region is excellent in everything” is no longer viable. A RIS3
can be of help as well for prioritizing public investment in infrastructure and facilities.
The RTDS is not the place to develop a RIS3 (neither on a national nor a regional level). However, it would
be relevant to ask FUAs to develop a RIS3 (if they haven’t done so already) in order to direct public
investments (as mentioned earlier). The RIS3 then could and should serve as a basis for the selection of key
economic projects, with a clear focus on a specific cluster. It is therefore desirable that in the RTDS the
FUAs are compelled or stimulated to strive for a coherent approach in terms of spatial policy, economic
strategy and mobility.
4.2.4 Coherent spatial and transport policy
Spatial policy and transport policy are or at least have to be interrelated. By concentrating on FUAs three
relevant levels are improved: international accessibility, connectivity between FUAs and the connectivity
within FUAs. While the first two should represent priorities on a national level (national government) and be
coherent with European TEN-T plans. The third one, regional connectivity and accessibility is, or should be,
the responsibility of the FUA itself. Here, the voluntary cooperation should play the main part, together with
a more formal voluntary cooperation as Intercommunity Development Associations (IDA) – Law 215/2001.
By limiting the number of FUA’s in the RTDS, the infrastructural agenda in terms of priorities is reduced as
well. This is an extra argument behind the concentration thesis.
Improving accessibility for different modes of transport is a basic requirement for further economic
development of a FUA.
30
Spatial policy itself does not require large scale investments (the implementation however, e.g. in terms of
infrastructure, does!). However, there is no obligation for making a spatial vision on the level of the FUA.
And in the Romanian governmental culture, it is not straightforward to make such a plan voluntarily and to
accept it at a local level as to be of major influence on actual planning decisions.
4.2.5 Financing/Funding (short term)
So even on the level of this basic requirement, cooperation might fail. One possibility is that the national or
a future regional authority contributes financially to the spending costs of drawing such a spatial plan.
Another, perhaps more sophisticated way, would be to create some financial ‘carrots’ for FUAs to set such a
step. The aforementioned ITI could well serve as the plan as well as the financial ‘carrot’ (because it creates
access to the EU-funding). That is a necessity when it comes to the implementation of spatial plans –
especially regarding infrastructure and public transport (facilities for as well as the service itself) – because
then substantial amounts of money are involved.
4.2.6 Supporting soft skills
As mentioned before, cooperation between local authorities requires a different attitude, at the level of the
local boards, councils and the civil servants of the local authorities. E.g. it requires strong aldermen that
explain to their council that they support plans if it they are good for the FUA as a whole, even if there is no
(direct) benefit for their community. This requires awareness and (soft) skills – e.g. learning how to set up
so-called mutual gains processes - on different levels. Within the current legislation framework, the central
government might facilitate e.g. training of these skills and raise the awareness among FUA stakeholders of
the relevance of this difference in attitude and the qualities it demands from people.
4.3 Long run implementation strategy
Theoretically, the short term options of the preceding paragraph could turn out to be sufficient for economic
development and integrated mobility solutions for functional urban areas. Specifically, the combination of
selecting FUAs (as mentioned preferably the Metropolitan zones) and creating priority access to the EU-
Funds – whether this is in the form of an ITI or in a different way – will at least create the opportunity for
FUAs to proceed and develop. However, it is likely that the main drawbacks – slow decision processes due
to the unanimity demand, lack of financial means at the FUA-level, current difficulties for eligibility to EU-
funds, and to a lesser extent the questions regarding democratic control – will not be overcome completely.
As has been demonstrated, this discussion is not unique or limited to Romania solely. In other EU Member
States there is a continuous debate on the optimal form for regional governance for functional urban areas:
e.g. to the governance discussions over the decades for Greater London, or the rather indecisive and up and
down moving discussion on this topic in The Netherlands. It is worthwhile stressing that no optimal solution
31
does exist; making the best for the region within the limitations of a given set of governmental structures
seems to be a pragmatic approach anyway. That does not mean that there is nothing left to be desired or
improved. On the contrary, in the following the lines are drawn for further improving the position of FUA’s.
When looking from the Dutch experience to the policy challenges in Romania, it is advised to strengthen the
legal position of the FUAs (to be defined) first, specifically if the Metropolitan Zones are going to be the
target group. They should have a clear legal entity status and this legal entity should be eligible to EU-funds
in the same way as the local administrations.
A second step would be to change the voluntary participation in the FUA’s (written with the Metropolitan
Zones in mind) to an obligatory one. It is a logical step to combine this with an obligatory financial
contribution from the local communities. Still this could lead to a very limited availability of funds for the
FUA. However, if by then EU-funding is still a relevant issue (if the funds still exist and are accessible for
Romania) there is the incentive that more own FUA-funding may lead to higher EU-leverage.
A third step would be to allow specific taxation by the FUA. Following the old saying “no taxation without
representation”, this might also lead to a need for a change in the governmental system. It is clear that this
step is a very big one that may even demand changes in the Constitution. There are arguments pro and
against this idea. For tax systems to function optimally, it is good to have them as close to the level where
the benefits are. However, increasing taxation in general is harmful to economic development. In terms of
democratic control an additional regional level might be desirable, but in terms of bureaucracy it might
become an extra barrier. There are radical alternatives available here as well; in Denmark for instance, the
size of local governments has been increased while the regional/provincial level was abolished.
32
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1
It is recommended to use the concept of FUA’s as one of the main implementing strategies in the RTDS.
It is advised to limit the number of FUA’s to the growth poles and (maybe) the development poles, to foster
spatial concentration and come to a selective economic growth policy that strengthens the positions of the
major cities and their surroundings. In defining the FUA’s a pragmatic approach is suggested by using Daily
Urban Systems of the core cities as the borders, to be operationalized by a maximum travel radius of
approximately 45 to 60 minutes from the urban core.
Recommendation 2
In order to strengthen implementation, it is recommended that the FUA’s should be given priority access to
the EU-funds with or accompanied by a dedicated program at national level aimed at financing projects of
metropolitan interest. The current ideas as expressed in the draft Partnership Agreement are well in line with
this recommendation. From the Dutch perspective and taking the Romanian context into account it is
advised to limit the possibility for the ITI’s to the Metropolitan Zones (and, perhaps, the Danube Delta, but
that is of a completely different kind). The FUA should not become a third governance level. It should
remain a model based on voluntary cooperation accompanied by flexible instruments on sub-regional level
with the main aim to implement projects that have a sub-regional impact
Recommendation 3
It is recommended to bring more focus into the cooperation on FUA-level and to narrow down the themes in
the ITI-agenda. The advantages in terms of flexibility that the broad agenda in the PA offers for the ITI is
understood and might be realistic given the uncertainties that are naturally attached to the long programming
and implementation period (in total 9 years). However, to demonstrate their added value it is recommended
that the FUA’s concentrate on spatial planning (mostly housing policies), economic development and
improving accessibility/mobility.
Recommendation 4
It is recommended the national authorities clearly stipulate the qualifications, competences, duties and rights
of the Functional Urban Areas in order to access ITI funds. FUA’s (in practice being Metropolitan Areas/
Associations of Intercommunity Development) need to demonstrate that they have the capacity and
cooperation strength among the authorities in the FUA to coordinate and implement (ITI) projects on a sub-
regional scale. For instance, if a FUA requests support for an investment in the metropolitan transportation
system, the FUA should demonstrate the cost-benefit and socio-economic impact of the investment on sub-
regional level. Next to that, they should demonstrate the capacity to implement such a large project on a sub-
regional level; this means that all involved and affected municipalities should commit in writing to this
project. Also a clear plan to maintain the investment on long term and responsibilities among authorities
33
should be clarified per project. If FUA’s can demonstrate this competence, then the National Authorities
should empower the FUA’s to implement these projects on the FUA’s scale.
Recommendation 5
The Romanian government could consider the possibility for the most relevant FUA’s (e.g. 7 growth poles
and Bucharest) to oblige to coordinate the planning of investments that are relevant on FUA level in the field
of economy, mobility and spatial planning. For the other Metropolitan Areas, also the possibility should
exist to apply for ITI investment on FUA’s scale, however, they should not be obliged to do that, but fulfill
the criteria set under recommendation 4 first.
The FUA’s could be obliged to make an economic analysis and investment agenda on FUA scale, including
mobility planning on scale and a realistic demographic and housing study on sub-regional/ FUA scale.
Currently, mobility and housing studies are done as part of local planning documents (PUG’s, PUZ’s). More
coordination on these planning documents is needed. The studies and implementation plans should be
obliged to serve as application documents for the ITI’s.
Recommendation 6
The FUA’s will have to be able to create a lean and mean but highly effective team, to start implementing
the regional development strategy. It is recommended that the national government supports the forming of
these (small) teams by partially financing them, while the remaining funding (out of pocket or ‘in kind’)
comes from the region, taking into account the possibility to use the Technical Assistance as well.
34
6. ROADMAP (preliminary)
The following steps could be made in order to further work on the Functional Urban Areas concept in
Romania.
In the short run (perhaps first half of 2014):
1. Clearly delimitate the number of the Functional Urban Areas. Our suggestion is to limit the first
group of identified (and supported) FUA’s to the growth poles and development poles.
2. In order to delimitate the size of the FUA, a study on the needs for the economy, mobility and spatial
development within the first set of identified FUA’s could be carried out, in order to have a similar
methodology and starting point for all FUA’s.
3. On the base of the outcomes of the study, the FUA’s should try to institutionalize the cooperation, on
the base of voluntary cooperation tools. The national authority will make financial support available
for this.
4. A national support scheme for institutional assistance of the functional urban areas need to set up.
Under this support scheme, majors and civil servants are trained on cooperation, identifying mutual
gains and management of project on city-region scale.
5. The national authority will create support schemes to financially and legally support the development
of joint strategy documents for the FUA’s as well as the implementation of the top 10 identified key-
projects of the FUA’s. possibly this support scheme is linked to the EU funding opportunities *ITI’s)
Followed by (possibly in the second half of 2014):
6. The FUA’s will start to develop joint development agenda’s on the base of the needs analysis carried
out in the first half of the year. The development agenda’s need to focus on economy, mobility and
spatial development. If FUA choose to cooperate on more topics, they are free to do so. The national
authority will financially support the creation of these strategic development agenda’s. (see point 5).
7. The National authority will incorporate the necessary changes to legal and financial regulations to
safeguard implementation of the strategic agenda’s on city-region level.
And next steps (from 2015 onwards):
8. Implementation of city-region projects. Each project should have a clear social cost-benefit analysis
on city-region scale as part of the feasibility study.
35
ANNEX 1: European policy documents relevant for strategic vision
Sustainable urban development, integrated policy, polycentric developments are concepts of urban
development that in the new period of the Structural Funds are core elements. These concepts are for
decades already at the heart of European spatial policy, quite recently companied by concepts as Functional
Urban Areas.
A short overview
The spatial policy documents from the EU from 1999 onwards, all have in common that they want to
promote sustainable urban development. The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), approved
by the Informal Council of Ministers of Spatial Planning of European Commission in Potsdam in 1999, is a
legally non-binding document forming a policy framework with 60 policy options for all tiers of
administration with a planning responsibility. The strategic aim is to achieve a balanced and sustainable
spatial development strategy.
With the aim to provide an integrated, multi-sectorial and indicative strategy for the spatial development, the
key ideas of ESDP are:
 an integrated approach - not just to look at specific sectors of development activity (e.g.
environment, economic development, or transport), but to recognize that they all affect each other;
 spatial development - a much wider view of the development, vital for integrative approach;
 strategic aspects - interlinked actions to achieve balanced and sustainable territorial development;
 indicative views - the responsibility lies with the developed regions and territories to implement the
development principals.
One of the core elements of sustainable urban development is the concept of a polycentric urban system, as
almost all activities are spread over a much wider area than in the past. One of the drivers for this is the ever
faster urban, regional and interregional transport system. Spatial development, transport and economic
performance of urbanized areas are heavily interlinked and rely on excellent accessibility. The EU Green
Paper on Sustainable Transport (2007) therefore puts emphasis on 'Promoting integrated policies'; as the
paper says 'An integrated approach can best deal with the complexity of urban transport systems, the
governance issues and the links between cities and their surrounding areas or regions, the interdependence
between transport modes, the limitations within urban space and the role of urban systems in the wider
European transport system. An integrated approach is not only needed for the development of transport
infrastructure and services, but also for policy making to link transport with environment protection13,
healthy environments, land use planning, housing, social aspects of accessibility and mobility as well as
industrial policy.'
Therefore the promotion of integrated transport and communication concepts, which support the polycentric
development of the EU territory, so that there is gradual progress towards parity of access to infrastructure
and knowledge.
36
An appropriate spatial development policy (public transport in towns, intermodal systems, shared
infrastructure) will allow an integrated approach to environmental pressures arising from greater mobility,
traffic congestion and land use.
An aspect of the development of a polycentric and balanced urban system is the strengthening of the
partnership between urban and rural areas, so as to create a new urban-rural relationship. This notion needs
an integrated approach at regional level and working together to solve insurmountable difficulties one by
one. This partnership will help define original options for development. It is sufficient to ensure a basic
supply of public services and transport and an effective improvement in land planning. The ESDP declares
that "to permit sustainable development, the integrated development strategies for towns and urban regions
must cope with several major challenges:
 expanding the strategic role of the metropolitan regions and the "gateway cities" giving access to
Union territory (large ports, intercontinental airports, trade fair and exhibition cities, world-scale
cultural centers) by paying particular attention to the peripheral regions;
 checking urban expansion by building on the idea of the "compact city" (short distances);
 improving the economic base by using the territory's specific potential and establishing innovative,
diversified and job-creating economic activities;
 promoting a mixture of functions and social groups, particularly in the largest urban areas, to combat
the social exclusion of part of the population and restructure and reuse areas in crisis and derelict
industrial land;
 managing waste and resources such as water, soil and energy intelligently, safeguarding the natural
and cultural heritage and expanding natural areas;
 making the areas concerned accessible using efficient and non-polluting transport.
Also The Leipzig Charter on Sustainable Cities (2007) recommended in a similar direction, to make
'greater use of integrated urban development policy approaches'. It defined "Integrated urban development
policy" as a process in which the spatial, sectorial and temporal aspects of key areas of urban policy are
coordinated. The involvement of economic actors, stakeholders and the general public is essential.
Integrated urban development policy is a key prerequisite for implementing the EU Sustainable
Development Strategy.
This integrated approach requires, first of all, the adoption of a holistic approach and thinking. This means
replacing the usual sector or one-dimensional approaches with new transversal or multidimensional ones,
aligning different policy areas and resources.
This holistic approach also means thinking and working –and allocating resources in consequence- on all the
multiple dimensions of sustainability — economic, social, cultural and environmental — at the same time, in
such a way that the actions undertaken in each of them will have a positive effect on the others, or at least
avoid them contradicting one another or having a negative effect on the others. The main future challenge
for urban policies is to be able to provide convergent answers with equal level of efficiency to the
environmental, social and economic questions raised in cities.
Putting this integrated approach into practice also means resolving conflicts, overcoming discrepancies or
interferences between the effects that each of these dimensions has on the others and finding compromises in
the line of the overall defined key guiding principles of the space. In order to do so, it seems necessary to
channel this shared commitment to deliver sustainable outcomes through establishing appropriate
37
coordination platforms and frameworks –whether formal or informal- for policies and actions: ‘transversal
coordination’ to make sector or one-dimensional approaches converge; ‘vertical coordination’ between all
administrative levels (EU/national/regional/intermediate/local), by means of new formulas and arrangements
for ‘multilevel governance’; and ‘horizontal coordination’ between all the actors involved in ‘city building’
(public authorities, property and financial sector, professionals, etc.) which combine top-down and bottom-
up approaches, and, most particularly, make public participation and involvement a truly effective reality.
The Leipzig Charter further stated that the "reconciliation of interests facilitated by an integrated urban
development policy forms a viable basis for a consensus between the state, regions, cities, citizens and
economic actors. By pooling knowledge and financial resources, scarce public funds can be more effectively
used. Public and private investments will be better coordinated. Integrated urban development policy
involves actors outside the administration and enables citizens to play an active role in shaping their
immediate living environment. Coordination at local and city-regional level should be strengthened. An
equal partnership between cities and rural areas as well as between small-, medium-sized and large towns
and cities within city-regions and metropolitan regions is the aim.
Strategies that the Leipzig Charter named crucial are amongst others:
1. Creating and ensuring high-quality public spaces, as it plays an important role in the living conditions of
urban populations. High quality public spaces are important soft locational factors, for attracting knowledge
industry businesses, a qualified and creative workforce and for tourism.
2. Modernizing infrastructure networks and improving energy efficiency, as they are an essential
contribution to the quality of life, locational quality and the quality of the environment can be made by
sustainable, accessible and affordable urban transport with coordinated links to the city-region transport
networks. Particular attention should be paid to traffic management and interlinking transport modes,
including cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. Urban transport must be reconciled with the different
requirements of housing, work areas, the environment and public spaces.
Also in this Charter the EU emphasizes a compact settlement structure, as it is an important basis for
efficient and sustainable use of resources. Spatial and urban planning are the most effective instruments to
achieve this, which prevents urban sprawl by strong control of land supply and of speculative development.
The strategy of mixing housing, employment, education, supply and recreational use in urban neighborhoods
has proved to be especially sustainable.
3. Proactive innovation and educational policies in the sense of integrated urban development strategies,
cooperative urban development management and good governance can contribute towards a purposeful use
of the potential of European cities particularly with regard to competitiveness and growth, as well as to
reducing disparities within and among neighborhoods. They provide citizens with an opportunity for social
and democratic participation. Good governance, based on the principles of openness, participation,
accountability, effectiveness, coherence and subsidiarity, is required in order to assure the successful
implementation of public policies, a more efficient and effective allocation of public resources and to
increase citizen’s direct participation, involvement, engagement and empowerment, considering that
citizens’ satisfaction and wellbeing is also key for the success of urban policies.
The Leipzig Charter also put emphasis on deprived neighborhoods within the context of the city as a whole;
it's aim was that national, regional and local governments would put more effort in "upgrading the physical
environment", but also "Strengthening the local economy and local labor market policy", Proactive
education and training policies for children and young people and Promotion of efficient and affordable
38
urban transport".
The Toledo Informal Ministerial Meeting on Urban Development Declaration (2010) took the visions
from the ESDP and Leipzig Charter (principles of integrated, smart, sustainable, cohesive, inclusive urban
development) further to make the link even more specific with "greater economic competitiveness, eco-
efficiency, social cohesion and civic progress in European cities, and to guarantee citizens’ quality of life
and welfare in the present and in the future."
Additional issues that came up during this meeting were the fight to overcome the crisis and (potentially life
threatening) issues like globalization, climate change, pressure on resources, migrations, ageing and
demographic change
The integrated urban development policy as described in the Leipzig Charter will not only facilitate an
integrated urban development policy but will also help to realize the Europe 2020 objectives and the EU
Sustainable Development Strategy. To achieve this, a genuine ‘green, ecological or environmental’
regeneration of cities must be undertaken, including such key issues as:
- reducing transport needs by the promotion of proximity and mixed-uses schemes, while at the same time
stimulating a more sustainable mobility (on an urban, metropolitan and interurban scale) by: prioritizing
non-motorized (‘walkable’, ‘cyclable’ cities)9, less pollutant means of transport, supporting affordable and
efficient public transport accessible for all-notably for deprived neighborhoods, where it can play a key role
in breaking its physical isolation-, and multimodal transport networks, and optimizing urban logistics;
- boosting energy efficiency in existing buildings, considering the physical conditions of the building stock;
as the Europe 2020 strategy has pointed out,, this field offers excellent opportunities not only for creating
new businesses and jobs but also for innovation and consolidating European leadership in this sector;
- improving the management of energy and material resources and flows in the city (urban metabolism),
including the whole water cycle, waste, etc., striving to close urban metabolic cycles locally and to reduce
the ecological footprint;
- promoting renewable energies and implementing them and their use in cities;
- recycling land (by means of urban regeneration, the redevelopment or reuse of abandoned, derelict or
unused areas, etc.) as a key strategy for contributing towards the reduction of land consumption and
therefore combating ‘urban sprawl’;
- protecting natural, landscape, forestry, water resources, agricultural areas, etc. around cities and
strengthening their links or articulation with cities (for example, with green belts and/or corridors connected
to and in continuity with the network of public parks and spaces), ‘re-greening’ the existing city, etc.
The Territorial Agenda 2020 (2011) had the objective to provide strategic orientations for territorial
development, fostering integration of territorial dimension within different policies at all governance levels
and to ensure implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy according to territorial cohesion principles.
Important were both the continuation of the 'ESDP/Leipzig vision', but also the extra emphasis on cross-
border and transnational cooperation. The Territorial Priorities for the Development of the European Union
are:
1. Polycentric and balanced territorial development
2. Integrated development in cities, rural and specific regions
3. Territorial integration in cross-border transnational functional regions
39
4.Global competitiveness of the regions based on strong local economies

5. Improving territorial connectivity for individuals, communities and enterprises
6. Managing and connecting ecological, landscape and cultural values of regions
The 'Territorial Keys' as to achieve the above are:

- Accessibility;
- Service of general economic interest;
- Territorial capacities/ endowments/assets;
- City networking;
- Functional regions. The functional regions are declared important for:
* the enlargement of local labor markets
* the critical mass of means through territorial cooperation
* the accessibility of secondary growth poles and regional centers
* public transport connections to regional centers
* compact cities (sustainable cities)
The definition of functional regions is not very well described in the TA2020, but can be linked to "a
functional labor market around cities (communing)"; the indicator used here is a time isochrones of 60 min
by public transport.
The OECD (2013) developed a Methodology to delimitate (OECD) Functional Urban Areas, with the
assumption that is only to be used in OECD countries, where it uses population density to identify urban
cores and travel-to-work flows to identify the hinterlands whose labor market is highly integrated with the
cores. The methodology consists of three main steps:
STEP 1. Identification of core municipalities through gridded population data:

In the first step of the procedure, the gridded population data are used to define urbanized areas or ‘urban
high-density clusters’ over the national territory, ignoring administrative borders since urban cores are
defined through gridded population data. The population grid data (1 km²) for European countries comes
from the Corine Land Cover dataset, produced by the Joint Research Center for the European Environmental
Agency (EEA). For all the non-European countries, gridded population data comes from the Landscan
project developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
An urban core consists of a high-density cluster of contiguous grid cells of 1 km2 with a density of at least
1,500 inhabitants per km2 and the filled gaps3. A lower threshold of 1,000 people for km2 is applied to
Canada and the United States, where several metropolitan areas develop in a less compact manner. Small
clusters (hosting less than 50,000 people in Europe, US, Chile and Canada, 100,000 people in Japan, Korea
and in Mexico) are dropped.
A municipality is defined as being part of an urban core if at least 50% of the population of the municipality
lives within the urban cluster.
STEP 2. Connecting non-contiguous cores belonging to the same functional urban area
The urban cores defined in STEP 1 are found to be good approximations of contiguous, highly built-up
surfaces. However, not all the urban areas in the OECD are characterized by contiguity in built-up
development. Many of them are developing in a polycentric way, hosting high densely inhabited cores that
are physically separated, but economically integrated. An important innovation of this methodology
40
identifies which urban areas have such a polycentric structure. This is done by simply looking at the
relationships among the urban cores, using the information contained in the commuting data. Two urban
cores are considered integrated, and thus part of the same polycentric metropolitan area, if more than 15% of
the residence population of any of the cores commutes to work in the other core. This step allows a
correction for possible discontinuities in population density within the same urban center (e.g. natural
surfaces larger than 1 km2 splitting one city in two parts).
STEP 3. Identification of the urban hinterlands

Once the densely inhabited municipalities are aggregated to form urban cores, and polycentric metro areas
with tied cores are identified, the final step of the methodology consists in delineating the hinterland of the
metro areas. The ‘hinterland’ can be defined as the “worker catchment area” of the urban labor market,
outside the densely inhabited core. The size of the hinterland, relative to the size of the core, gives clear
indications of the influence of cities over surrounding areas. Urban hinterlands are defined as all
municipalities with at least 15% of their employed residents working in a certain urban core. Municipalities
surrounded by a single functional urban area are included and non-contiguous municipalities are dropped.
41

Functional Urban Areas and Their Contribution To Economic Growth

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Functional Urban Areas and Their Contribution To Economic Growth

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

THE ROMANIAN TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Governmental to Government Project The Netherlands and Romania

THE ROMANIAN TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Functional Urban Areas and

The Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment,

Mrs. Antoinet SMITS, project coordinator, NL AGENCY Energy and Environment

Mr. Ge HUISMANS, senior advisor, NL AGENCY Energy and Environment

Mr. Joost HAGENS, expert, BUREAU BUITEN

Mr. Joep de ROO, coordinator DISC initiative, EURODITE

AID Associations for Inter-community Development

FUA Functional Urban Area

G2G Government to Government

IDA Intercommunity Development Associations

ITI ITI - Integrated Territorial Investments

MRDPA Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration

PPP Public Partner Partnership

PUD Details Urban Plan

PUG General Urban Plan

PUZ Zonal Urban Plan

RTDS Romanian Territorial Development Strategy

RUR Romanian Urban Planning Register

UD Urban (Planning) Documentation

ANNEX 1: European policy documents relevant for strategic vision ................................................................... 36

1.4 Economic development in relation to spatial planning

1.5 Demographics and economic performance in Romania

Figure 1. GDP per Capita across Counties in Romania, 2009

Figure. Evolution of the Romanian population between 1980- 2012

1.6 Evolution of the Romanian planning system

developers as much as possible. As a consequence cities have undergone a spontaneous, unregulated

Other aspects that have impact on the territory are:

1.7 Current Spatial Planning Systems in Romania

1. The Romanian Territorial Development Strategy (STDR)

The main territorial and urban planning laws in Romania are2:

1.7.1 Definitions in the Romanian legislation (law 350 / 2001)3

1.7.2 Polycentrism in Romania

1.8 Metropolitan areas

Photo source - page 45 in the Competitive Cities / WORLD BANK REPORT

2.1 Cities as drivers of innovation and economic growth

2.2 Strengthening Romanian urbanization

 Name the most promising/important cities-regions/conurbations/ FUA’s in Romania; put them on a

 Draw up integrated social-economic development strategies (spatial-infrastructure-economic drivers)

2.4 Defining the sectors on which FUA cooperation should focus

3. EXAMPLES AND BEST PRACTICES FROM THE NETHERLANDS

- Developing a regional-economic development strategy/vision periodically

Other (voluntary) tasks taken up by cityregions are:

- Drawing up agreements for spatial development and funding

Voluntary cooperation on a regional level

Example 1: City Region of Amsterdam (Stadsregio Amsterdam)

• Formulating and deployment of a regional economic development strategy: a healthy and

Public transport vision

Example 2: Eindhoven Cityregion (Samenwerkingsverband Regio Eindhoven/ SRE)

Tasks and Competences

4.1 Applicability in the Romanian context

4.2 Short term no regret policy options

4.2.2 Voluntary cooperation

4.2.3 Smart Specialization

4.2.4 Coherent spatial and transport policy

4.2.5 Financing/Funding (short term)

4.2.6 Supporting soft skills

4.3 Long run implementation strategy

In the short run (perhaps first half of 2014):

Followed by (possibly in the second half of 2014):