MECOG-CE metropolitan areas and their best practices

This storymap presents the metropolitan structures of each metropolitan area involved in the MECOG-CE project. It shows not only the tasks of these structures but also the mutual relations between them in particular metropolitan areas.

The metropolitan governance systems shape conditions for the best practices and tools which have been proven successful in partners’ metropolitan areas. They are designed to enhance and strengthen metropolitan cooperation and governance. The storymap introduces 17 of them.

In the next project phases, metropolitan areas will focus on specific best practices and tools. They will thoroughly learn about these and test the most transferable ones in their metropolitan areas.

In Central Europe (CE), the differences in the metropolitan governance systems are significant, not only between western and eastern CE countries, but also within one country. These governance systems vary in structure, positioning within the national governance framework, and encompass diverse budgets, competencies, and tasks. The analysis elaborated within the project focuses on providing overview and summary of these systems in the project partners countries. The comprehensive report on this analysis can be found  here .

The level of empowerment of metropolises and the strength of metropolitan leadership also differ between the metropolitan areas represented in the project. Italian and German metropolitan areas exhibit a higher level of empowerment, while metropolises in post-communist countries, such as Poland and Czechia, struggle to gain recognition. Currently, Poland has only one institutionalised metropolitan area officially recognised in national legislation, namely the GZM Metropolis. Cooperation among municipalities in other metropolitan areas is of a bottom-up nature, taking the form of metropolitan conferences, agreements, and associations. In Polish and Czech metropolitan areas, cooperation has been consolidated and strengthened through Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI), an instrument introduced by EU level to ensure the possibility of co-financing joint metropolitan projects by EU funds. 

It is composed of three metropolitan governance structures. At the heart of the metropolitan governance system, there is the Capital Region Berlin-Brandenburg which includes several institutions, for example Joint Spatial Planning Department, partner of the MECOG-CE project. Among different metropolitan dialogue and cooperation spaces, there are Joint Transport Association and Municipal Neighbourhood Forum.

Even if they have different status and way of functioning, their common objective is to support an integrated and sustainable development of the capital region in different fields. Their relationships are consensual through involvement in diverse formats of mutual dialogue.

The metropolitan area consists of only one metropolitan structure, Brno Metropolitan Area, which is based on voluntary basis with no legal status and relations with the state are informal. 

The metropolitan area is composed of only one metropolitan structure, Ostrava Metropolitan Area, which is based on voluntary basis without legal subjectivity. 

It is considered as most developed metropolitan area among partners of the project. There are three important metropolitan structures in this region. The centre of the metropolitan governance system is the Stuttgart Region Association (VRS). Essential and closely related elements of the governance system are the public transport company Stuttgart Transport and Tariff Association (VVS) and the Stuttgart Region Economic Development Corporation (WRS), the regional economic development agency. 

All three structures within the metropolitan governance system have unique competences and tasks. Still, at the same time, they also closely cooperate to ensure a sustainable and futureproof development of the Stuttgart Region. These three institutions' relationships can generally be described as trustworthy and consensual. 

The metropolitan governance system primarily consists of the Metropolitan City of Turin as second level local authority based on the national law. But, it works in highly fragmented environment. As a result of very diverse geographic and socio-economic contexts, the metropolitan area is divided into 11 “homogeneous zones” defined by functional and territorial criteria, which enhances the engagement of local administrators through their participation in working groups on metropolitan and spatial planning. There is also a variety of other metropolitan dialogue and cooperation spaces i.e. 3 Local Action Groups, 16 Unions of Mountain Municipalities, 8 Unions of Municipalities and 8 Territorial Pacts. However, they cover just portions of the metropolitan territory. 

The governance in this metropolitan area is based on two highly institutionalized spaces of dialogue. The first is unique in Poland: the GZM Metropolis, established in 2017. In addition to GZM Metropolis, the Association of Municipalities and Powiats of the Central Subregion of the Silesia Region has been operating since 2014.  

While the GZM Metropolis and the Association of the Central Subregion participate in joint bodies and actions, maintaining dialogue, there is currently no imminent perspective of their merger.  

There is no formal metropolitan governance system in the Warsaw Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan cooperation has two formats in this area, “Warsaw Metropolis” Association and Integrated Territorial Investments for the Warsaw Functional Area 2014-2020+. 

The analysis of the above-mentioned structures shows different levels of empowerment and approaches to metropolitan cooperation and governance in partners’ metropolitan areas. From these established structures, the concrete examples of best practices and tools result, which highly depend on the possibilities and ways of metropolitan areas to influence metropolitan development. 

The following list presents 17 examples of best practices and tools enhancing metropolitan cooperation and governance that have proven successful in partners’ metropolitan areas. Initially, there were almost 50 examples identified among partners. All of them can be found in the  Executive Summary . During project meetings, partners indicated the most desirable and transferable ones. The shortlisted examples are presented in this storymap. 

The identified best tools and practices present a rich collection of different solutions that can be seen as responses to current, major problems faced by metropolitan areas in Central Europe. They also give an overview of the state-of-art of metropolitan projects that can be treated as a significant resource, point of reference and comparison, and a potent source of inspiration to other metropolitan areas in Europe. The guiding principle underlying the most of selected practices relied on the development of inter-municipal activities, increasing mutual trust and awareness of the potential and power of the metropolitan scale of actions. The partners shared diverse best practices in terms of thematic domains, required scale of investments and metropolitan impact and results. The gathered tools and practices refer to three fundamental pillars of sustainable development – environmental, social and economic.  

Furthermore, there are two categories of best practices which concentrate on their orientation to project or process. In many cases process-oriented practices or tools entail a form of cooperation or agreement, a process of coming to a dialogue, which can involve a reconfiguration, rearrangement or new way of organising the relationships between partners. The project-oriented pole encompasses all the initiatives focused on achieving tangible results and particular outputs concerning services or products in a given period of time in the framework of specific large- or small-scale projects. 

There were also different types of innovations recognised in terms of best practices – technological, organizational, social, and cross-cutting. The last category was highly represented, and typical of complex and large-scale projects which required a creative or distinctive approach in multiple areas, or a unique combination of the existing resources or solutions. The technological group of innovations was the least present. The organisational group of innovations referred to different forms of governance structures, mostly grassroots and participatory, as well as the process of strategy and plans creation and different voluntary platforms for knowledge exchange and sharing. The social category encompassed various activities that can be seen as enforcing the human capital, people’s knowledge, skills and competencies, but also promoting social inclusion, tolerance and integration. 

To learn more about which thematic domains and types of innovation were most frequently mentioned, or which best practices are rather project- or process-oriented, consult the  report on metropolitan governance systems and existing tools/best practices at partner MAs for enhancing metropolitan cooperation .