Functional Regions, Urban-Rural Relations and Post-2013 Cohesion Policy

Abstract

1. ´Functional Regions`: from concepts to intervention proposals
2. Urban-based and sub-regional level territorial development interventions based on ‘functional regions’
3. Functional Regions | Key Concepts and Indicators
4. Functional regions and the relation between urban and rural areas in the context of the preparation of the 2014-2020 Community policies
5. Initiatives based on the concept of ‘functional region’

Full text

FUNCTIONAL REGIONS, URBAN RURAL RELATIONS
AND POST 2013 COHESION POLICY
João Ferrão (coord.)
João Mourato, Luís
Balula e Olívia
Bina
studo / 29
2013
Laboratório Associado

FUNCTIONAL REGIONS, URBAN-RURAL RELATIONS
AND POST-2013 COHESION POLICY
FINAL REPORT
João Ferrão
[Coordination]
João Mourato
|
Luís Balula |
Olívia Bina
July 2012

2

3
FUNCTIONAL REGIONS,
URBAN-RURAL RELATIONS
AND POST-2013 COHESION POLICY
FINAL REPORT
July 2012
João Ferrão
[Coordination]
ICS Team
João Mourato
|
Luís Balula
|
Olívia Bina
Consultants
Mário Vale
|
IGOT-UL
Rosário Oliveira
|
FCSH – UNL
Renato Carmo
|
CIES-ISCTE
English translation of the original report
“Regiões Funcionais, Relações Urbano-Rurais e Política de Coesão Pós-2013”

4
Table of contents
0. Introduction 7
1. ´Functional Regions`: from concepts to intervention proposals 9
1.1. Overview 9
1.2. Urban-based and sub-regional level territorial development
interventions based on ‘functional regions’
27
Annex I. Functional Regions | Key Concepts and Indicators 43
Annex II. Functional regions and the relation between urban and rural areas in
the context of the preparation of the 2014-2020Community policies.
49
Annex III. Initiatives based on the concept of ‘functional region’ 65
Bibliography 103

5
0. INTRODUCTION
On 27 September 2011 a contract was signed between the Conselho Económico e Social
1
(CES)
and the Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon (ICS-UL) establishing the preparation of
a study on ‘Functional Regions, Urban-Rural Relations and Post-2013 Cohesion Policy’. This
study aims to substantiate CES position paper on ´Competitividade das Cidades, Coesão Social e
Ordenamento do Território` [‘Competitiveness of Cities, Social Cohesion and Spatial Planning’].
This position paper has three key objectives:
. “To identify the fundamental orientations of a strategic and operational nature on
future actions to be co-financed by Structural Funds in the topics under analysis;
. To promote reflection and debate at CES, and subsequently within the Portuguese
society;
. To encourage the creation of public policy instruments in four fundamental and
complementary dimensions: economic, social, spatial planning and urban governance
dimensions”.
In order to prepare this position paper three technical studies were commissioned, and the
present study corresponds to one of them. According to the approved terms of reference, this
study should address the following topics:
. “Comparative analysis of concepts, information systems and indicators, good practices
and policy instruments recently developed in this domain by the Member States of the
European Union and possibly in other OECD countries;
. Current situation of the debate on functional regions, urban-rural relations and regional
governance in the context of the preparation for the new post-2013 cohesion policy;
. Identification of concepts and criteria of delimitation and characterisation of functional
regions; its implementation in mainland Portugal using the 2011 Census information,
and presentation of a typology of urban-rural relations;
. Proposal of policy instruments within the perspective of territorial regional
development and governance to be made operational in the context of urban, regional,
rural and cooperation policies under the new cohesion policy.”
This is the final report of the study and is designed to meet both the generic objectives of the
own-initiative opinion and the specific objectives (topics) enshrined in the aforementioned
terms of reference.
1
T.N.: The Conselho Económico e Social [Economic and Social Council] is a constitutional body with two types of
competencies: one of consultation and the other of concertation in the field of economic and social policy
(Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 92). The matters addressed by the CES result from a consultation by
the Government and other organs of sovereignty or the exercise of the Council’s own right of initiative.

6
Two Progress Reports preceded the Final Report.
The first Progress Report (December 2011) is organised into two parts. The first part describes
the evolution of the debate, held during 2010 and 2011, on the new round of EU policies for the
period 2014-2020, emphasising the role given to ‘functional regions’ and the importance given
to urban-rural and rural-urban relations in this context (topic 2 of the terms of reference). The
second part presents a systematisation based on the documentary analysis of concepts,
indicators, good practices and policy instruments related to the topics under analysis (topics 1
and 3).
The second Progress Report (April 2012) corresponds essentially to a synthesis of the responses
of a group of international experts to the questionnaire (see Annex 3) prepared by the ICS team
with a double objective: to collect information on recent initiatives based on the concept of
‘functional region’ and to critically analyse the conditions for proper use of this concept in the
context of the next EU programming cycle 2014-2020 (topics 1, 2 and 3 of the terms of
reference).
This Final Report incorporates the contents of the Progress Reports, but in an integrated way. In
order to simplify its reading and browsing, the document comprises a centrepiece of synthesis
and proposals, and various annexes. The centrepiece contains two sections.
The first section is organised in 13 questions and seeks to provide an overview of the key
questions of the study: what are ‘functional regions’?; what is their relation with political and
territorial development strategies?; under what conditions should and can they be used with
advantage over other types of solution?; what new opportunities are created in the next EU
programming cycle 2014-2020?.
The second section proposes interventions based on ‘functional regions’ that could be developed
in the new post-2013 context. To this end, this section presents four characterisation summaries
with interventions based on urban and supra municipal ‘functional regions’.
The centrepiece is complemented by several annexes, which may be autonomously read:
. Annex 1. Concepts and indicators regarding ´functional regions`;
. Annex 2. Functional regions and the relations between urban and rural areas in the
context of the preparation of Community policies for the period 2014-2020: an overview
of the debate of the last two years (2010-2011);
. Annex 3. Survey of the initiatives based on the concept of ‘functional region’.
Regarding the set of tasks originally planned, it was not possible to complete the delimitation of
functional regions in mainland Portugal from the data of the 2011 Census, since this information
will only be provided by INE
2
during the last quarter of 2012.
2
N.T.: The Instituto Nacional de Estatística [National Statistics Institute] (INE) is the Portuguese body responsible for
the production and dissemination of official statistics.

7
1. ´Functional Regions`: from concepts to intervention proposals
1.1 An overview
This section aims to present a synthetic overview on ‘functional regions’ – what are they?; what
are they meant for?; in what conditions may they be used in the context of political and
territorial development strategies? – following the generic objectives of the own-initiative
opinion CES will prepare and the specific objectives (topics) defined for this study.
The following contents are organised sequentially in the form of questions and answers, seeking
to ensure easy reading and to allow a straightforward reading of the conclusions that could be
drawn from the documental analysis (with emphasis on the texts produced by EU institutions
and the OECD), and from the contributions of the international experts consulted. These various
aspects were presented to some extent in the Progress Reports. They are here organised
differently and presented in a more concise way.
Question 1
|
What are ´functional regions`?
Political-administrative territories do not always constitute a territorial reference framework
suitable for the development of diagnoses and for the design and implementation of public
policies. The administrative boundaries overlook – and therefore artificially break up –
ecological, socio-economic and cultural realities with geographies that intersect and surpass
those territories.
This non-coincidence may have direct and indirect costs, high for example in terms of the
inefficiency of institutional organisation and logistics solutions, in terms of the use of resources
or in terms of the production of services. The recognition of the problematic nature of this non-
coincidence has become more acute with the increased mobility of people, goods and capital,
responsible for the intensification of the interaction and interdependence between different
political-administrative territories, and with the greater awareness of academics, technicians
and decision-makers, of the systemic nature of many natural and human phenomena.
In this context, it is necessary to consider territories with their physical, administrative and
political features, in a way that makes it possible to overcome the identified inefficiencies,
through the use of concepts that enable the development of economically, socially and
environmentally sustainable solutions.
The adoption of concepts that seek to understand geographies that cross political-administrative
boundaries is therefore justifiable. These geographies have a morphological nature (contiguous
spaces with identical morphological features), and especially a functional nature (spaces
integrated through relationships, flows and systems, either natural or human, physical or
immaterial), and their broader designation is ‘functional region’.
The concept of ‘functional region’ is polymorphic, i.e. it can have multiple meanings. And its
analysis may adopt an urban focus (urban-rural relations), a rural focus (rural-urban relations)
or a transverse one (e.g. a holistic view of the various biophysical systems that cross urban and
rural areas). A comprehensive and balanced approach of a ‘functional region’ should encompass
these various perspectives. In either case, a ‘functional region’ is always defined by relevant

8
interactions and by an effective or potential structure, which is well defined and hierarchical,
although not always readily distinguishable.
In terms of public policy, the concept of ‘functional region’ implies four key ideas: a territorial
basis relevant for integrating sectoral policies; an integrated development strategy; cooperation
between different actors; and specific governance systems.
The European Union and the OECD have been recognising more and more the importance of
‘functional regions’ either from an analytic perspective (formulation of prospective scenarios
and diagnoses) or an intervention perspective (development strategies, public policies). Table 1
illustrates some of the most widely used definitions of “functional region”. A more complete
listing of concepts of “functional region” as well as a set of indicators susceptible of being used in
the delimitation and characterisation of “functional regions” can be found in Annex 1.
Table 1. Examples of different definitions of ´functional region`
Concept Definition
Travel-To-Work
Area (TTWA)
3
Area that corresponds to the employment basin of a major city or conurbation defined by
travel-to-work commute. In the particular case of the United Kingdom, the delimitation of
these areas corresponds to the aggregation of municipalities in which: i) at least 75% of
the economic active residents work in the area and; ii) at least 75% of the people working
in the area also live in the area.
Functional Urban
Area (FUA)
4
According to ESPON, FUAs correspond to an urban area with a centre of at least 15.000
inhabitants and a total population of at least 50.000 inhabitants. FUAs are defined by their
influence area in terms of TTWAs, calculated at the municipal level.
Functional Region
5
The OECD defines the functional region as a territorial unit that results from the
organisation of the social and economic relationships in space and not by the conventional
political-administrative or historical-geographical criteria. A functional region is usually
defined by labour market related criteria and TTWAs.
3
G. C. A. L. (2010) , Functional Economic Market Areas: An economic note. Communities and Local Government,
London.
4
ESPON (2011) , The Functional Urban Areas Database – ESPON 2013 Database.
5
OCDE (2011) , Assessing and Monitoring Rural-Urban Linkages in Functional Regions: A methodological framework.
OCDE, Paris.

9
Question 2 | What concept of ‘functional region’ does this study adopt?
Given the purpose of this study, the concepts of ‘functional region’ adopted share two common
criteria:
i) Urban scale spaces, i.e. defined by the intensity of flows polarised by urban
centres.
ii) Sub-regional scale spaces, i.e. clearly supra-municipal ones.
The joint consideration of these two criteria enables the inclusion of various realities: territories
of a metropolitan nature, urban and sub-regional systems and arches, territories polarised by
medium-sized cities. All these types of urban-based ‘functional region’ are sub-regional in scale,
however some may occur intra-NUT II while others may involve municipalities from different
NUT II. For example, the urban arch of the coast of the Algarve illustrates the first case while the
metropolitan areas (in a functional perspective) of both Lisbon and Porto illustrate the second
one.
Throughout the study, two concepts of ‘functional region’ will be used: Functional urban regions
(FUR) that are characterised by the intensity of the inter-urban relationships and that include
metropolitan territories and sub-regional urban systems or arches; and Functional urban-rural
regions (FURR) that are defined by the real or desirable intensity of the relationships between
one or more medium-sized cities and their surrounding smaller centres and rural areas.
This differentiation seeks to distinguish two types of ‘functional regions’, both urban-based and
of a sub-regional scale but, as we will later address, with different functions within the territorial
development policies and strategies. More than a strictly conceptual distinction, it is an
operative differentiation regarding the strategic objectives pursued in each case.
In practice, it is possible to consider one or more functional urban-rural regions within the same
functional urban region. This option depends on the objectives pursued, the proposed territorial
development strategies and the programming tools used. The two types of ‘functional region’ are
complementary and should reinforce each other. If they co-exist in the same geographical
territory, the absence of a coherent relationship between them will trigger complex and
conflicting situations with inevitably negative effects.
The use of ‘functional regions’ is justified in cases where the territories relevant for a purpose of
making a diagnosis, of defining territorial development strategies, or of planning and
implementing integrated interventions do not coincide with administrative boundaries. In these
situations, it may be beneficial to identify specific areas of cooperation, in order to involve the
various entities relevant to the formulation and implementation of territorial development
strategies and in order to integrate the strategically relevant territories, avoiding the costs of
geographically fragmented visions.
Nowadays there is a widespread recognition of the potential importance of the definition of
‘functional regions’ in connection with potentialities or problems in ad hoc geographies that do
not coincide with political-administrative territories. However, the national policy instruments
are still not sufficiently tailored to that need. Nonetheless, the new EU programming cycle 2014-
2020 creates favourable conditions for the incorporation of the concept of ‘functional region’ in
territorial development instruments. It is therefore important to clarify the situations and
conditions in which public policy can gain efficiency and effectiveness through the use of the
concept of ‘functional region’.

10
Question 3 | In which situations can the concept of ‘functional region’ be used?
Using the concept of ‘functional region’ in the context of territorial development policies or
strategies can be accomplished in three different situations:
i) ‘Functional regions’ already formally recognised as ‘project regions’
In several countries ‘functional regions’ are already defined, in various forms, for the
purpose of designing, programming and managing territorial development
strategies. In these cases, the primary goal is to optimise the implementation of new
interventions or to improve, in those that previously exist, the relationship between
the ‘functional’ logic (objectives, cooperation forms, areas, tools, etc.) and the
effectiveness and efficiency of the actions developed within that framework.
ii) Areas that are characterised by intense functional relations but without common planning
and management instruments
This is the situation in areas where there is a strong interaction and
interdependence based on flows of people, goods, information, knowledge and other
– metropolitan areas, sub-regional urban systems, etc. – but where the density of
existing functional relations does not formally or informally translate in any kind of
common planning and management strategy or instrument. In these cases, the use of
the concept of ‘functional region’ will be able to replace fragmented geographical
and institutional interventions by the coordinated and integrated management of
these spaces and the externalities that characterise them.
iii) Areas that are not characterised by intense functional relations but whose development
requires new forms of territorial cooperation
This is especially the case of medium-sized cities or smaller urban axes and the
small urban centres and rural areas that are under their direct influence. In these
situations, the aim is to stimulate the future consolidation of ‘functional regions’
based on the development of active complementarities and greater integration
between urban areas, rural areas, transitional spaces and mixed spaces. In the
context of coherent and inclusive territorial development policies, the adoption of
‘functional regions’ in order to qualify and strengthen the relations between urban
and rural areas through new forms of cooperation and through the creation of
synergies is justified by many reasons: better management of the effects of urban
polarisation on the surrounding areas, greater coordination between urban and
rural actors, better integration of different types of networks and infrastructures
that connect urban and rural areas, consideration of problems and priorities of rural
areas by urban policy-makers, and creation of economies of scale, which favour joint
initiatives for growth, employment and social cohesion.
In the context of the present study, the second situation identified corresponds to what we have
previously referred to as functional urban regions while the third corresponds to functional
urban-rural regions.

11
In either situation, inter-urban and urban-rural cooperation is a principle that can profitably be
included in various policies, in particular cohesion policy.
In the case of Portugal, and in the absence of territorial development instruments based on
supra municipal / sub-regional ‘functional regions’, the last two situations are the ones that must
be examined and assessed. For example, the territorial model enshrined in the National Spatial
Planning Policy Programme (PNPOT), defines metropolitan arcs and systems and urban systems
perceived as ‘functional regions’ (Figure 1).
Figure 1. PNPOT – Territorial Model (PNPOT, 2006)
The adoption of ‘functional regions’ as a territorial development instrument should always
result from a diagnosis of tendencies and prospective scenarios, so that the policy decision may
be based on robust and credible information.

12
Based on the diagnosis, which includes the weighing of potential opportunities and obstacles, it
is then possible to decide about the relevance of establishing ‘functional regions’ as a stimulus
for the creation of new areas of cooperation in the context of an integrated territorial
development. The use of ‘functional regions’ in territorial development policies and strategies
must always arise from an evaluation that takes into account the characteristics of the reality
they concern, the goals pursued and the conditions for achieving the expected results.
Question 4
|
What is the importance given to “functional regions” in the next EU
programming cycle 2014-2020?
The Lisbon Treaty (1 December 2009) enshrines territorial cohesion alongside economic and
social cohesion. The Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion (2008) discusses the meaning and
implications of the adoption of the principle of territorial cohesion in the formulation of a new
generation of policies. The Barca Report (2009) advocates the advantages of territorial based
interventions (place-based approach). They all contributed to a new emphasis on territorial
issues within the conception and execution of public policies. The documents which govern the
preparation of the programming period 2014-2020 reflect, in part, that impetus, spurred mainly
by the incorporation of the territorial approach as an explicit component of this new cycle and
by the more general concern to provide greater capacity for coordinating and integrating funds
and actions.
The reference documents proposed by the European Commission and currently under
consideration by the European Council and the European Parliament – EUROPE 2020. A strategy
for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth
6
; the proposed budget for the period, A Budget for
Europe 2020
7
, which is part of the legislative package design on future EU policies; and the
proposed elements for a Common Strategic Framework 2014-2020 – all enshrine guidelines,
tools and procedures that directly or indirectly promote the use of “functional regions” in the
context of various policies (see Annex 2).
Table 2 summarises the most relevant content to understanding the context against which the
use of “functional regions” can gain a new impetus from 2014 onwards. Table 2 specifies some of
the dimensions contemplated in those documents, and in particular the proposal for a regulation
on common rules for the management of the five funds that integrate the draft legislative
package outlined above.
6
COM(2010) 2020 final, 3.3.2010.
7
COM(2011) 500 final, 29.6.2011.

13
Table 2. ‘Functional regions’ and territorial development according with the Commission's
proposals for the EU programming cycle 2014-2020
Dimensions Contents
Policy guidelines . Strengthening the urban dimension into policies
. Greater articulation and coordination between Cohesion Policy, the Common
Agricultural Policy and other policies with high spatial sensitivity or with
relevant territorial impacts
. Territorialization of sectoral policies
Ad hoc geographies of analysis and
intervention
. Importance of functional regions: region-cities, metropolitan areas, polycentric
urban agglomerations
. Importance of rural-urban relations as a factor of inclusive and sustainable
integrated territorial development
Strategic perspective of territorial
development
. Importance of the integrated and territorial development perspective
(integrated territorial development)
. Importance of the integrated, multi-sectoral and multi- fund “local”
development strategies (sub-regional level) adjusted to different territorial
contexts (including functional regions)
Integrated territorial development
strategies
. Integrated actions for sustainable urban development (through ITI)
. Local development strategies
. Territorial Pacts (regarding employment, education and social inclusion, for
example).
Instruments for
the
implementation
of integrated
territorial
development
strategies
Integrated
territorial
development
approaches
. Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI): top-down or bottom-up
interventions, involving different priorities of one or more Operational
Programmes (does not apply to EAFRD); may include one or more CLLD.
. Community-led Local Development (CLLD): bottom-up development
initiatives promoted by Local Action Groups involving public and private actors
of local communities; may be funded by one or several funds, operational
programs and priorities; may integrate, or not an ITI.
Development of
integrated
operations
. Integrated Operations: interventions involving one or more of the Common
Strategic Framework funds and even funds from other EU instruments
(Horizon 2020, for example).
. Joint Action Plans: groups of projects that compete for the same specific
objectives, developed under the responsibility of a designated beneficiary. A
Joint Action Plan can be part of one or more operational programs (ERDF and
ESF)
Territorial governance . Territorial-based cooperation, coordination and partnerships
. Flexible and multilevel forms of governance
Spatial planning . Consideration of functional regions and of the relations between urban and
rural areas in planning instruments
Knowledge in favour of territorial
development
. Enhancing the exchange of good practices regarding strategies and
cooperation actions in the context of functional regions and/or between urban
and rural areas.
Training of territorial development
actors
. Institutional capacity building in order to promote cooperation practices and
forms of territorial governance appropriate to the various territorial contexts
(diversity of potentialities and needs).

14
Question 5 | Is Portugal obliged to consider integrated approaches to territorial
development that are based on the concept of “functional region” in
the next EU programming cycle 2014 - 2020?
The way integrated territorial development approaches are referred to for the period 2014-
2020 is a novelty compared to previous EU programming cycles, because such interventions
have been developed within the framework of EU initiatives (Urban, Leader, Territorial Pacts for
employment and, in a less direct manner, Equal) and not within the contracts established
between the Commission and the Member States (CSF, NSRF). Such interventions have been,
therefore, directly inserted in different instruments of the EU cohesion policy and not in national
policies, although several countries have chosen to develop similar operations.
The Partnership Contracts (or Agreements) for 2014-2020 (the equivalent of the NSRF
complemented with the rural development component) must, among other aspects, include
integrated territorial development approaches (Article 14 b)). However, despite being part of
the document submitted to the Commission, the chapter regarding Partnership Contracts is not
subject to approval by the Commission. Although this solution arises from the need to simplify
procedures, it may in practice turn out to give a statute of mere guidance to the solutions listed
in the chapter on integrated territorial development approaches. This hypothesis is all the more
possible as the Community-led Local Development (CLLD) instrument is mandatory for Member
States in what concerns the EAFRD but optional in what concerns the ERDF and the ESF.
Moreover, in the Commission's proposals one can only find indications as to the minimum
amounts for each Member State for this type of intervention: 5% for rural development plans
implemented through CLLD/EAFRD and 5% for integrated actions for sustainable urban
development implemented through ITI.
Therefore, the importance given to integrated territorial development actions in the proposals
submitted by the Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament apparently
contrasts with the fact that the section about ITI of the chapter on Partnership Agreements does
not have to me mandatorily approved by the Commission. And it also contrasts with the fact that
they only establish minimum amounts for this type of intervention.
The appreciation of ‘functional regions’ as relevant territories for integrated territorial
development interventions can thus oscillate between a mere possibility or an eligibility
criterion for certain operations. Each Member State will be allowed to chose. In one case as in
the other, the proposed Partnership Agreement that Portugal will submit to the Commission
should be clear as to the existence – and respective budgets – of operations developed for
‘functional regions’ using the Community-led Local Development (CLLD) and the Integrated
Territorial Investment (ITI) instruments.
Each Member State will also set the selection criteria for local development strategies and Local
Action Groups regarding CLLD, as well as the methodologies concerning ITI. Portugal will
therefore have a decisive role regarding the solutions to adopt in the context of the integrated,
sectoral and multi-fund territorial development strategies for the period 2014-2020.

15
Regardless of the changes that the European Council and the European Parliament are likely to
introduce in the proposals presented by the Commission, the Partnership Agreement is
particularly demanding and complex in terms of policy coordination mechanisms. The
conditions of implementation of integrated territorial development approaches, where the
concept of ‘functional region’ may be relevant, should therefore be very clear.
Question 6
|
What are the main obstacles and risks associated with the
implementation of the concept of ‘functional region’ in the context of
territorial development strategies?
Even when considered strategically relevant, the use of the concept of ‘functional region’ in the
context of territorial development strategies faces difficulties recognised by the evaluation of
experiences developed in other countries.
First, the lack of adequate information for defining, characterising and monitoring ‘functional
regions’ is a well-known problem. But most of the obstacles and risks that may compromise the
successful use of the term ‘functional region’ relate to the various political, institutional and
cultural aspects arising from the use of ad hoc geographies of intervention, i.e. territories of
cooperation and decision with no institutional outline.
Although democratically elected bodies do not directly control them, the initiatives based on
‘functional regions’ raise, from the start, issues of legitimacy and political accountability.
Moreover, and because they do not coincide with predetermined boundaries, the fact that they
involve controversial delimitations may create conflicts, especially if the articulation of these
territories defined as ‘functional regions’ with political-administrative territories is not properly
clarified.
The territorial based cooperation developed in this context and with these goals can also face
significant cultural differences regarding the various participating entities or historical
situations of competition and rivalry, especially between neighbouring municipalities. Both will
hinder the establishment of trust relations. From this point of view, the recognition of the
importance of larger cities and the influence they have is particularly critical, since the existence
of asymmetrical power relations tends to create tensions with smaller and/or rural
municipalities. Inversely, the absence of leadership may induce the hijacking of the process by
local interests.
Finally, this type of intervention requires complex models of governance, which have high
transaction costs, especially regarding time.
The difficulties and obstacles here highlighted explain, at least in part, the difficulty that many
national and local governments have in recognising the potential of ad hoc geographies of
intervention and analysis as a factor in the effectiveness and efficiency of public policies. This
observation leads to three conclusions:
i) The definition of ad hoc cooperation and intervention territories must result
from processes of voluntary association and not from hierarchical and coercive
decisions;
ii) The option for voluntary cooperation processes based on ad hoc territories must
derive from a pre-defined strategy and consider costs and benefits, both
individual (participating entities) and collective (beneficiaries of the transaction);

16
iii)
The option for cooperation processes such as these needs to have clear rules that
frame them, particularly regarding the legal and financial levels, and external
monitoring mechanisms developed at the national or, in some cases, at the EU
scale.
Question 7
|
Should ‘functional regions’ result solely from bottom-up processes?
The construction of forms of cooperation based on ‘functional regions’ relies mostly on
voluntary bottom-up processes, associating mainly local authorities or those present in the
‘region’: municipalities, companies and business associations, universities, non-governmental
organisations and civil society groups. However, it is important that EU and national
organisations (and in some countries, regional ones) propel this kind of initiatives, creating the
necessary framework, establishing appropriate incentives and ensuring mobilisation, consensus
building and dissemination of innovative ideas. These are essential conditions for local actors to
recognise the importance of perspectives such as these and to adopt them.
Voluntary associations are clearly dominant, but they co-exist in some countries with forms of
mandatory associations for municipalities, such as in some city-regions of the Netherlands.
Regarding the types of voluntary association, it is possible to identify three types:
i) The competent national or regional authorities define ‘functional regions’ and the
corresponding strategies, restricting the eligible actors to the development of
action programs and projects that fit those strategies;
ii) The competent national or regional authorities define ‘functional regions’ and the
key strategic guidelines, leaving it to the eligible actors to define strategies, action
programs and projects;
iii) The competent national or regional authorities define the key strategic guidelines
and the evaluation criteria, leaving it to the eligible actors to associate in the way
they deem most appropriate within a ‘functional region’, to develop a detailed
strategy and action programme.
In any of these cases, the proposed intervention (action programme and projects) is always of
the responsibility of the partners who voluntarily accept to cooperate in a joint territorial
development intervention. The difference lies in the density of the framework produced by
national or regional authorities and in the nature of the participation.
Question 8 | To what public policy areas is it possible to apply the concept of
‘functional region’?
Obviously it is not possible to develop a universal and comprehensive list of implementation
fields for the concept of ‘functional region’ in the context of territorial development strategies or
policies. The polysemic nature of the term ‘functional region’ (see Annex 1) highlights the
existence of potential implementation fields that are quite distinct. Still, it is possible to draw
some guidelines from recently produced policy documents on this matter and from the analysis
of ‘functional regions’ initiatives developed in several countries.
The fields that are most cited in policy documents and also more present in interventions
previously or currently developed are: economic development and production systems; regional
labour market, mobility and transport; spatial planning and land use management; environment

17
and landscape; social support systems and access to services of general interest (education,
health, culture) and housing; energy, natural resources and climate change. However, all
initiatives seek to develop approaches that cut across multiple sectors.
Rather than to present a hypothetically exhaustive list of the implementation possibilities for the
concept of ‘functional region’ in the context of territorial development strategies and policies, it
is more important to note that these areas correspond to a world in transformation. Thus, it is
possible to distinguish:
i) Consolidated structuring fields
Understandably, some fields appear not only on a recurring basis, but even
more as having a fundamental structuring role: labour markets (TTWAs),
transport flows, housing markets, infrastructure (water, waste) and spatial
planning, for example, constitute the core of many of the interventions.
ii) Emerging structuring fields
Aspects related to energy, climate change, green infrastructures, biodiversity
and ecosystemic services tend to gain increasing weight, not so much as
autonomous fields but rather as complements to the previous ones.
iii) Specific combinations of fields according to the nature of the ‘functional region’
The combinations of fields tend to vary according to the nature of ‘functional
region’. In functional urban regions (FUR) the issues associated, for example,
with objectives of competitiveness, innovation and internationalisation have a
very relevant and federating role. But in functional urban-rural regions (FURR)
the social and ecological dimensions and the exploitation of resources in rural
areas are relatively more central.
iv) Specific combinations of fields according to the dominant forms of cooperation
The combinations of fields also vary according to the dominant forms of
cooperation (voluntary or mandatory). In the case of mandatory cooperation
modalities (e.g. based on administrative units), the variety of implementation
fields is conditioned by the specific skills likely to be delegated to the new entity
by the entities involved (in this case, municipalities).
The universe of fields must still be viewed dynamically, for two complementary reasons. On one
hand, the inclusion of specific fields depends on financial and political factors, and therefore it is
not always possible to consider them in the initial stage of a given operation. On the other hand,
there are areas that may only be contemplated in a more mature stage of the intervention,
because they are more innovative or because they are a consequence of the results achieved in
the meantime.
Finally, one should note that the identification of the right type of action domains for each
‘functional region’ depends, of course, of the specificities, potentialities and limitations of that
particular territory. But it also presupposes its prior integration in broader – current or future –
policies. There is consequently a double fit to secure when setting the range of intervention
fields in one given ‘functional region’: with both the territorial development strategy formulated
for the ‘region’ and the national or regional policies in which the various fields are integrated.

18
Question 9
|
How to delimitate ´functional regions`?
The concept of ‘functional region’ in the Barca Report (2009) is a broad contextual starting point
for this purpose: areas that, in the context of development policy can be defined as a territory
characterised by a set of common conditions, which can enhance a specific type of development.
On the other hand, it is consensual that the delimitation of ‘functional regions’ should ensure a
balance between criteria that are different in nature and complement each other: qualitative and
quantitative; functional and institutional; social, economic and ecological. This balance is in fact
particularly relevant in multi-objective functional regions, and in these cases it may be justified
to define subspaces associated with particular goals.
However, from previous observations one cannot assume that there is a fixed and universal set
of reference indicators for the delimitation of ‘functional regions’.
The appropriate criteria for making such delimitation depends, firstly, on the desired objective,
and consequently on the nature of the ‘functional region’ in question.
Moreover, the delimitation of ‘functional regions’ cannot be seen as a merely technical exercise.
The availability of key partners, especially local authorities, to achieve the pursued objectives is
as important a factor as the analytical criteria.
Still further, it is not imperative for the ‘functional regions’ to have rigid boundaries. A relatively
fluid definition may introduce the necessary flexibility to respond both to complex negotiation
processes, which are therefore susceptible to be lengthy, and to adjustments that may prove
necessary due to changes in the external environment or due to results of monitoring and
evaluation exercises regarding the actions undertaken in the meantime.
Finally, the issue of delimitation of ‘functional regions’ arises differently depending on whether
they concern areas admittedly characterised by strong relations of interaction and
interdependence (e.g. functional urban regions, according to the designation adopted in this
study) or they concern territories to which the stimulation of more intense functional relations
is considered strategically relevant (e.g. functional urban-rural regions where the development
dynamics of medium-sized centres have become detached of the surrounding areas).
The criteria for the definition of a ‘functional region’ should therefore not only be chosen on the
basis of predefined objectives and strategies and of the degree of pre-acceptance by the key
acotrs for its implementation, but they should also be seen in a dynamic and flexible way.
Last, but not least, it is worth recalling that the ‘functional region’ crosses administrative
boundaries and therefore creates its own borders. This process sometimes originates new
imbalances with regard to the territorial development dynamics, which can ultimately justify the
revision of initially adopted boundaries, obviously without questioning the global relevance of
the specific ‘functional region’.
Therefore, there is a complex relation between, on the one hand, technically relevant analytical
criteria and, on the other, political and institutional aspects related to the dynamics of evolution
of the interventions. This relation requires careful monitoring in order to prevent that an
excessive prevalence of the political and institutional aspects undermines the role of ‘functional
regions’ as a development policy instrument.

19
Question 10
|
What is the connection between the delimitation of ‘functional
regions’ and administrative boundaries?
It is widely recognised that it is necessary to assure a consistent relation between interventions
based on ‘functional regions’ and those based on political-administrative territorial units.
However, this consistency may be safeguarded in different ways, so the relationship between
functional and administrative boundaries may, in theory, assume three different configurations:
i) Coincidence
This is the solution advocated by those who believe that it is difficult to promote
ad hoc geographies of cooperation and intervention in the absence of a clear
regulatory framework; for these authors, sharing some generic principles and a
spatial strategic vision is not always enough to ensure the desired consistency
between the different types of intervention.
ii) Complementarity
According to this view, interventions based on ‘functional regions’ should
consistently complement the plans, strategies and programs of the levels
immediately below (municipal) and above (regional or national) them. They
should do so by aligning goals, criteria and indicators, in order to stimulate an
effective synergy between various scales of intervention and simultaneously,
prevent any duplication of efforts.
iii) Absence of any connection
According to this last view, an explicit link between interventions based on
‘functional regions’ and operations that coincide with political-administrative
units are not mandatory, as long as it is guaranteed that there is no overlapping
in terms of objectives and as long as there are no adverse effects provoked to
each other.
It can therefore be deduced that there is no articulation between the delimitation of ‘functional
regions’ and political-administrative boundaries that is widely recognised as excellent. This
diversity of positions coexists, however, with the widespread concern of ensuring coherence
between interventions within different geographies, in order to maximise the expected impacts
and to minimise the costs of overlapping and unwanted side effects.
An evaluation of interventions based on the definition of ‘functional regions’ developed in
different countries seems to advise a delimitation process organised in two steps: 1) the
functional delimitation based on criteria appropriate to the targeted objectives, 2) the
adjustment to the nearest administrative unit’s borders that encapsulates all the “functional
region “defined in stage 1. It is thereby tried to maintain the relevant – from the point of view of
the intervention – functional territory as the main reference, but ensuring its coincidence with
formalizes spaces of democratic decision-making (groups of municipalities whose
configurations generally do not coincide with NUT 3).

20
Question 11
|
What is the connection between ‘functional regions’ and spatial
planning instruments?
A functional approach, such as those based on ‘functional regions’, requires strong coordination
capacity without using binding plans or autonomous resources. Its operationalisation therefore
depends of the existence of supra-municipal strategic planning strategies or instruments (sub-
regional, regional or national) that frame integrated interventions focusing on ‘functional
regions’ and that rely on effective coordination mechanisms between different policies and
different levels of government. In other words, these strategies or strategic plans should not
only define the territorial development objectives proposed for the specific ‘functional region’,
but also the respective governance system, explaining how responsibilities and institutional and
operational competences are distributed in relation to their various aspects.
In some countries, and for certain fields (sub-regional labour markets in Denmark, for example),
the municipalities involved in the same ‘functional region’ can develop a common land use plan,
which is binding. But the nature of ‘functional regions’ makes them more suitable for a
performing planning model than for a compliance planning model, i.e. a binding one.
In Portugal, the National Spatial Planning Policy Programme (PNPOT) and the Spatial Planning
Regional Plans (PROT) define guidelines, particularly with regard to the territorial model, which
should be taken into account in the definition of ‘functional regions’ for the purposes of
integrated territorial development interventions. The use of ‘functional regions’ implies, in turn,
the development of specific guidelines that complement the more general framework enshrined
in those documents.
Therefore, the use of ‘functional regions’ within integrated territorial development strategies
does not presuppose the elaboration of autonomous and binding planning instruments. But it
may mature and, in some cases, become justified compared to national and regional spatial
plans.
Question 12
|
What is the connection between ‘functional regions’ and systems of
governance?
The effective operationalisation of ‘functional regions’ as a territorial development instrument
implies the existence of efficient forms of governance based on four complementary
components:
i) Horizontal cooperation involving reciprocal and multi-sectoral interdependencies
between urban centres and between the latter and rural areas within the same
‘functional region’;
ii) Vertical cooperation around the constitution of thematic networks with a
component of greater proximity and another component of insertion in global
strategic networks;
iii) Multi-level vertical articulation, involving centres of political decision that operate
at different geographical scales (local, regional, national, European Union);
iv) Participation of entities with different cultural traditions and political cultures
and sometimes also with quite a distinct political will.

21
The dimension of horizontal cooperation, which is crucial for any initiative based on the concept
of ‘functional region’, is perhaps the most difficult, because it faces problems of competition,
especially between different municipalities, and lack of coordination, particularly between
sectoral entities. However, previous experiences suggest that inter-municipal cooperation is
easier, particularly when it occurs within formal coordination fora, appropriate public programs
or integrated regional strategies. In the case of relations between urban and rural areas, the
fundamental assumption of horizontal cooperation processes is that there are reciprocal
benefits for entities and populations of both territories and therefore economic and social
benefits for the ‘region’ as a whole. Public transport strategies, procurement strategies,
territorial marketing or integrated management of ecological networks, energy strategies, food
supply strategies or local businesses are examples of forms of horizontal cooperation that may
benefit from a more qualified relation between urban and rural areas.
The dimension of vertical cooperation, based on better organisation among the actors of the
‘functional region’, aims to ensure connections to entities and networks that are external to the
‘region’. The development of clusters, the access to information, knowledge and services, which
are strategic to local businesses, including the collaboration with national and transnational
thematic networks, are areas that can benefit from vertical cooperation. These forms of
cooperation should ensure a proper relation between the specificities of the ‘region’ and broader
– national or global – contexts.
Both in the case of vertical and of horizontal cooperation, objectives and means must be
properly identified and the various entities involved in the process must be fully aware of their
meaning, significance and implications (costs and benefits).
The multi-level vertical articulation is dependent on the clarity and effective implementation of
the division of competences and tasks defined for the various levels of decision-making, ranging
from the EU to the local scale. Although there is a remarkable diversity of political-institutional
settings among different EU Member States, this component seems to be, among the four
identified, generally the least problematic.
Finally, the issue of participation (cultural traditions, political culture and political will) is
transverse to the three previous dimensions. The attitudes and behaviours – both individual and
institutional – change slowly, but the existence of incentives for entering partnerships
(integration awards, funding benefits, etc.) and the introduction of penalties for those who do
not comply seem to trigger change in this area.
Altogether, cooperation, coordination and participation in the context of ‘functional regions’
involve new forms of territorial governance that are democratic, transparent and open, able to
connect communities of place and communities of interests through coherent networks that are
strengthened by shared goals for the future of a particular territory.
Question 13
|
What are the essential governance pre-requisites for sucessful
“functional regions”?
There is no single universal answer to this question. But the multiple experiences of functional
based approaches in various countries – in this case, integrated interventions in specially
designated territories – allow us to emphasise a core of common requirements:

22
i) A medium / long term strategy with clear and focused objectives
The choice of such interventions should derive from rigorous diagnoses and
scenario building exercises and should be integrated in medium- or long-term
strategies at the regional or national level. This means that these interventions
cannot correspond to decisions with no strategic framework and should not be
designed solely on the basis of contexts of opportunity (availability of financial
support, for example) that we wish to benefit from.
Moreover, initiatives based on the concept of ‘functional region’ should focus
exclusively on aspects that have justified the demarcation of a specific area of
intervention and that are characterised by not being easily solved or promoted
by a single entity or through multiple individual actions. The initiative should be
able to add value to the results that may be achieved by developed individually
interventions of either sectoral or territorial entities (municipalities, for
example).
Clear and focused objectives that have quantified targets will, in turn, allow a
more rigorous assessment of costs and benefits by all partners involved in the
partnership and in its governance system. This aspect is important to prevent the
creation of unrealistic expectations that will later inevitably lead to
discouragement, to disbelief and demobilisation, with negative effects on the
realisation of the intervention.
ii) Political will and collaborative culture
Complex forms of cooperation and high transaction costs (especially in terms of
time) cannot be imposed. They must be desired, i.e. they have to be voluntarily
constructed on the basis of political will, mutual trust and willingness to work in
a partnership. These characteristics should define the central actors who should
in fact be not very numerous.
A governance system accepted by all partners is a strategic factor for the success
of the operation. It is therefore essential to assess in advance the local presence
of values such as the willingness of local authorities to share power with other
bodies, the experience of working in partnership, the existence of strong but
collaborative leadership or the existence of sources of competition, rivalry or
conflict between municipalities or between the latter and other actors.
iii) Competent partners
The thorough knowledge of local contexts is essential from the outset, so that
there is sufficient interaction between the allocation of areas of intervention in
terms of human, social, environmental, economic and financial capital (diagnosis)
and the strategies to be developed. But it is also crucial to assess their resilience
(risks, opportunities and needs) and ability to adapt and change based on the
characteristics of potential partners (public, private and civil society), to
establish networks among themselves and with the outskirts of the ‘region’ and
even its tendency for innovation and entrepreneurship. The existence of a core of
competent partners, regarding knowledge and decision making capacity, is the
basis of any partnership.

23
iv) Strong, flexible and inclusive partnerships
The existence of strong and flexible partnerships throughout its duration
presupposes several conditions that complement and reinforce each other. We
will list six of these conditions that are recurrently identified in evaluation
studies on such partnerships.
First, to clarify the distribution of responsibilities and competences between the
different actors involved, which is particularly critical regarding forms of
cooperation that are, as in these cases, demanding from the point of view of the
mechanisms of horizontal and vertical coordination.
Second, to ensure the inclusive nature of the partnership throughout its duration,
i.e. during planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, in order to
increase the sense of belonging and of co-responsibility of all partners, which is
an important factor to minimise management conflicts within the partnership.
Third, to protect the quality of conflict management procedures, consensus
building and partnership formation – which does not always happen – when
there is a cohesive and stable core group of partners.
Fourth, to define and adopt clear rules that allow flexible management of the
status and responsibilities of each partner over time without, however,
jeopardising the global stability of the partnership and of the intervention.
Fifth, to ensure appropriate institutional relations by, for example, not
developing imposition mechanisms from the national or regional levels, not
underestimate the role of lower administrative levels or not creating new
intermediate structures.
Finally, and more pragmatically, to ensure the correct technical assistance to
partners and to create, from the start, a management / secretariat structure that
will develop tasks that cannot and must not be secured by individual partners.
v) Time
It is essential to assure the time required to develop partnerships, strategies and
plans and to obtain the desired results. For all these processes, time is critical.
To create formal hierarchical structures may increase the chances of success of a
given intervention in the short run, but the informal structures are more efficient
in situations where smaller entities (municipalities and NGOs comparing to
companies, for example) feel threatened by the asymmetry of the power relations
between the different partners involved.
In these cases, the efficiency of the intervention presupposes an environment
characterised by trust and interactive learning processes, which take time to
consolidate, rather than by mechanisms of hierarchical authority.
The use of ‘functional regions’ is therefore not compatible with short cycles of
programming and evaluation. It requires gradualism, flexibility and constant
monitoring of processes and results, so that the introduction of any adjustments
to the goals and objectives originally set can, whenever necessary, occur without
disruption.
In short, any system of governance of ‘functional regions’ requires, in order to be successful: a
reference strategy, political agreements concerning its main objectives, an environment of trust

24
and collaboration, competent partners and strong partnerships, efficient forms of coordination
and time to discuss, learn, implement, evaluate and adjust.
1.2 Examples of urban-based and sub-regional level territorial development
interventions based on ‘functional regions’
The analysis of similar examples developed in other countries (see Annex III), the framework
provided by the Commission's proposals for the next 2014-2020 programming period (see
Annex II) and the set of observations summarised in the previous subsection allow us to present,
as an example, four integrated and multi-sectoral territorial development strategies focused,
respectively, in the following goals:
. Promoting sustainable mobility
. Promoting innovation and internationalisation
. Valuing ecological urban-rural networks
. Promoting socio-territorial cohesion
Table 3 crosses these various goals with the two types of ‘functional region’ considered in this
study: functional urban regions (FUR) and functional urban-rural regions (FURR). For each of
the situations resulting from the crossing of both aspects Table 3 identifies the more appropriate
governance and implementation mechanisms for the 2014-2020 period. A synthetic comparison
of these mechanisms is made in Table 4.
Table 3. Key mechanisms of implementation of integrated and multi-sectoral regional
development strategies by goal and ‘functional region’
Types of
‘functional region’
Goal
Promoting
sustainable mobility
Promoting
innovation and
internationalisation
Valuing ecological
urban-rural
networks
Promoting socio-
territorial cohesion
Functional Urban
Region
(FUR)
Integrated
Territorial
Investment (ITI)
Integrated
Territorial
Investment (ITI)
Integrated
Territorial
Investment (ITI)
_
Functional Urban-
rural Region
(FURR)
_
_
Integrated
Territorial
Investment (ITI)
or
Community-led
Local Development
(CLLD)
Integrated
Territorial
Investment (ITI)
or
Community-led
Local Development
(CLLD)

25
Table 3 induces four comments:
i) Due to their nature, the first three goal only apply to the functional urban regions (FUR)
and should preferably be implemented through the Integrated Territorial Investment
(ITI) mechanism;
ii) The goal of “Valuing ecological urban-rural networks” is justified in both types of
‘functional region’;
iii) The goal of “promoting social and territorial cohesion” is justified only in ‘urban-rural
functional regions’;
iv) In the case of urban-rural functional regions, the last two goal can be implemented
through separate instruments; the choice of ITI or DPCL depends on the
characteristics of the area of intervention, the type of territorial development
strategy and specific objectives, because the central actors and the range of eligible
actions will be different depending on the choice of instrument (see Table 4).

26
Table 4. Comparison of two instruments for the implementation of multi-sectoral and integrated
territorial development strategies: Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) and Community-led
Local Development (CLLD).
Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI)
(Funds: ESF, ERDF, Cohesion Fund)
Community-led Local Development (CLLD).
(Funds: the 5 CSF funds)
Multi-sectoral and integrated territorial development approach based on a territorial strategy
Strategy prepared by the region / city (without
formal involvement of local communities)
Spatial strategy elaborated by local communities (bottom-
up): can not be imposed if there is no initiative at the local
level
The strategy can be implemented by the
Management Authority or another entity. The
delegation of some tasks is required in accordance
with Article 7 of the ERDF.
The strategy is implemented by Local Action Groups,
ensuring a balanced representation of the various entities
involved. It is mandatory to delegate certain tasks in Local
Action Groups (namely, the selection of projects).
It involves a combination of funds from different
priority axis (or Operational Programmes)
In the case of ERDF and ESF, the DPCL should be
implemented within the same investment priority axis
All kinds of investments Projects defined by local communities, particularly small-
scale
Lack of a specific methodology Methodology defined in Regulations
Source: Peter Berkowitz, Head of Unit DG REGIO C.1, SAWP Meeting, 3 July 2012.
It should be noted, though, that the two types of instruments of implementation of integrated
and multi-sectoral regional development listed in Table 4 are not the only ones possible. The
Commission presents three other alternative solutions to the Integrated Territorial Investments:
specific Operational Programmes, integrated operations and “multi-investment” priority axis.
With regard to the Community-led Local Development instrument the possibility of articulating it
with, for example, territorial pacts for employment, education and social inclusion should be
considered.
The summaries that follow seek to illustrate the four types of intervention based on the concept
of ‘functional region’ according to the priorities, objectives and conditions set for the next EU
programming cycle 2014-2020.

27
Example 1: Promotion of sustainable mobility
Objective . Promotion of sustainable and territorially integrated systems of mobility
and urban development
Alignment with Europe 2020 priorities
. Sustainable growth
Alignment with the thematic objectives
of the Common Strategic Framework
. Transportation (thematic goal 7)
. Low carbon economy (4)
. Employment (8)
. Environment (6)
. SMEs (3)
. Institutional capacity building (11)
Type of instrument . Integrated strategy for urban development and transport infrastructures
that are sustainable at a metropolitan or inter-urban scale
Specific objectives
. To combat dispersed urban growth and territorial fragmentation,
through a joint strategy for public transport, for the location of housing,
commerce and services and for urban regeneration
. To improve regional mobility, through a regional network of public
transport that is consistent and has high quality, including multimodal
interfaces connected to the railway
. To improve local accessibility by increasing urban density and multi-
functionality around public transport nodes, particularly railway stations
. To decrease the consumption of energy based on fossil fuels
. To mitigate climate change through the reduction of individual transport
and greenhouse gas emissions
. To protect the landscape, natural resources and air quality by reducing
the environmental impacts of mobility and urban growth
Type of ‘functional region’
. Functional urban regions / FUR (sub-regional or interregional areas of a
metropolitan or poli-urban nature)
Implicit definition of ‘functional region’ . Metropolitan region or sub-regional polycentric urban system
Delimitation criteria . Labour basin: (i) defined by TTWAs, (ii) structured by public transport
interfaces
. Common economic geography
Areas of intervention
. Transportation (multimodality)
. Energy efficiency
. Urban planning and land use (rehabilitation / densification)
. Housing / urbanisation (location)
. Employment (mobility)
. Climate change (mitigation)
. Landscape (protection)
. Real estate investment (in urban rehabilitation operations)
Implementation tools
. Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI)
Responsible Institution Platform of municipalities, transport operators and entities overseen by
ministries with responsibilities for transport, environment, spatial
planning and regional development

28
Governance system
. An independent body is responsible for the managing the strategy; it acts
as an intermediary between the private and public partners involved; it is
not a decision-making body (there is no transfer of powers from local or
central government authorities)
. Co-management in the form of territorial contracts or territorial
cooperation contracts
Financing system
. ERDF + ESF + Cohesion Fund + private and public investment
. Partnerships between private and public actors and financial institutions
. Establish a FUR Investment Fund
. Add innovative instruments, e.g. revolving funds (mechanisms that
ensure the reinvestment of capital gains generated by the initial funding)
Examples of initiatives
Denmark:
. Sjællandsprojektet - Projecto de Estrutura para a Região de Zealand
(2010-2030)
http://www.naturstyrelsen.dk/Planlaegning/Projekter/Sjaellandsprojekt
et/
. Østjyllandsprojektet - Projeto East Jutland (2010-…)
http://www.naturstyrelsen.dk/Planlaegning/Landsplanlaegning/Samarb
ejde.htm
The Netherlands:
. StedenbaanPlus - Programa ‘Cidades em Linha’ (2010-2020)
http://www.stedenbaanplus.nl/
http://connectedcities.eu/showcases/stedenbaan.html
http://www.stedenbaanplus.nl/sites/www.stedenbaanplus.nl/files/page/
downloads/stedenbaanplus_tod_in_the_south_wing_of_the_randstad.pdf
Evaluation
Strengths:
. Promoting territorial cohesion through spatial planning integrated with the planning of
transport systems (one of the objectives of the Common Transport Policy)
. Associating spatial planning issues and transport issues to the energy-climate package
. Integrating strategies that are geographically and sectorally fragmented in a common regional
vision
Weaknesses: . The management strategy is complex and, given the involvement of multiple partners, the
decision-making process can become time consuming
. The management structure has no binding power to force partners to adopt the proposals or to
correct the behaviour of free riders municipalities
. The current economic and financial crisis has a great impact on the real estate and on heavy
investment in infrastructure
Comments
. The strategy is influenced by the concept of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in which train, bus, tram and
metro stations are the nodes of a regional transportation system that will allow fast and comfortable door-to-door
travel throughout the region
. In terms of public transport, the strategy should identify and develop a coherent and interconnected network of
national and urban trains, subways, buses and trams
. In terms of regional development, the strategy should pursue agreements with partners on the reorganisation and
densification of construction around existing and potential railway stations; it should also pursue agreements for the
development and bicycle parks and Park-and-Ride facilities close to these public transport nodes
. The previous two domains should be associated to a more general vision of building a competitive low carbon
economy in terms of mobility and urban regeneration

29
Example 2: Promoting innovation and internationalisation
Objective
. Promoting territorially integrated dynamics of innovation,
competitiveness and internationalisation
Alignment with Europe 2020 priorities
. Intelligent growth
Alignment with the thematic objectives
of the Common Strategic Framework
. Research and technology (thematic goal 1)
. Information and communication technologies (2)
. SMEs (3)
. Employment (8)
. Education, skills, lifelong learning (10)
. Low carbon economy (4)
. Institutional capacity building (11)
Type of instrument
. Territorial based strategy
Specific objectives
. To stimulate economic development of complex geographic
agglomerations with high added value economies
. Managing and planning functionally integrated territories seeking smart
growth
. To generate positive externalities and to increase the competitiveness of
the FUR
. To adopt a common strategic vision and to foster collaboration among
actors for smart growth by strengthening knowledge and innovation
capacity, competitiveness and internationalisation of the FUR
Type of ‘functional region’
. Functional urban regions / FUR (sub-regional or interregional areas of a
metropolitan or poli-urban nature)
Implicit definition of ‘functional region’
. City-region
. Polycentric sub-regional urban systems
. Territorial context appropriate to operationalise smart specialisation
strategies and to explore synergies between businesses and coordinated
entrepreneurship initiatives at the sub-regional or inter-regional levels
without linkage to the NUTS 2
Delimitation criteria
. Clustering of companies, sectors and institutions relevant to the
economic development
. Labour market / commuting
. Economic interdependencies (work, services, economic relations)
. Networks of relations of knowledge and innovation
. Adjustment to the territorial strategies of smart growth
Areas of intervention
. Entrepreneurship (start-ups, creation of knowledge-intensive companies
and in emerging areas - creativity, low carbon, renewable energy,
innovative services)
. Research & Innovation (infrastructure and equipment, training of new

30
skills, innovation in energy efficiency and renewable energies,
dissemination and adoption of new technologies in enterprises,
technology transfer, cooperation between companies and research and
education institutions)
. Clusters and poles (support for mature clusters, support for emerging
clusters - culture and creativity, energy, health, TICE..., partnerships
between business, government and R & I)
. Integration into international value chains
. Training and mobility in the labour market (new skills for new jobs)
. Information technologies (infrastructure of Next Generation Access
(NGA) that are open, affordable, viable and sustainable, large-scale
adoption of ICT-based innovations)
. Internationalisation infrastructure (ports, airports, highways...)
Implementation tools
. Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI)
Responsible Institution . Platform between business associations, businesses, R & I institutions
and FUR municipalities, with possible participation of entities of the
Ministry of Economy and Employment and the Ministry of Education and
Science
Governance system
. An independent body is responsible for the managing the strategy; it acts
as an intermediary between the private and public partners involved; it is
not a decision-making body (there is no transfer of powers from local or
central government authorities)
. Co-management in the form of territorial contracts or territorial
cooperation contracts
Financing system
. ERDF + ESF + Cohesion Fund + private and public investment
. Partnerships between private and public actors and financial institutions
. Establish a FUR Investment Fund
Examples of initiatives United Kingdom:
. Local Enterprise Partnerships : 39 LEP
http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/economic-development/leps/
Finland:
. Regional Centre Programme
http://www.intermin.fi/intermin/hankkeet/aky/home.nsf/pages/indexe
ng
The Netherlands:
. Structure Vision for Infrastructure and Territory: 6 urban networks:
Randstad Holland, Brabantstad, Southern Limburg, Twente, Arnhem-
Nijmegen, Groningen-Assen
http://www.government.nl/issues/spatial-planning/roles-and-
responsibilities-of-central-government

31
Evaluation
Strengths: . Conjugating economic and functional dynamics of clustering and implementation of policies
for competitiveness, innovation and internationalisation
. Definition of development strategies that are not limited to pre-defined spatial divisions such
as the NUTS 2
. Decentralisation of competences for economic development in favour of actors and
institutions in the area of intervention
. Efficiency gains through the integrated management, in the same territory, of the dynamics of
innovation and internationalisation
Weaknesses: . Difficulty in the delimitation of the areas of intervention based on objective criteria
(quantitative thresholds)
. Difficulty in the constitution of FUR in geographical clusters with weak institutional capacity
or high level of conflict between staff and leaders of the area of intervention
. Possibly long period of learning how to manage the ITI innovative initiative
Comments
. The delimitation of the RUF cannot rely on purely technical criteria. The adoption of the place-based approach to
economic development is materialised through the articulation of policy options adjusted to coherent functional
geographical units and necessarily to political institutions (municipalities) and associations (businesses’
associations) of the FUR
. The intervention in internationalisation infrastructures should be combined with a component of intervention in
those infrastructure that are associated with sustainable mobility
. It will be necessary to study ways of managing and implementing Structural Funds in FUR both within less
developed regions (greater financial resources) and within more developed regions (lower budget), so as not to
violate criteria of the European Cohesion Policy and simultaneously not to compromise the integrated development
strategy, competitiveness, innovation and internationalisation of the FUR

32
Example 3: Valuing urban-rural ecological networks
Objective
. Planning, management and enhancement of ecological networks seeking
the articulation between urban-rural cohesion and sustainable
development
Alignment with Europe 2020 priorities
. Sustainable growth
Alignment with the thematic objectives
of the Common Strategic Framework
. Environment (thematic goal 6)
. Climate change (5)
. SMEs, agriculture (3)
. Low carbon economy (4)
. Capacity building (11)
Type of instrument
. Strategic plan / territorial based strategy
Specific objectives
. To develop territorial development strategies in which ecological
differentiation and ecological quality contribute to increase the
attractiveness of the area of intervention as a place to live and work, as
well as for recreation and tourism
. To ensure territorial multifunctionality as a strategy to achieve the
following goals:
- Vast biodiversity and habitats
- Maintenance of fundamental ecological processes
- Soil conservation and combating desertification
- Adaptation and mitigation of climate change impacts
- Risk management
- Increasing the quality of air and water
- Construction and/or conservation of protected landscapes
- Increasing the recreational areas
- Creating or strengthening cultural identity
- Improvement of welfare and public health
- Valuing property
- Reducing public costs in environmental hazards such as floods,
water treatment, erosion, landslides, etc.
. To integrate sectoral policies that relate the above goals with other
territorial based policies (sustainable urban development, rural
development, spatial planning, etc.).
Type of ‘functional region’
. Functional Urban Regions / FUR (metropolitan or poli-urban sub- or
inter-regional territories)
. Functional Urban-Rural Regions / FURR (sub-regional territories
polarised by medium-sized cities)
Implicit definition of ‘functional region’
. Network of areas that compose a regional or sub-regional green
infrastructure with the following features:

33
i) Spaces that include key natural resources and ensure the
maintenance, functionality and sustainability of biophysical systems
(cycles of water, carbon, nitrogen)
ii) The provision of ecological services and functions, such as: supply
(water, food), production (agriculture, livestock, forestry, etc.),
regulation (climate, air quality), cultural (recreation, education),
science (production and dissemination of knowledge) and support
(photosynthesis, soil formation, habitats)
iii) Territorial continuity and connectivity (green corridors), both in
rural and urban context, countering and preventing the effects of
fragmentation and artificialisation of ecological systems
iv) Integrated management
Delimitation criteria
. Variable, depending on the specific territorial characteristics and the
territorial development strategy adopted:
i) Predominance of water resources (irrigation, public supply,
recreation, etc.): watershed boundaries
ii) Predominance of soil resources (soil conservation for agriculture
or forestry): land bank
iii) Overlay of several factors: ecological unit / landscape unit that
ensures the balanced functioning of ecological systems and
processes in question
Areas of intervention
. Energy efficiency, climate change, low carbon initiatives and agricultural
production and forestry
. Food production (foodshed or foodsystems)
. Public and recreational spaces
. Tourism and landscape quality
Implementation tools
. Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI)
or
. Community-led Local Development (CLLD).
Responsible Institution . In the case of the implementation mechanism being a ITI:
Platform between: local authorities (LA), LA associations, business
associations,
. In the case of the implementation mechanism being a CLLD:
Total or partial delegation in Local Action Groups, resulting from strong
partnerships with ability to make commitments, share responsibilities and
manage complex dynamics of participation and coordination
Governance system
. In the case of the implementation mechanism being a ITI:
i) An independent body is responsible for the managing the strategy;
it acts as an intermediary between the private and public partners
involved; it is not a decision-making body (there is no transfer of
powers from local or central government authorities)
ii) Co-management in the form of territorial contracts or territorial
cooperation contracts
. In the case of the implementation mechanism being a CLLD:
i) Local development strategies managed by Local Action Groups in
accordance with the rules laid down in the regulations
ii) First, experimental and demonstrative initiatives should be
developed, discussed and assessed, subsequently evolving into
initiatives focusing on larger geographic areas and with more

34
partners
Financing system
. In the case of the implementation mechanism being a ITI:
i) ERDF + ESF + Cohesion Fund + private and public investment
ii) Partnerships between private and public actors and financial
institutions
iii) Establish a FUR Investment Fund
. In the case of the implementation mechanism being a CLLD:
i) All funds of the Common Strategic Framework
ii) Public and private investments
. In both cases, it is important to consider possibilities for coordination,
especially between the EAFRD and ESF and the Operational Programmes
(OPs), included in the Rural Development Plan (RDP 2014-2020)
Examples of initiatives . Integrated development strategies, based on a landscape approach in
Spain at a regional level:
http://www.recep-enelc.net/allegati/Recep-
Enelc_Working%20Landscapes%201.pdf
. Strategy for the Danube Region (various countries)
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/news/research-eu/docs/focus11_en.pdf
. Project Europe (5 countries) that brings together environmental hazards,
climate change and capacity building:
http://www.factsproject.eu/pilotprojects/Pages/default.aspx
Portuguese partner – Baixo Vouga
http://www.factsproject.eu/pilotprojects/baixovougalagunar/Pages/defa
ult.aspx
. European project (VALUE) that results from a European partnership (9
partners) in order to demonstrate the economic value of green
infrastructures in cities and regionshttp://www.value-landscapes.eu/
Project summary:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/2
70na4.pdf
. Projects funded by the EU Regional Policy (DGREGIO 2007-2013) on the
implementation of green infrastructures
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/10_MF_GI_19
1110.pdf
Evaluation
Strengths: . Portugal has a suitable size for logics of urban-rural complementarity, particularly in the
coastal-inland axis, both at a regional or sub-regional scale
. The role of mid-size and territorial cohesion may be strengthened cities by consolidating
polycentric development strategies and further enhancing urban-rural integration – ecological

35
networks should be perceived as multifunctional structures with multiple benefits.
. The ecological component of territorial development is recognised in several policy
instruments for the next financial programming period, especially in key areas such as climate
change and energy efficiency
. There are several flagship projects and good practices in Europe that demonstrate the
economic importance of adequate investment in green infrastructures
Weaknesses: . Generalised inability or disinterest in the pursuit of a strategic vision rather than a short-term
view in terms of spatial planning and development
. Perception of the ecological component as a component that hinders development
. Lack of institutional capacity and experience to work in effective partnership, hampered by
urban/rural and environment/agriculture/economics divides
Comments
. The quality of the landscape is a valuable territorial capital, it is an increasingly important factor for the attraction
and retention of innovative firms and skilled residents and is an invaluable resource for the development of tourism.
A cluttered landscape generates high costs to society in the form of lost economic opportunities, environmental risks
and threats to public health
. The understanding of ecosystems and landscape, as well as of how they will respond to climate change and other
pressures (urban, industrial pollution, etc..), is essential for the development of adaptation strategies and sustainable
management of natural resources of any territory

36
Example 4: Promoting social and territorial cohesion
Objective
. Promoting territorial, social and economic relations between medium-
sized cities and rural and peripheral contexts in order to achieve greater
socio-territorial cohesion and inclusive integrated development.
Alignment with Europe 2020 priorities
. Inclusive growth
. Intelligent growth
Alignment with the thematic objectives
of the Common Strategic Framework
. Employment (thematic goal 8)
. Social inclusion (9)
. SMEs, agriculture (3)
. Information and communication technologies (2)
. Education, skills and lifelong learning (10)
. Capacity building (11)
Type of instrument
. Territorial development strategy
. Territorial pact
Specific objectives
. To promote employment through the creation and interaction of local
services, seeking professional insertion and personalised counselling for
vulnerable populations (unemployed, precarious workers, those risking
poverty)
. To locally flag and monitor the most vulnerable situations in terms of risk
of poverty, child labor and isolation of the elderly
. To boost services and densify local networks of home, family and
community support.
. To promote services that support and advice businesses, seeking
economic and social innovation, organisational effectiveness of the SMEs
and creating start-up companies
. To monitor local needs for employment and the differentiated and
targeted offer of vocational training actions (unemployed, workers,
managers and entrepreneurs)
. To create institutional networks between local businesses and schools
(universities, secondary schools, etc.), seeking a better articulation
between vocational training, research, technological development and
innovation
To attract urbanites to rural areas in order to reverse the regressive
tendencies that affect low density areas, and implement policies that
ensure the necessary conditions of spatial mobility and connectivity
between populations and territories
. To create sub-regional foodsheds/systems capable of generating
synergies between: (i) supply (cooperation of local farmers and promotion
of urban markets for the sale and promotion of produce), (ii) demand
(creation and promotion of local and/or regional consumers’
associations/cooperatives), and (iii) the articulation between the practices
and the organized consumers’ groups and the activities conducted by
producers and other operators in food and supply chains
. To create urban-rural platforms for promoting tourism and selling local
(cultural, heritage and environmental) resources
Type of ‘functional region’ . Functional Urban-Rural Regions / FURR (sub-regional territories
polarised by medium-sized cities)

37
Implicit definition of ‘functional region’
. (Networks) of medium-sized cities and surrounding rural areas
Delimitation criteria
. Territories of social and territorial cohesion polarized by one or more
medium-sized cities
Areas of intervention
. Social inclusion, employment and labour mobility, professional
integration
. Spatial and residential mobility
. Innovation and competitiveness of SMEs
. Lifelong learning and reinforcing professional skills
. Strengthening the institutional capacity and efficiency and sharing
services and resources
. Use of ICT in various areas of intervention as effective platforms for the
relation/mediation and for the promotion of new skills
Implementation tools
. Community-led Local Development (CLLD).
or
. Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI)
Responsible Institution . In the case of the implementation mechanism being a CLLD:
Total or partial delegation in Local Action Groups: local authorities, job
centres, business associations, trade unions, local development
associations, co-ops, other associations
. In the case of the implementation mechanism being an ITI:
Platform between the type of entities referred to above, but led by local or
sub-regional public entities
Governance system
. In the case of the implementation mechanism being a CLLD:
i) Local development strategies managed by Local Action Groups in
accordance with the rules laid down in the regulations
ii) First, experimental and demonstrative initiatives should be
developed, discussed and assessed, subsequently evolving into
initiatives focusing on larger geographic areas and with more
partners
. In the case of deployment mechanism being an ITI:
i) An independent body is responsible for the managing the strategy;
it acts as an intermediary between the private and public partners
involved; it is not a decision-making body (there is no transfer of
powers from local or central government authorities)
ii) Co-management in the form of territorial contracts or territorial
cooperation contracts
Financing system
. In the case of the implementation mechanism being a CLLD:
i) All funds of the Common Strategic Framework
ii) Public and private investments
. In the case of deployment mechanism being an ITI:
i) ERDF + ESF + Cohesion Fund + private and public investment
ii) Partnerships between private and public actors and financial
institutions
iii) Establish a FUR Investment Fund
Examples of initiatives Some examples of partnerships and regional or national networks:
. Entrepreneurs for Social Inclusion

38
http://www.epis.pt
. Local-regional foodsheds/systems
http://foodshed.net/
http://www.prove.com.pt
. Rural areas re-settlement initiatives
http://www.installation-campagne.fr
http://www.novospovoadores.pt/
. Platforms for the promotion of cultural heritage
http://www.linhasdetorresvedras.com/
http://www.rotadacortica.pt/
. Public and/or private partnerships that support local initiatives for
economic and business development
http://www.westofenglandlep.co.uk/
http://www.leedscityregion.gov.uk/
http://www.push.gov.uk/
. Smart cities, social and community innovation
http://www.ponrec.it/bandi/smartcities_communities_socialinnovation/
. Home support
http://www.cm-
amadora.pt/PageGen.aspx?WMCM_PaginaId=39842&WMCM_RootMenuId
=27526&WMCM_MenuId=39850
. Sustainability and green communities
http://www.greencommunities.it/green-communities-progetto.html
Evaluation
Strengths: . Increasing networks and partnerships which mobilize and coordinate various actors, from the
public, private and 3rd sectors, and both urban and rural
. Investing in local services in order to more effectively monitor and respond to problems
arising from vulnerable social situations and to needs of business initiatives and of promotion
of employment
Weaknesses: . Absence of a culture of cooperation between entities, both in urban and rural contexts
. Difficulty in defining a consolidated management/administration structure responsible for
the projects and actions developed in a logic of medium- and long-term continuity
. Difficulty in generating platforms for joint action and understanding among agencies/public
services and civil society
Comments

39
. The complementarity of skills and capabilities between, on the one hand, public institutions/agencies and their
respective services and public buildings and on the other, entities from the private and/or 3rd sector, should be a
guiding principle for networks and partnerships promoted by Community-led Local Development (CLLD). The
sharing of responsibilities should result from a process of institutionalisation of roles, functions and responsibilities
assumed from the various initiatives that will be developed.
. In cases deemed appropriate, the CLLD may be framed within a Territorial Integrated Investment (ITI), insofar as it
represents a more localised scale of intervention based on the provision of proximity services. For example, a CLLD
that focus on promoting employment and/or supporting the jobless should articulate with the ITI to encompass the
identified labour pool.

40
Annex I
Functional Regions | Key Concepts and Indicators

41
“Functional Regions”: Key concepts, delimitation and characterisation criteria
Concept Nature Description
Travel-To-
Work Area
(TTWA)
8
Functional Area that corresponds to the employment basin of a major city or conurbation
defined by travel-to-work commute. In the particular case of the United Kingdom,
the delimitation of these areas corresponds to the aggregation of municipalities in
which: i) at least 75% of the economic active residents work in the area and; ii) at
least 75% of the people working in the area also live in the area.
Morphological
Urban Area
(MUA)
9
Morphological According to ESPON, MUAs correspond to urban/municipal territories with at
least 650hab/km2. MUAs are the densely populated urban centres of FUAs, which
in turn are the employment basins defined by TTWAs around MUAs.
Functional
Urban Area
(FUA)
10
Functional FUAs correspond to an urban area with a centre of at least 15.000 inhabitants and
a total population of at least 50.000 inhabitants. FUAs are defined by their
influence area in terms of TTWAs, calculated at the LAU2 level. A FUA includes
one or more MUAs, as well as the surrounding areas in which at least 10% of the
population works within the limits of the MUA. There are cross-border FUAs,
although existing data is still scarce (e.g. ESPON Metroborde project). FUAs are
largely the debugging of their predecessors FURAs (Functional Urban Regions and
Areas).
Larger Urban
Zone (LUZ)
11
Political-
administrative
According to Urban Audit, LUZs are based on FUAs and represent an attempt by
EUROSTAT to harmonise the definition criteria for a metropolitan area at the EU
level. LUZs encompass FUAs with al least 500.000 inhabitants fitted to the
respective administrative boundaries.
Poli-Functional
Urban Area
(Poli-FUA)
12
Functional Poli-FUAs are groups of neighbouring FUAs. To identify a Poli-FUA one of the
following conditions must be met:
• Metropolis (> 500.000 hab.) with its urban centres located less than
60km apart and adjacent employment basins;
• 2 two cities of a large dimension (> 250.000 hab.) with their urban
centres located less than 30km apart and adjacent employment basins;
• 1 metropolis and 1 city of large or medium dimension (> 100.000 hab.)
with their urban centres located less than 30km apart and adjacent
employment basins;
• Metropolis (> 500.000 hab.) with its urban centres located less than
60km apart, separated only by the employment basin of a FUA, which is
adjacent to both
8
G. C. A. L. (2010) , Functional Economic Market Areas: An economic note. Communities and Local Government.
9
ESPON (2007b), Project 1.4.3 Study on Urban Functions, Final Report.
.
10
ESPON (2011), The Functional Urban Areas Database – ESPON 2013 Database.
11
The Larger Urban Zone: http://www.urbanaudit.org/help.aspx.

42
Figure 2. 4 Types of FUA: ex-industrial area of Ostrava (CZ), Ile-de-France
(FR), Central Metropolitan Region (B) and large metropolitan area of London
(UK)
Metropolitan
European
Growth Area
(MEGA)
13
Functional Building on the FUA concept, MEGAs cross the morphological criteria of
population density with functional criteria highlighting the location of supra-
national functions (transport, economic activity, control functions, territorial
management and governance, etc.) MEGAs are metropolitan FUAs that
individually or collectively (based on polycentric clusters) have adequate
population size, economic potential and strategic location (gateways, logistic
hubs, etc.) to become economic growth areas at the European scale.
Functional
Economic
Market Area
(FEMA)
14
Functional In the United Kingdom, the FEMAs match the spatial level at which the relevant
economic markets operate. Although there are methodological concerns about
their outline FEMAs are defined by the different economic relationships that exist
between the city and the region, such as TTWAs, housing markets, local business
networks, geographic patterns of acquisition of goods and services by the
population, the coverage area of a hospital, etc.
City-Region
15
Functional It concerns the city and its hinterland – defined by its labour market, transport
networks, TTWAs – and assumes the existence of some form of supra-local
government. Concept more widespread in the United Kingdom.
Functional
Region
16
Functional The OECD defines the functional region as a territorial unit that results from the
organisation of the social and economic relationships in space and not by the
conventional political-administrative or historical-geographical criteria. A
functional region is usually defined by labour market related criteria and TTWAs.
13
ESPON (2007), Project 1.4.3 Study on Urban Functions, Final Report.
.
14
G. C. A. L. (2010), Functional Economic Market Areas: An economic note. Communities and Local Government,
London.
15
NLGN (2005), Seeing the Light? Next Steps for City Regions. New Local Government Network, London.
16
OCDE (2011), Assessing and Monitoring Rural-Urban Linkages in Functional Regions: A methodological framework.
OCDE, Paris.

43
“Functional Regions”: examples of indicators for its definition and characterisation
There is not a consensual framework of territorial indicators on functional regions. A collection
of information on this issue allows the organisation of a table where we identify the most
relevant indicators and, for each one of them, its scale of implementation, information source
and objective. These indicators were grouped into six clusters (Table 4), according to the four
main thematic lines of discussion on urban-rural relations in the context of functional urban
regions - mobility, housing and infrastructure (A); provision of public services and economic
activities (B); environment and ecosystems (C), and governance (D) - to which we add
population dynamics (E) and dynamics of land use (F).
Table 5. Examples of indicators for the definition and characterisation of ‘functional regions’ by
domain
Grou
p
Indicator Scale Source Objective
A Accessibility to airport NUTS-3 Raster (SIG) Connectivity of the region
Construction of new buildings /
housing units
Municipal INE Residential demand (by
proxy)
Population living more than 45
minutes away by road from an
urban centre with more than
50.000 inhabitants
Municipal SIG, spatial
analysis
Population living in remote
areas (by proxy)
Duration of commuting (min.) Freguesia INE Level of interaction (by
proxy)
Proportion of the resident
population working or studying
in another city
Freguesia INE Level of interaction (by
proxy)
Proportion of the population
living within a certain distance of
a public transport station
Freguesia Raster (SIG) Degree of accessibility (by
proxy)
Proportion of road traffic volume
per vehicle type
National /
Regional
EC-Eurostat
(2010)
Functional characterisation of
road traffic volume
B Average distance to a higher
education institution
Municipal SIG, spatial
analysis
Access to collective higher
education facilities (by proxy)
Access to drinking water and
solid waste treatment systems
Municipal SIG, spatial
analysis
Access to basic sanitation
equipment (by proxy)
Proportion of population aged 6
to 13 living at a maximum 2km
distance of a primary or
secondary school
Municipal SIG, spatial
analysis
Access to collective education
facilities (by proxy)
Proportion of population living
within 15 min. or at a maximum
distance of 5 km from a hospital
Municipal SIG, spatial
analysis
Access to collective health
facilities (by proxy)
Accessibility to a shopping centre Municipal SIG, spatial
analysis
Demand for services (by
proxy)
Index of employment polarization
Freguesia INE Level of interaction (by
proxy)

44
Acquisition of goods and services Municipal Questionnaire Services provision (by proxy)
Population potential within a
radius of 50 km
Municipal SIG, spatial
analysis
Demand for services (by
proxy)
Average income according to
gender and location of the
workplace
Distrito MTSS/GEP Inter-FUA disparities
Average income and location of
the workplace
Distrito MTSS/GEP Inter-FUA disparities
C Landscape fragmentation Regional EEA FUA’s dynamics of ecological
sustainability (by proxy)
Landscape transformation Regional EEA FUA’s dynamics of ecological
sustainability (by proxy)
Open space preservation:
percentage of land reserved for
green spaces and recreational
areas
Regional SIG, spatial
analysis
FUA’s dynamics of ecological
sustainability (by proxy)
D Number of local authorities per
1000 inhabitants
Municipal INE FUA’s level of institutional
density (by proxy)
Administrative fragmentation
(by proxy)
Territorial cooperation projects NUTS-3 INTERREG, QREN Level of territorial
cooperation (by proxy)
R & D cooperation projects NUTS-3 QREN, UE Level of R&D cooperation (by
proxy)
E Population density Municipal INE Density of population and
demand for services (by
proxy)
Rate of migration growth Municipal INE Attractiveness of the region
(by proxy)
F Artificial areas (urban and other
uses)
NUTS-3 GIS, (fuzzy
analysis) Corine
Land Cover based
Urban pressure (by proxy)
Agricultural and agroforestry
areas
NUTS-3 GIS, (fuzzy
analysis) Corine
Land Cover based
Urban pressure (by proxy)
Area of the FUA Km2 Eurogeographics
(SIG)
Area of the MUA Km2 Eurogeographics
(SIG)

45
Annex II
Functional regions and the relations between urban and
rural areas in the context of the preparation of Community
policies for the period 2014-2020

46
Functional regions and the relations between urban and rural areas in the context
of the preparation of Community policies for the period 2014-2020: overview of
the debate of the past two years (2010-2011)
Based on documents produced in the last two years (2010 and 2011) in the context of the
preparation for the new cycle of EU policies for the period 2014-2020, an overview of the
developments regarding the clarification of the role that could in the future be attributed to
functional regions and to relations between urban and rural areas (urban-rural relations or,
symmetrically, rural-urban relations) during the next EU programming cycle.
The following text is organised into five sections:
. Section 1: Key reference documents of the new EU policy cycle proposed by the European
Commission, in particular the Europe 2020 strategy, the project of the funding package,
which includes a proposal for a framework regulation with common rules for the
management of the five EU funds and the Common Strategic Framework for 2014 - 2020;
. Section 2: The Cohesion Policy as EU territorial development policy, referring to the
conclusions of the Informal Council of Ministers responsible for EU Cohesion Policy
(regional policy) and territorial and urban development, held on 24-25 November 2011 in
Poznan (Poland);
. Section 3: Relation between rural development policy and the Cohesion Policy;
. Section 4: Relation between the European urban agenda and the Cohesion Policy;
. Section 5: Final summary in the form of a chart mapping the relations between the various
documents that are most relevant to the topic in question.
1. Key reference documents: from Europe 2020 to the more recent proposals
presented by the Commission to the European Council and Parliament
The process of preparation of the new cycle of EU policies for the period 2014-2020 has four
main reference documents proposed by the European Commission: i) the document EUROPE
2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth
17
, ii) a proposed budget for the
period, designated A Budget for Europe 2020
18
(which will not be analysed in this context), iii) a
draft legislative package on future policies, and iv) the proposed elements for a Common
Strategic Framework for the five funds
19
.
In the Europe 2020 strategy three priorities are established:
i) Smart growth: to develop an economy based on knowledge and innovation;
ii) Sustainable growth: to promote a greener, more competitive and more efficient (use of
resources) energy;
iii) Inclusive growth: to foster an economy with high levels of employment that ensures
social and territorial cohesion.
17
COM(2010) 2020 final, 3.3.2010.
18
COM(2011) 500 final, 29.6.2011.
19
SWD(2012) 61 final, 14.3.2012.

47
In order to achieve these priorities, the Commission proposes five major goals, linking them to
the definition of quantified targets. The Commission also proposes for each Member State to
translate the Europe 2020 into national objectives and trajectories. This strategy contains
several references to territorial cohesion and rural development components, but the priorities,
major goals and initiatives presented as emblematic are formulated in a generic way, not a
territorialised one. There are no explicit references to the two key elements of this study:
functional regions and urban-rural relations.
The project of a legislative package includes a proposed framework regulation
20
with common
rules for the management of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European
Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
(EAFRD) and the European Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). This Regulation aims to
ensure a more coordinated and coherent use of the five EU funds.
The project presented by the Commission is aligned with the goals and objectives of Europe 2020
and it requires the establishment of a Common Strategic Framework at the level of the European
Union and Partnership Contracts between the Commission and each Member State.
The Common Strategic Framework aims to materialise the common thematic goals and targets
of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth that are enshrined in the Europe 2020 Strategy into
actions that may be supported by different EU funds, ensuring the integrated use of these funds
in achieving common goals (Article 10 of the draft Regulation). The five EU funds are, in this new
context, now referred to as the CSF funds.
The Partnership Contracts between the Commission and each Member State identify the
commitments established between partners at the national and regional levels and the
Commission seeking to achieve the objectives of Europe 2020 (Art. 13). In practical terms, and
with reference to the current situation, the Partnership Agreements (PA) cover the NSRF
domains and even the rural development component. The PA should, among other conditions,
contemplate integrated territorial development approaches (Art. 14, b).
In the context of our study, it is particularly important to stress the following points, which are
present in the Regulation proposed by the Commission:
i) New intervention geographies
The inclusion of the new objective of territorial cohesion, in line with the Lisbon
Treaty and complementing the objectives of economic and social cohesion, involves
giving greater importance to the cities, the functional geographies and the sub-
regional level (p. 17);
ii) Territorial based diagnoses
The content of the Common Strategic Framework should identify the key territorial
challenges for urban, rural, coastal areas and fisheries, as well as for areas with
particular territorial characteristics referred to in Articles 174 and 379 of the Treaty
(northernmost regions with very low population density and island, mountains and
cross-border regions) (Art. 11); the identification of territorial challenges must be
accompanied, whenever appropriate, by a list of cities participating in the urban
development platform referred to in Article 7 of the ERDF Regulation (Art . 14);
iii) Integrated local development strategies
20
COM(2011) 615 final, 6.10.2011, later replaced by COM(2011) 615 final/2, 14.3.2012.

48
In order to better mobilise the potential of each site
21
and to facilitate the
implementation of multi-dimensional and cross-sectoral interventions, the
Commission proposes that the Member States make use of initiatives focused on
subregional territories and promoted by local communities (community-led
initiatives). The Commission proposes that Member States should promote the
implementation of integrated local development strategies and the establishment of
local action groups that represent the interests of communities
22
(Art. 28, 29 and 30);
iv) Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI)
When territorial or urban development strategies require integrated approaches
because they include instruments of more than one priority axis, of the same or of
different operational programmes, the comminity funds-based actions should be
developed as integrated territorial investments (Art. 99).
Finally, the proposed elements for a Common Strategic Framework for the five thematic funds
identifies eleven goals and specifies for each one of them (Part II) key goals and targets, general
principles of complementarity and procedures for implementation and coordination between
the various funds and between these and other EU policies and instruments. This document
highlights once again the importance of territorial based integrated interventions in order to
ensure coordination and synergies in the implementation of actions. It also identifies the
territorial challenges faced by the objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth
enshrined in the Europe 2020 Strategy.
21
Although there is not always an explicit reference in this sense, the concept of “local” in the documents that we have
analysed has a broad scope and can be applied to any sub-regional geographic scale, between the strictly “local” and
the regional. A paper with questions and answers about territorial development prepared by the Commission (DG G 1
Regional Policy Team) and disclosed on the 14 December 2011, it is referred that: What is the definition of "local":
“there is no definition of local in the legislative proposals, this will depend on the institutional set-up of the Member State.
The important thing about the local development approach proposed is that it be community-led. Therefore the local
area should have sufficient critical mass to implement a viable local development strategy and, at the same time, be
sufficiently small to allow for local interaction. A delegated act will set out criteria for the definition of the area and the
population covered by the strategy (Art. 29 (6) CPR).”
22
A commission paper (DG G 1 Regional Policy Team) previously identified states that the area of intervention of a
Local Action Group “does not have to correspond to, and can cut across, administrative boundaries but how this will be
organised is up to the Member States”, which on the one hand, allows to establish a direct link with the two essential
dimensions of this study –functional regions and relations between urban and rural areas – and on the other hand,
suggests the need to discuss operationalisation of this possibility in Portugal.

49
2. Cohesion Policy and EU territorial development policy
The EU Polish Presidency of the European Union (second semester of 2011) has been
particularly active in issues related to the territorial dimension of public policies. It promoted an
important intergovernmental debate about the role of a territorial integrated development
perspective within the future Cohesion Policy.
Having as generic references the Europe 2020 Strategy and the legislative package regarding the
five Common Strategic Framework funds proposed by the European Commission on 6 October
2011, and as specific references on the territorial dimension the Barca Report
23
and the
Territorial Agenda 2020
24
, the Polish Presidency has raised an important debate about how to
strengthen the Cohesion Policy as a EU territorial development policy, alongside other policies
(rural development policy, for example). The Conclusions of the Informal Council of Ministers
responsible for EU Cohesion Policy regional policy) and for territorial and urban development,
held on 24-25 November 2011 in Poznan (Poland), reflect this effort.
In the first part of the Conclusions of the Poznan Informal Council of Ministers identifies the key
policy messages for the future Cohesion Policy, reaffirming, namely: i) the need to adopt
integrated and territorial perspectives in the formulation and implementation of policies and ii)
the importance of strengthening the urban dimension in future policies.
In this first part, the Conclusions identify the aspects that are generally consensual but for which
it is recognised that there still is a need for additional clarification and further discussion.
Among these, the following are particularly relevant to our study:
. Cohesion Policy as territorial development policy: how to formulate and execute an
integrated Cohesion Policy that incorporates a territorial perspective?
. Territorial dimension of sectoral policies: how to ensure, in the perspective of territorial
development and with regard to the various sectoral policies:
i) Increased spatial awareness in order to respond to the existing territorial
diversity;
ii) Better consideration of territorial impacts of these policies;
iii) Better coordination between these policies within the framework of territorial
development strategies?
. Instruments of territorial development: what territorial development instruments,
including support for urban interventions are likely to promote the desired integrated
and territorial development?
. Urban-rural relations and functional areas: in what situations is it justified to strengthen
urban-rural relations and the use of functional urban areas (city-regions, metropolitan
areas) in light of Cohesion Policy and territorial development policy?
23
Barca, F. (2009), An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy. A Place-based Approach to Meeting European Union
Challenges and Expectations, independent report prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, Commissioner for
Regional Policy, April 2009.
24
Adopted on 19 May 2011 by the EU Ministers responsible for spatial planning under the Hungarian EU Presidency.

50
The second part of the Conclusions focuses exclusively on the territorial dimension of EU
policies, addressing, specifying and complementing some of the previous questions. In the
context of our study, the following should be stressed:
i) How to integrate the territorial dimension in EU, national, regional and local
policies?
ii) How to translate the goals and guidelines of the Territorial Agenda 2020 in light
of the various Community policies?
iii) How to facilitate the territorial coordination of policies, instruments and actions?
iv) How to improve the analysis and monitoring of territorial dynamics, of territorial
impacts and of the evolution of relations between different areas (e.g. between
urban and rural areas or within functional areas)?
v) Which strategic guidelines can be established in the Common Strategic
Framework so that the achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives does
effectively take into account the priorities and challenges of the Territorial
Agenda 2020?
vi) How to ensure that the territorial dimension of the Cohesion Policy is explicitly
considered in addition to aspects that are already covered in the EU funds
regulation, i.e. the local development strategies promoted by the communities
(community-led local development) and integrated territorial investment (ITI)?
vii) How to develop forms of partnership and governance that are appropriate to an
integrated and territorial development perspective?
3. Rural development policy and Cohesion Policy
The Commission Communication on the CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources
and territorial challenges of the future
25
identifies “regional balance”, alongside food safety, and
environment and climate change, as one of the challenges that the new common agricultural
policy will have to face. The Commission recognises that a growing number of rural areas
increasingly depends on factors that are extraneous to agriculture due to the diversification of
its socio-economic structure. It nonetheless recalls that, in these areas, the agricultural sector
continues to account for a significant portion of the added value and the employment, as well as
generating other economic activities such as food processing industry, tourism and trade. The
challenge of “regional balance” is connected to the vitality of rural areas but also to the
territorial diversity of agriculture in the European Union.
The three challenges identified in the document arise the same number of objectives. The
challenge of “regional balance” justifies the definition of the objective of “balanced regional
development”. This objective unfolds into three dimensions (p. 8):
i) To support rural employment and to maintain the social fabric of rural areas;
ii) To improve the rural economy and to promote diversification in order to enable local
actors to explore their potential and optimise the use of other local resources;
25
COM(2010) 672/5 final, 18.11.2010.

51
iii) To allow the structural diversity of agricultural production systems, to improve life
conditions in small farms and to develop local markets, because heterogeneous
agricultural structures and production systems in Europe contribute to the
attractiveness and identity of rural regions.
To respond to the identified challenges and goals, the document proposes the policy instruments
it considers most appropriate, and organises them into three major groups: direct payments,
market measures and rural development. Under this latter set of instruments 3 goals are
identified (p. 11):
i) Competitiveness of agriculture, promoting innovation and restructuring, and allowing the
agricultural sector to use their resources more efficiently;
ii) Sustainable management of natural resources, caring for the environment, the resilience
of agriculture regarding climate change and the rural world, and maintaining the
productive capacity of the soil;
iii) Balanced territorial development of rural areas across the EU, enhancing the role of local
inhabitants and improving local conditions and links between rural and urban areas.
Figure 3 highlights how the spatial dimension is considered in the context of the document.
Figure 3. The territorial dimension in CAP towards 2020 (2010)
Challenges
Environment and
climate change
Territorial balance
Food safety
Obje
ctive
s
Viable food
production
Sustainable
management of
natural resources
and climate
change
Balanced
territorial
development
Direct payments
Market Measures Rural
development
Competitiveness
of agriculture
Sustainable
management of
natural resources
Balanced territorial
development
(includes U-R
relations)
Future
Inst
ruments
?

52
This Commission Communication ends with the presentation of 3 non mutually exclusive
options regarding the main guidelines for the process of preparation of the new CAP: a first
option (adjustment scenario), centred on the equitable distribution of direct payments between
the Member States; a second option (integration scenario), more in line with the objectives of
the Europe 2020 Strategy - smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; and finally, a third option
(reorientation scenario), which gives great importance to environmental goals and combating
climate change.
In the summary of the impact assessment regarding the Common Agricultural Policy towards
2020 sent by the European Commission to the Council of the European Union
26
becomes
explicitly clear the emphasis on the second option, the integration one, considered to be the one
that maximises the EU added value and the one that best ensures the fair balance of the new CAP
with the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy (p. 11).
Moreover this document emphasises the need for the CAP to respond to various economic,
environmental, climatic and territorial challenges identified in this domain, through better
integrating its objectives and those of other EU policies, and through adjusting its measures in
view of those goals (p. 3). The document recognises that even the option of integration implies a
significant change in rural development policy (p.10).
The final political guidelines, will obviously have implications in terms of the importance, scope
and content of the “rural development” component. However, regardless of the decision
eventually taken, the fact that the Commission proposes the need to improve relations between
rural and urban areas as a factor for the balanced territorial development of rural areas is
significant, because it encompasses rural areas, seeking their development, the implementation
of a dimension, which was traditionally limited to spatial planning policies and to the Cohesion
Policy. Talbot and Courtney
27
even suggest that the strengthening and qualification of urban-
rural (and rural-urban) relations may become an explicit measure of the EU rural development
policy.
Given the budget freeze of CAP’s pillar II in the next financial programming period, the situation
seems clear: the maintenance of the rural development policy in the strict framework of the CAP
pillar II – even in the context of the possibility of transfers between the two pillars – will
penalise their ambition. By opposition, a more solid rural development policy will inevitably
have to be based on the articulation of different policies and funds.
The rural development policies in the European Union have been heavily dependent on the
Common Agricultural Policy, especially and directly on the second pillar. However, a better
alignment of objectives and instruments of the CAP with the Europe 2020 Strategy, a closer
relationship between the rural development policy and the Cohesion Policy and, finally, the new
opportunities presented by the proposed Regulation on the five funds of the Strategic
Framework presented by the Commission
28
– enabling the existence of policy instruments
funded by various funds or multi-fund programs (in the case of the Structural Funds and the
26
SEC(2011) 1154, 18.10.2011.
27
H. Talbot e P. Courtney (s/ data), Improved Urban-Rural Linkages as an EU Rural Development Policy Measure, date
of Access: 4 December 2011:
http://www.regional-studies-assoc.ac.uk/events/2011/april-newcastle/papers/Talbot.pdf
28
COM(2011) 615 final, 6.10.2011.

53
Cohesion Fund) – create conditions that favour the emergence of a new rural development and
cohesion policy. However, the realisation of this possibility implies (Dax et al, 2011
29
):
i) A lower dependence, compared with the situation prevailing today, of the rural
development policy in relation to CAP;
ii) An understanding of rural policy as a key element of the territorialisation of different
territorial development instruments in rural areas;
iii) The adoption of an integrated and territorial perspective, which may overcome the rural-
urban dichotomy, allowing to strengthen the articulation and coordination between
rural development policy, regional policy and other policies or instruments with
relevant incidence in rural areas;
iv) The development of strategies, partnerships and forms of territorial governance capable
of adequately responding to the needs and capabilities of different territorial
contexts in light of the understanding of rural policy and integrated and territorial
perspective as they were referred to in the two preceding paragraphs;
v) The integration of objectives of rural development by the regional policy.
The fundamentals of a post-2013 rural cohesion policy, having as strategic references the
document Europe 2020 and the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion
30
, have indeed been formally
submitted by the Directorate-General for Regional Policy
31
. Recognising that it is necessary to
ensure better coordination between the various factors of development of rural areas (economic
diversification, accessibility and interest basics services, improving human capital, etc.), they
suggest a future effective articulation between the CAP Pillar II and the Cohesion Policy.
The Preparatory Action “RURBAN - Partnership for sustainable urban-rural development”
32
has
precisely the objective of helping to identify ways to strengthen bridges between future rural
development policies and regional policies through:
i) The transformation of rural-urban relations in integrated territorial development
factors;
ii) The identification of good practices of territorial partnership in order to improve the
forms of cooperation between various actors and to develop and implement joint
initiatives involving rural and urban areas in a perspective of integrated territorial
development.
The proposal for a Regulation on support for rural development by the EAFRD presented by the
Commission in October 2011
33
outlines the local development strategies with an important
instrument and explains that its implementation outside the LEADER framework in conjunction
29
T. Dax et al, The evolution of EU Rural Policy: linkages of Cohesion Policy and Rural Development Policy, Regional
Studies Association Annual International Conference, Sunday 17th - Wednesday 20th April 2011, Newcastle upon
Tyne, UK. date of Access: 4 December 2011:http://www.regional-studies-assoc.ac.uk/events/2011/april-
newcastle/papers/Dax.pdf
30
COM(2008) 616 final, 6.10.2008.
31
See, for example, the presentation made by Wladyslaw Piskorz, from the Unit Urban Development - Territorial
Cohesion in the COTER Seminar, Warsaw on 20 October 2011:
http://www.google.pt/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=pt
PT&source=hp&q=Rural+Cohesion+Policy+after+2013:+European+Commission+view+Piskorz&pbx=1&oq=Rural+Co
hesion+Policy+after+2013:+European+Commission+view+Piskorz&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=5629l12069l1
l15078l8l6l1l0l0l0l203l858l1.4.1l7l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a488dab613465e86&biw=1024&bih=571
32
Commission Decision C(2011)962, 21.02.2011.
33
COM(2011) 627 final/2, 19.10.2011.

54
with the Cohesion Policy instruments may involve public and private actors from rural and
urban areas around partnerships and strategies focused on a single sector or on specific
development goals (p. 19). This possibility obviously opens new opportunities for cooperation
and intervention.
The document also stresses that local development strategies should focus on areas with a size
that ensures the achievement of results that effectively contribute to achieving the EU priorities
in terms of rural development and innovation (p. 20). This reference seems to validate those
advocating for a rural development policy based on flexible intervention geographies that are
appropriate to the set objectives and the desired results. Although the proposed Regulation does
not explicitly state it, that observation suggests the advantage of extending the use of the concept
of “functional region” to rural areas or rural-urban relations, not restricting it to urban or urban-
rural relations.
4. European urban agenda and Cohesion Policy
The Polish Presidency also proved very dynamic regarding the debate and clarification of the
urban dimension within the Cohesion Policy after 2013. Although the EU does not hold formal
competences in the field of urban policy, cities have been a part of the EU policy agenda for quite
some time. During the Spanish Presidency another decisive step was taken: the approval of the
Toledo Declaration
34
. In addition to recognising the work done in this area during the previous
Presidencies, the ministers responsible for urban development agreed to adopt in the future a
joint work program, generally designated as “European Urban Agenda”. They also stressed the
importance of cities to achieve the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy and of the future Cohesion
Policy.
The preparation of the new EU programming cycle appears thus as an opportunity to give
greater centrality to urban issues in the context of EU policies, especially since it is indicated that
at least 5% of ERDF resources will be allocated for integrated actions for sustainable urban
development, with the decisive involvement of local stakeholders in their management (urban
ITI).
The document produced on these issues
35
at the start of the Polish Presidency clearly
characterised the present context as an opportunity: the goal is not to formulate a EU urban
policy, but rather to create – at the Community level (strategic guidelines and terms of financing)
– conditions that favour the development of urban interventions and programs by the Member
States, the regions or the cities themselves. The consideration of urban priorities in the post-
2013 strategies and policies gains thus an increased significance when compared to previous EU
programming cycles.
The document adopts a broad definition of “urban”, including realities as diverse as the
neighbourhood or the functional urban areas whose limits do not necessarily coincide with the
political-administrative boundaries. While acknowledging the existence of relevant practical
34
Adopted on 22 June 2010 by the EU Ministers responsible for urban development, within the framework of the
Spanish Presidency.
35
Minister of Regional Development, Urban Dimension of Cohesion Policy post 2013. Background Report, Warsaw, July
2011.

55
problems, particularly regarding the institutional architecture (lack of legal and institutional
framework at this level), the document suggests that, from the point of view of urban
interventions, the generic concept of FUR (functional urban region) outlined in various ESPON
studies
36
is more pertinent than cities considered individually.
Published at the beginning of the Polish Presidency, this document infers into the urban
dimension of the post-2013 Cohesion Policy, associating it with intra-urban spaces, with the
consolidated or administrative city and also with wider territories, internally diverse but
functionally integrated in a large city or adding various small and medium-sized cities that are
geographically close to each other and organised as a network.
The notion of territorial integration is thus explicitly introduced in the design and
implementation of a new generation of EU policies. It essentially regards territories composed
by different subsets, which are contiguous and economically, socially and biophysically
interdependent but that do not coincide with administrative territories. This focus is not new
(let us recall, for example, previous interventions under INTERREG), but it now gains greater
centrality in the context of territorial development policies.
In another document prepared by the Polish Presidency on the territorial dimension of Europe
2020 and the Cohesion Policy
37
, functional regions are considered as one of five “territorial
keys”
38
to ensure a match between the priorities of the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Territorial
Agenda 2020. The proposed functional regions include both urban and rural areas and are
considered particularly crucial for small and medium-sized cities.
This document associates ‘functional regions’ to 5 key themes:
i) Extension of local employment markets
ii) Obtaining critical mass through territorial cooperation
iii) The accessibility to growth poles and secondary regional centres
iv) The public transport connections to regional centres
v) Compact Cities (Sustainable Cities)
In policy terms, the “territorial key” of functional regions is presented as having a particular
connection with:
i) Urban Policy
ii) Transport Policy
iii) National / Regional / Local Development Policies
iv) Education Policy
v) Health Policy
36
ESPON: originally designated European Spatial Planning Observatory Network, it was renamed European
Observation Network, Territorial Development and Cohesion in 2008 but it kept the same acronym
(http://www.espon.eu/main/).
37
Minister of Regional Development, How to Strengthen the Territorial Dimension of ´Europe 2020` and the EU
Cohesion Policy. Background Report, Warsaw, September 2011.
38
The other 4 “territorial keys” are: accessibility, services of general economic interest, territorial assets and urban
networking.

56
vi) R & D Policy
vii) Industrial Policy
viii) Environmental Policy
ix) Cohesion Policy
Curiously, this list of policies does not include any reference to rural development policy.
Finally, the Polish Presidency has prepared a document that integrates the previous
contributions and moves towards the support for instruments for territorial development
within the Cohesion Policy, divided into two areas: the urban dimension and the local
development
39
. The document presents and discusses 14 policy options, organised under three
“windows of opportunity”:
i) To integrate territorial based EU policies with the various aspects of socio-economic or
geographical functional regions;
ii) To strengthen the instruments for the development of urban areas;
iii) To promote the local development dimension within the Cohesion Policy.
It is significant that the first two policy options integrated in the first ‘window of opportunity’
focus on functional regions and urban-rural relations, correctly viewed as interdependent.
For both options the key issues are the same: to develop common and integrated strategies
adjusted to the specificities of the different functional regions; to develop appropriate
cooperation and coordination procedures; to design and implement integrated programs
associated with specific problems; to ensure greater consistency and optimisation regarding the
provision of public services; to improve the coordination between the Cohesion Policy and the
Common Agricultural Policy.
In the particular case of the strengthening of urban-rural relations, the following goals are
identified:
i) Developing business capacity
ii) Enhancing human and social capital
iii) Improving social services
iv) Improving communications with urban areas
v) Increasing the ability of rural areas to attract residential and economic functions
Several of the remaining policy options complement the first two, namely those that refer to the
need to introduce financial instruments to support integrated development strategies (option 3)
and resorting to analysis based on functional areas (cf. ESPON) (option 4).
The European Parliament also adopted a Resolution on the European Urban Agenda and the
Future Cohesion Policy
40
in which it is explicitly argued, among other aspects, the need for
linkages between urban and rural areas, in order to maximise the inclusive development
expressed in Europe 2020 (paragraph 7 of the Resolution), the exchange of good practices on
39
Ministry of Regional Development, Effective Instruments Supporting Territorial Development. Strengthening Urban
Dimension and Local Development within Cohesion Policy, Issue Paper, October 2011.
40
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0284, 23 June 2011.

57
urban-rural strategies and the inclusion of urban-rural dimensions in planning documents
(paragraph 14), the essential role of cities in the establishment of functional geographic units
(paragraph 22) and the optimisation of synergies between EU funds in order to strengthen the
links between urban, rural and peri-urban areas (paragraph 24).
In parallel, the European Commission (Directorate General for Regional Policy) promoted an
intense debate about the future role of cities in the European Union, particularly in the context
of Europe 2020. The document Cities of Tomorrow (2011), which presents a new urban agenda
for the European Union, supports the existence of a European model of urban development,
examines the main threats and challenges to this model and puts governance issues at the centre
of the responses to the identified challenges.
This document adopts a broad definition of “city”, encompassing from morphological urban
areas (the administrative city) to functional urban areas (socioeconomic agglomerations), in
both cases considered in their own territorial contexts. The limitation of the physical expansion
of cities (urban sprawl) through greater control of changes in land use, the gain of higher levels
of environmental safety and quality of urban ecosystems and areas adjacent to cities (nature,
landscape, forest, water resources, agriculture, etc.), the more sustainable use of natural
resources and energy, and generally the establishment of a stronger and qualified relationship
between cities and their surrounding areas are considered essential aspects of the European
urban development model.
According to the perspective adopted by this document, the internal development of cities is
inseparable from the territorial development of the areas in which they are functionally
integrated. The document thus establishes a clear relation between the urban development
model desired for the future of the European Union cities, the sustainable development of
territories and territorial systems in which cities – both morphological and functional – are
integrated and the territorial cohesion of the EU. Planning, flexible management and governance,
and multilevel urban spaces that commonly do not coincide with administrative boundaries,
become, therefore, a prerequisite not only for the sustainable development of cities and their
surrounding territories but also for a more balanced and cohesive European space.
5. An overview
The observations and guidelines summarised in the previous sections have very different
degrees of accuracy, stability and political binding. But when viewed in perspective, i.e. whether
we consider them in the context of the recent history of the various areas of Community action
in question (Cohesion Policy, CAP / Rural development policy, European urban agenda) or we
compare the not always convergent proposals and lines of debate, which are triggered by
different EU or Member States institutional headquarters, we can identify, infer or intuit other
options and spaces of opportunity that should be approached through the perspectives of
functional regions and of relations between urban and rural areas.
This final section consists of an overview of the main reference documents and of the most
significant relations of influence between them (Figure 2).

58
This overview enables us to emphasise two main aspects:
i) The distinction between documents and policies with different binding nature, creating
an opposition between EU decisions and policies (Cohesion Policy, Common
Agricultural Policy) and domains that are not within the competence of the European
Union (spatial planning, cities);
ii) The importance, in order to better articulate and coordinate between these two streams,
of the new objective of territorial cohesion enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, the efforts
of increasing territorialisation of public policies and, to a more operational level, of
the explicit contribution of the Territorial Agenda 2020 for achieving the objects and
goals of the Europe 2020 Strategy.

59
Figure 4. Recent developments in issues of urban-rural relations and functional regions
within the framework of EU policies: reference documents 2010-11
Treaty of Lisbon
(territorial cohesion)
5th Cohesion Report
(Nov. 2010)
Legislative package
(EU funds framework)
(Nov. 2011)
Territorial Agenda 2020
(May 2011)
Conclusions of Poznan
(Nov. 2011)
CAP towards 2020
(Nov. 2010)
Toledo Declaration
(June 2010)
Cities of Tomorrow
(Sept. 2011)
European urban
agenda
Territorialisation of
public policies
Rural development
policy
Cohesion Policy
Other sectoral
policies with spatial
dimension
Europe 2020 Strategy
(March 2010)
Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion
(2008)
Barca Report (2009)
(place-based approach)

60
Annex III
Summary of Initiatives based on the concept of ‘functional region’

61
Initiatives based on the concept of ‘functional region’
The following summary based on the concept of ‘functional region’ results from a questionnaire
sent to international experts with consultancy practice with national governments and EU and
other international bodies. The purpose of the questionnaire was to gather and compare diverse
and robust information not only on recent policies, strategies, plans and programs, but also
about future prospects and ongoing negotiation processes.
The questionnaire is structured in 2 different parts.
Part 1 refers to initiatives undertaken during the current programming period, i.e. 2007-2013. It
includes only two questions, which request the indication of experiences (strategies, programs,
plans, etc.) based on ‘functional regions’ that have been successful or that, conversely, have
failed or have not yet been implemented. The answers to these questions allowed us to prepare
reference sheets based on specific cases from the countries of origin of the respondents.
Part 2 relates to the next programming period, i.e. 2014-2020. It is divided into two sections (2.1
and 2.2). Section 2.1 includes 12 questions that seek to assess respondents’ opinions about the
prospects for this period with regard to the various components fundamental to interventions
based on the concept of ‘functional region’:
i) Importance of the concept (Q1) and criteria (Q2) and indicators (Q3) for its operation;
ii) Relation with the concept of inclusive and integrated development strategies (Q4),
preferential policy domains (Q5), EU policy for rural development (Q6), potential
promoters and beneficiaries (target groups) (Q7) and integrated interventions
concurrent with political-administrative territories (Q8);
iii) Conditions for implementation of interventions based on ‘functional regions’ from the
standpoint of financial instruments (Q9), governance mechanisms (Q10) and
planning tools (Q11);
iv) Key lessons learned from previous initiatives based on the concept of ‘functional region’
for the next programming period (Q12).
Section 2.2 focuses on the preparation and negotiation underway and aims to identify the
positions of the governments of the countries of origin of the respondents in relation to the
possibility of incorporating territorial development initiatives based on ‘functional regions’ in
their future Partnership Agreements with the European Commission.
Presented below are:
i) the list of international experts consulted;
ii) the questionnaire sent;
iii) the summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the identified initiatives;

62
Table 5. Panel of international experts consulted
Bas Waterhout
Assistant professor, Department of Urban Studies, Onderzoeksinstituut Technische Universiteit Delft, OTB-TU
Delft, Holanda.
Expert in European spatial planning. Consultant for the Dutch National Spatial Planning Agency on European
spatial planning issues. Currently involved in the ESPON 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 projects (polycentric development and
urban-rural relationships in Europe respectively).
Bue Nielsen
Senior advisor, Ministry of Environment and Energy, Forest and Nature Agency, Spatial Planning Department,
Denmark.
Direct participant in the work developed in the context of the Danish Presidency (2012).
Elio Manti
Senior Coordinator, Directorate-General for Sustainable Development, Climate and Energy, Ministry of
Environment, Land and Sea, Italy.
Joaquín Farinós-Dasi
Professor at Department of Geography, University of Valencia, Spain.
Expert in European spatial planning. Advisor of the Spanish Government. Currently involved in the ESPON 2.1.2
project (Governance of territorial and urban policies) and TERCO project (European territorial cooperation as a
factor of growth, jobs and quality of life).
Mark Tewdwr-Jones
Professor of Spatial planning and governance at the Bartlett School of Planning, University College London,
United Kingdom.
Consultant on spatial planning at the European Commission level. He has previously advised ministers in the
UK Government, the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Executive. Consultant of various Regional Development
Agencies, the London Assembly and the Countryside Agency.
Paul Courtney
Reader in Rural economy and society at the Countryside and Community Research Unit, University of
Gloucestershire, United Kingdom.
Involved in the EDORA project. Expert on social and spatial aspects of the rural economy and territorial
cooperation.
Thiemo Eser
Advisor, Ministry for Sustainable Development and Infrastructure, Luxemburg.
Responsible for European Affairs and the ESPON 2013 Managing Authority.
Umberto Janin Rivolin
Professor at Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning, Politecnico de Torino,
Italy.
Consultant of the Government of Italy and the European Commission. Expert on European regional and
territorial development.

63
Questionnaire sent to the panel of international experts
‘Functional Regions, Urban-Rural Relationships and Post-2013 EU Cohesion Policy’
European Experts Survey
Context: Study commissioned by the Portuguese Economic and Social Council.
Objectives of the Study:
(i) To analyse the opportunities created by the inclusion of references to ‘functional regions’
in EU documents and proposed regulations for the EU financial framework for 2014-
2020;
(ii) To identify tangible ways to make the best of those opportunities in the framework of the
Partnership Contract to be established between the European Commission and
Portugal for the 2014-2020 period.
Objectives of the Survey:
(i) To identify recent examples (2007-2013) of the use of ‘functional regions’ in EU
countries in order to outline a benchmarking framework;
(ii) To collect information about how other member-states are thinking about the
development of ‘functional regions’-based policy instruments for the EU financial
framework for 2014-2020.
Definition of ‘functional region’
In this context, ‘functional regions’ are sub-regional spatial units, non-overlapping with political-
administrative boundaries and with relevant levels of (real or potential) internal
interdependency.
The definition of ‘functional regions’ may reflect: i) a urban-rural perspective (e.g. commuting
patterns, etc.); ii) a rural-urban perspective (e.g. access to public goods and services by rural
areas inhabitants, etc.); or iii) a transversal perspective (e.g. integrated management of
ecosystems that cross both urban and rural territories; mid and small size cities polycentric
development strategies, etc.).
The following textbox clarifies the use of the concept of ‘functional region’ in the context of this
study.

64
PART 1. Recent or ongoing ‘functional regions’-based initiatives (2007-2013)
Textbox 1. The features of ‘functional regions’
Source 1- Minister of Regional Development, How to Strengthen the Territorial Dimension of ´Europe 2020`
and the EU Cohesion Policy. Background Report, Warsaw, September 2011
This document associates ‘functional regions’ to 5 key themes:
 The enlargement of local job markets
 The achievement of critical mass through territorial cooperation;
 The accessibility to growth poles and secondary regional centres;
 The public transport connections to regional centres
 The compact cities (sustainable cities)
This document considers that ‘functional regions’ may have particular links with:
 Urban Policy
 Transport Policy
 Local/Regional/National Development Policies
 Education Policy
 Health Policy
 R&D Policy
 Industrial Policy
 Environmental Policy
 Cohesion Policy
 Rural Development Policy
Source 2 - Ministry of Regional Development, Effective Instruments Supporting Territorial Development.
Strengthening Urban Dimension and Local Development within Cohesion Policy, Issue Paper, Warsaw,
October 2011
This document links the strengthening of urban-rural relationships with the following objectives:
 The development of the entrepreneurial capacity
 The enhancement of human and social capital
 The enhancement of social services
 The enhancement of linkages with urban areas
 The increase of the residential and economical attractiveness of rural areas
Source 3 - OECD (2011) - Partnerships and Rural-Urban Relationships: An OECD Perspective. OECD, Paris
This document defines urban-rural relationships in five dimensions:
 Exchanges of services: users of services in rural areas and public goods concentrated in urban areas,
and urban users of services and public goods in rural areas;
 Exchanges of goods: rural products demanded in urban areas and urban products demanded in rural
areas;
 Exchanges of financial resources;
 The infrastructure that connects these two types of areas: roads, highways, rail, airports, energy,
water, and residuals networks and flows, broadband and telecommunication connections;
 Mobility: migrations (rural exodus, rural attraction) and commute to work flows.

65
Q1. Fill in the table bellow taking into account the objectives of the study, the definition of
‘functional region’ and additional information previously listed (Textbox 1). List, one per row,
three relevant examples of ‘functional regions’-based initiatives (i.e. strategies, programmes,
plans, legislation, etc.) developed in your country during the 2007-2013 period.
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3
Name of the Policy Initiative
(Start and end date)
Instrument
(Strategy, Programme, Plan…)
Underlying concept of ´functional
region`; Delimitation criteria
Objectives
Domains of intervention
Entity responsible for the initiative
Governance System
Financing System
Evaluation Available?
(Reference, websites, etc…)
Personal Assessment
Strong Points
Weak Points
Note: All information must be factual, with the exception of the personal assessment columns.
Q2. Identify and briefly characterise examples of ‘functional regions’-based initiatives that may
have been prepared, debated and anticipated in the 2007-2013 period but have failed to be
implemented. Outline the reasons behind such failures.

66

ERROR: stackunderflow
OFFENDING COMMAND: ~
STACK: