3. Enabling stronger urban-rural linkages in Poland
This chapter delves deeper into the factors that facilitate or hinder collaboration and co-ordination among urban and rural municipalities in Poland. It begins with a discussion on the institutional mechanisms that municipalities can use to co-operate, including the significant role of European Union programmes and funds. It then delves deeper into the different barriers to co-operation, including challenges faced by municipalities that actively seek to work together. It concludes with a multi-pronged approach to tackling those barriers to enable stronger urban-rural partnerships across Poland.
Local governments have multiple mechanisms for co-operation. Poland has a comprehensive regulatory and planning framework that provides the basis for strengthening urban-rural linkages. Co-operation among local governments is voluntary respecting local governments’ autonomy.
Local and regional governments have significant legal and management autonomy to craft their own development strategies and plans. Municipal local governments also have significant power to shape their own development plans, and can choose to do so co-operatively.
Supra-local development strategies enable urban and rural municipalities to jointly adopt a functional approach to planning. They include a model of the functional and spatial structure.
EU policies and funding mechanisms have played a central role in fostering urban-rural partnerships in Poland. They have triggered the formation of urban –rural partnerships by the EU Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 and its place-based approach and instruments (e.g. ITI and CLLD).
Many partnerships triggered by EU funding, are motivated more by a short-term interest (e.g. to obtain funding) than a strategic long-term well-being perspective; and partnerships set up through EU tools are not always agile enough to answers quickly to the changing needs of partners and territories.
Metropolitan governance remains underdeveloped. Poland lacks flexible legal structures for co-operation in metropolitan areas.
Spatial planning is too fragmented and has low territorial coverage. In 2020, the share of the area covered by the applicable local spatial management plans in total area amounted to 46.5% in large cities.
Local governments have limited revenues and large obligations. They largely depend on national grants and subsidies but have a leading role in investing in projects that matter to metropolitan (functional) areas and contribute to strengthen urban-rural linkages.
Poland needs a multi-pronged approach to enabling stronger urban-rural partnerships. It should facilitate expanding institutional options for inter-municipal co-operation to provide more flexibility; and strengthen metropolitan management as a key way to promote supra-local development strategies and broader co-operation.
Improving national/subnational co-ordination for urban-rural linkages and regional development planning. This requires clarifying the responsibilities of each level of government in the promotion of urban-rural linkages.
Poland needs to make better use of strategic planning as a tool to strengthen regional and local development.
Invest in capacity-building and professional skills in local governments is a must to build and manage effective urban-rural partnerships. Actions to match responsibilities and revenues of local governments are needed, while limiting the dependence on EU funding.
Enabling participatory processes for stronger urban-rural linkages by encouraging the participation of the private sector and of the wider community is required to build partnerships based on local needs and priorities.
The first two chapters of this report showed the close links between urban and rural areas in Poland and how urban-rural partnerships can enable municipalities to promote sustainable and inclusive economic growth, expand opportunities for their residents, enhance public services and generally improve well-being. They also highlighted significant challenges, however, including large differences in economic conditions and access to services across the country and the decline of many small and mid-size cities. Urban-rural partnerships in Poland have mainly been forged to secure EU funding, without a broader vision, and most of the potential for integrated, collaborative, mutually beneficial development has yet to be tapped.
The refugee crisis created by Russia’s war on Ukraine has created a new sense of urgency. More than 3.5 million Ukrainian refugees had sought safety in Poland as of late May 2022 (UNHCR, 2022[1]), effectively increasing the population by 10%. With refugees concentrated in urban centres, municipalities’ capacity to deliver services is severely strained. In major cities such as Warszawa and Kraków, rents have risen by 20% as demand far exceeded the available supply.1 By fostering partnerships between large and smaller cities, towns and rural areas, Poland can better manage the influx of newcomers, provide the necessary services, and perhaps turn a major challenge into an opportunity to revitalise some local economies.
Poland is highly suburbanised, and the lines between urban and rural areas are blurred. Large numbers of rural residents’ commute into cities to work, study, obtain health care, shop or participate in cultural or leisure events. Urban residents spend their weekends in the countryside, buy produce from local farmers, and benefit from water supplies and environmental services provided by rural areas. Digital technologies also enable people to work, study and participate in events remotely. All this means that instead of thinking of urban and rural areas as separate, it is more useful to think of municipalities across the urban-rural continuum as serving different, but complementary and interlinked functions within a larger area.
A crucial first step in building partnerships to make the most of those linkages is to understand the linkages and the potential benefits of co-operation. Chapter 1 used data on economic growth, demographic trends and commuting flows to provide crucial context. Chapter 2 then examined the extent to which national and subnational policy frameworks foster urban-rural partnerships, and the strengths and challenges of the partnerships that have emerged in Poland up to now. It identified multiple barriers to co-operation: from lack of trust, to limited institutional capacities, administrative fragmentation and inadequate financial mechanisms. It also showed the key roles that non-governmental actors can play in these partnerships.
This chapter focuses on how to overcome those barriers through more effective multi-level governance that fosters co-ordination, co-operation and collaboration.2 The challenge for Poland is threefold. First, it needs to create a deeper understanding of urban-rural linkages, to identify where joined-up action would be most helpful and what kinds of measures would yield the greatest benefits. This requires mapping interdependencies among municipalities, across different levels of government, and among different types of actors. Second, it needs to change how many local governments view one another, promoting trust and co-operation instead of competition. Third, it needs to provide the right amount of regulation to steer municipalities in the right direction without being rigid and thus stifling co-operation.
The chapter examines the institutional structures that currently support urban-rural partnerships in Poland, including the large role of EU policies and funding mechanisms. It then analyses the many barriers that hinder co-operation among municipalities, as well as key gaps that need to be filled. Finally, it concludes with recommendations for how to systematically address those barriers and strengthen governance in Poland to enable urban-rural partnerships to thrive, with benefits all across the urban-rural continuum.
As discussed in Chapter 2, Poland’s national development policy framework encourages municipalities that are functionally connected to work together to advance shared objectives – some in general terms, and some specifically promoting urban-rural partnerships. The proposed new National Urban Policy (NUP) 2030, for instance, includes fostering co-operation as a strategic goal and calls for an integrated territorial approach to development across functional areas, looking beyond administrative boundaries. As shown in Figure 3.1, OECD research has found that municipalities in OECD countries see several benefits to co-operation, as a flexible way to increase their capacity, achieve efficiencies and reduce costs (OECD, 2019[2]).
Source: OECD (2019[2]), Making Decentralisation Work: A Handbook for Policy-Makers, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/g2g9faa7-en.
Local governments have multiple mechanisms for co-operation
Poland has a comprehensive regulatory and planning framework that provides a basis for strengthening urban-rural linkages. Figure 3.2 shows the key elements. Under the Polish Constitution, local government units have a right to form and join associations with other government units within Poland and internationally. As shown in Figure 3.3, the Act on Municipal Self-Government (Government of Poland, 1990[3]), defines three mechanisms for co-operation. Municipalities (gminas) may form associations with other municipalities, counties (powiats) or regions (voivodeships) to help cover costs and assist one another. They can also sign inter-municipal agreements to have another municipality deliver one or more services on their behalf, such as public transport or waste collection. In addition, they can form municipal unions, which are legal entities with specific duties, duration and rules.
Polish municipal authorities are encouraged not only to co-operate with one another, but also to find partners at other levels of government (voivodeships and powiats), social actors (associations, non-governmental organisations), academia (universities, think tanks), businesses and business associations, community groups and individual citizens.
Municipalities in other OECD countries co-operate through various arrangements, some of which are similar to those used in Poland. Single- or multi-purpose co-operative agreements or contracts, including shared services arrangements or shared programmes, are used by municipalities in Australia, the UK, Ireland and New Zealand, for example. In France, Portugal and Spain, meanwhile, associated municipalities have the status of supra-municipal authorities with delegated functions (OECD, 2019[2]; 2017[4]; 2020[5]).
OECD (2021[6]) found that in a sample of 34 Polish municipalities, 71% were involved in associations of municipalities, and 65% were part of inter-municipal unions (65%). While it is difficult to generalise based this small sample, municipalities inside functional urban areas (FUAs) were found to likelier to use those two mechanisms, while municipalities outside FUAs were likelier to have agreements for service provision.
As discussed in Chapter 2, co-operation can enable municipalities to achieve economies of scale, reducing the cost of services. It can also be valuable in financing and maintaining shared infrastructure – such as for transport, water supply, sewerage and waste management. In some contexts, co-operation can also be a matter of fairness. In metropolitan areas such as Łódź (OECD, 2016[7]) and Gdańsk, for instance, commuters from outside the cities use services and infrastructure without contributing to the local tax base. Conversely, the choices made by a municipality in terms of service provision or infrastructure may affect municipalities all across the functional area, and their needs should also be considered (OECD, 2021[6]).
The amendment to the ‘Act on Principles of Implementation of Development Policy’ also led to reform the different acts that regulate regional and local self-government units, such as the Act on Municipal Self-Government, and the Act on Voivodeship Self-Government. Specific co-operation frameworks were defined in the acts as a basis for establishing partnerships: associations, agreements, and inter-municipal unions. In particular, the Act on Municipalities (or communes) highlights that local governments can engage in co-operation with other local governments to perform public tasks and provide joint services. There have been efforts to create new avenues for co-operation, though not necessarily connecting urban and rural communities. For example, the “Partnership Initiative for Cities”, a national government project, has so far engaged 34 cities in thematic networks around air quality, urban mobility and revitalisation. The cities themselves identify their most pressing challenges and work on solutions for improvement, and the Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy provides organisational and expert support.
Local and regional development planning is a key opportunity for co-operation
Subnational governments in Poland have significant legal and management autonomy to craft their own development strategies and plans. Chapter 2 noted the importance of regional and county governments in promoting urban-rural partnerships and broader co-operation across their territories to foster more inclusive and sustainable development and enhance well-being. Municipal governments also have significant power to shape their own development plans, and can choose to do so co-operatively.
In July 2020, Poland’s Parliament passed several amendments to the Act on Principles of Implementation of Development Policy3 that introduced a new scheme of social, economic and spatial planning for local development. The goal was to strengthen the creation, implementation and monitoring of local strategies and, to that end, to promote co-ordination and collaboration across levels of government.
A key element of the reform was the introduction of supra-local development strategies. For now, they are optional, but the Act highlights their value, and efforts are under way to make them compulsory.4 Another change is the creation of territorial agreements that enable local governments to come together to specify priority projects for the development of a given area, in line with the objectives of a development strategy. Municipalities can sign such agreements with the voivodeship or the national government, and it has statutory power.
Supra-local development strategies enable urban and rural municipalities to jointly adopt a functional approach to planning
Adopting a functional approach to local development and spatial planning is critical for Poland. As noted in Chapter 1, 80% of the population lives either within an FUA (55.8%) or in an FUA’s catchment area – less densely populated areas whose residents commute into the FUAs. The OECD framework for effective and sustainable urban-rural partnerships recommends a functional approach to planning (OECD, 2013[8]). It allows for interventions at the right scale – as with transport systems that affect not just the implementing municipality, but its surroundings – and make it easier to leverage urban and rural areas’ respective strengths. Instead of competing, municipalities can find synergies that are mutually beneficial. By banding together, they may also find it easier to finance the implementation of their plans.
Supra-local development strategies provide a way for municipalities to implement a functional approach. The amendments to the Act on Principles of Implementation of Development Policy in 2020 created this option for municipalities that are neighbours and/or functionally related, with complementary or interdependent development goals (Government of Poland, 2022[9]). The supra-local development strategy includes a model of the functional and spatial structure, which illustrates the lines for action set out in the strategy, as well as findings and recommendations on the development and implementation of spatial policy in each municipality.
In order to prepare and implement a supra-local development strategy, municipalities may form an inter-municipal union or association, or adopt an inter-municipal agreement. Many local government units and FUAs have expressed interest in pursuing this option. In December 2021, the Krakow Metropolitan Association (Metropolia Krakowska), approved Poland’s first supra-local development strategy to 2030. As discussed in more detail in Box 3.1, it designates seven areas of co-operation for 15 municipalities over the coming decade.
The Kraków Metropolitan Strategy 2030, the first supra-local development strategy approved in Poland, was drafted through an extensive process of consultation that involved a large number of participants in meetings, workshops, thematic forums, and the First Forum of the Kraków Metropolis, which brought together more than 170 participants.
The strategy highlights seven areas of co-operation among municipalities: intelligent management (data management), environment and space (climate change and spatial order), mobility (integrated transport management), economy (innovation and business potential), leisure (increasing the cultural and recreational offer), education (improving the quality of services and the level of competence of the staff), and social services (high-quality care and support services for the elderly and dependent adults).
Its vision is to transform the Kraków Metropolis into an environmentally friendly area with high quality of life, accessibility, quality public services and innovation that offers comprehensive development opportunities to all its residents. All 15 municipalities in the Metropolis Krakowska Association will participate in actions in support of that vision.
Source: Metropolia Krakowska (2021[10]), Strategia Metropolia Krakowska 2030, https://metropoliakrakowska.pl/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Strategia-Metropolia-Krakowska-2030.pdf.
Although this particular mechanism is new, some local governments in Poland have been partnering on strategic documents for some time. Examples include a development strategy for Lublin Metropolitan Area; a development strategy for Koszalin-Kołobrzeg- Białogard Functional Area; a development strategy for the Municipalities of Krasocin, Łopuszno and Słupia Konecka; the Integrated Development Strategy for the Functional Area “Blisko Krakowa” 2014 (although it does not include the city of Kraków); and joint strategic documents prepared by the municipalities of the Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot area since 2015.
In addition, in the Dolnośląskie voivodeship, there are formal co-operation networks that include local governments (cities, urban-rural and rural communes) as well as NGOs, entrepreneurs, agricultural producer associations and other entities.
EU policies and funding mechanisms have played a central role in fostering urban-rural partnerships in Poland
The EU Cohesion Policy aims to strengthen economic and social cohesion across Europe. The “Lisbon Treaty” and the EU’s “Europe 2020” strategy introduced “territorial cohesion” as a third dimension.5 Since then, the European Union has been working together with countries, regions and other partners to promote urban-rural linkages for tackling economic and social disparities among territories and people. The rationale is that a truly integrated approach to regional development must go beyond discrete urban and rural issues and seek to address both urban and rural needs.
Over time, EU territorial policies have undergone numerous reforms, which resulted, in the last 15 years, in a shift from sectoral policies and interventions to programmes with a strong territorial focus and a strong emphasis on the local dimension of development. In Poland, the EU Cohesion Policy and its financing through the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) has incentivised local governments to join forces to conduct diagnostics, create a shared vision for development and draft development strategies for entire functional areas.
The EU programming cycle 2014-2020
In 2014-2020, around 9% of the EU Cohesion Policy budget from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Cohesion Fund (CF) and European Social Fund (ESF) was allocated to integrated territorial development using territorial instruments (Integrated territorial Investments – ITIs – and Community-Led Local Development – CLLD, or national territorial instruments) or other delivery mechanisms, such as multi-thematic priority axes.6
In its 2014-2020 Partnership Agreement, Poland indicated cities and their functional areas (FUAs) as the main target of its territorial development strategy, which would be implemented mainly through the use of ITIs.7 The instrument allows EU Member States to pool funding from different priority axes of one or more Programmes to ensure the implementation of an integrated strategy for a specific territory. ITIs are only approved if the area concerned has an integrated, cross-sectoral territorial strategy, with a package of actions to be implemented and governance arrangements to manage each ITI.8
For the 2014-2020 EU programming period, Poland decided to make it compulsory to implement ITIs in in voivodeship (regional) capital cities and their FUAs. The choice of whether to implement them in other FUAs was left to regional governments and stakeholders. In total, ITIs were implemented in 24 functional areas: 17 FUAs of voivodeship capitals (two different ITIs were created for the “joint” capital cities of Bydgoszcz and Toruń) and seven in FUAs of other cities in four different voivodeships (in Śląskie: Częstochowa, Rybnik, Bielsko-Biała; in Dolnośląskie: Jelenia Góra and Wałbrzych; in Wielkopolskie: Kalisz-Ostrów; in Zachodniopomorskie: Koszalin-Kołobrzeg-Białogard).
The main sources of finance for ITIs in Poland are the 16 Regional Programmes (RPs) and the two National Programmes (Infrastructure and Environment, and Eastern Poland), which provide complementary support to projects financed by the RPs. In total, about EUR 6.2 billion was allocated for ITI implementation in Poland in 2014-2020. ITIs for the period needed to have a strategic focus on sustainable, efficient transport; degraded areas; natural environment, energy efficiency and low-carbon strategies; public services; and/or research, technological development and innovation.9
Poland’s 2014-2020 Partnership Agreement also provided for the use of Community Led Local Development (CLLD) to create rural-rural partnerships or partnerships between smaller towns and rural areas, by establishing local development strategies (LDS)10 in a given territory. Box 3.2 provides an overview of CLLD, which is implemented through Local Action Groups (LAGs), mainly in rural areas. The goal is to bolster the economy and improve the quality of life – for instance, through investments in infrastructure and economic diversification. The two voivodeships (Kujawsko-Pomorskie and Podlaskie) in Poland using ESF and ERDF for their LAG, the only ones that are both rural and urban, are also active in social inclusion (e.g. long-term unemployment). At the local level, CLLD and LAGs in Poland are particularly relevant to engaging local communities.
At the local level, the design of high-quality, integrated, multi-sectoral strategies can be challenging, especially with regard to stakeholder engagement. Local actors require technical and financial support from the regional, national and EU levels, especially in the early stages of the implementation process.
CLLD is based on the LEADER experience of community-led local development and takes a bottom-up approach. It aims to strengthen synergies between local actors, both public and private. Although the LEADER approach was extended to other funds in the period 2014-2020, often CLLD has been restricted by national authorities to only one specific policy objective and/or a single fund. In the 2021-2027 period, the CLLD instrument includes new provisions to go beyond the LEADER initiative and to empower local communities to provide specific local solutions, not only via EAFRD, but also via the other ESI Funds. Thus CLLD offers possibilities not only for rural areas, but also for urban and peri-urban areas. As a result, it is an increasingly valuable tool for urban-rural partnerships.
Challenges reported in the implementation of CLLD include the complexity of the concept; issues linked to the capacity of the actors on the ground; resistance to move away from top-down approaches and giving “power” to local groups; lack of appreciation of its value, because consultation with local actors is already being used; and the administrative burden when it is supported by ERDF and ESF.
Source: Tomašić, R. (2016[11]), Report on New Territorial Development Tools in Cohesion Policy 2014-2020: Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) and Community-Led Local Development (CLLD), European Parliament Plenary Sitting, 22 February 2016.
The EU programming cycle 2021-2027
The new EU programming cycle, 2021-2027 envisages some changes that aim to help strengthening the interaction between urban and rural areas and make it more effective. The new EU Cohesion Policy brings new priority objectives, a more thematic concentration of funds and an enhanced territorial dimension for policy action, combining funds and integrating policy interventions. The 11 thematic objectives used in 2014-2020 were condensed into five to better address the challenges posed by megatrends:11
(PO1) A smarter Europe – innovative and smart industrial transformation;
(PO3) A more connected Europe – mobility and regional ICT connectivity;
(PO4) A more social Europe – implementing the European Pillar of Social Rights;
(PO5) Europe closer to citizens – sustainable and integrated development of urban, rural and coastal areas through local initiatives.
The 2021-2027 Cohesion Policy framework supports the development of local growth strategies by urban, local, rural or other territorial authorities, which should now be fully in charge of or involved in the selection of EU-funded projects. The new framework continues to support and seeks to strengthen ITIs and CLLD, as well as “Other Territorial Instruments” (IITs).
The new cross-cutting policy objective (PO5), which may be financed by all Policy Objectives 1-4 through integrated actions and projects, is well suited to supporting urban-rural partnerships. Developing effective partnerships funded through ITIs requires national, regional and local authorities to improve the effectiveness and timeliness of multi-level governance; further strengthen the links between territorial and sectoral planning, programming and implementation; and further enhance co-operation among the territories and stakeholders involved.
The “Next Generation EU” pandemic recovery package (NGEU), set up in 2021, offers additional opportunities. NGEU represents the start of a new process that will have significant effects on the EU Cohesion Policy and bring a new role to ESI Funds and place-based policies across the European Union. It calls for a new role of place-based policies, where the integration of ESIF and of strategies and actions at different levels becomes the new challenge. Poland requested EUR 23.9 billion in grants under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) – a key instrument at the core of the NGEU – and EUR 12 billion in loans to implement its National Recovery Plan.12 A significant proportion of the EU funds will finance the expansion and modernisation of rail infrastructure – which could strengthen urban-rural linkages – as well as the development of digital infrastructure in the five less developed regions.13
Overall, including regional and national programmes, Poland will have about EUR 76 billion in EU funding in 2021-2027 to allocate to investments in innovation, entrepreneurship, digitisation, infrastructure, environmental protection, energy, education and social affairs. As in the previous period, about 60% of funds from EU Cohesion Policy will go to programmes implemented at the national level. The remaining 40% will be allocated to regional programmes managed by voivodeship marshals.14
The Partnership Agreement for Poland (PA) under Policy Objective 5 (PO5) supports the implementation of integrated urban-rural strategies, mainly at the supra-local level. The purpose should be to drive structural changes in a given area, in line with the EU priorities and objectives defined at the national level in the National Strategy of Regional Development 2030 (NSRD) and regional level in the regional development strategies (SER).
Territorial and local development strategies (LDS) need to be prepared, reflecting local functional linkages and the potentials and needs of territories. They should aim to create economically, socially and spatially coherent areas of functional connections, based on local projects to improve the quality of life) in a given functional area. Actions implemented under PO5 must be implemented through territorial instruments such as ITIs, CLLD and IITs, and must result from territorial strategies (for ITIs and IITs) or local development strategies (for CLLD).15
As in the past, Poland is greatly stressing the creation of urban-rural linkages in functional areas within its regional development strategy and a wide utilisation of ITIs, capitalising on its very successful past experience (in 2017, only nine EU Member States accounted for nearly 80% of the total amount of ITI funding, with around 28% of all ITIs being implemented by Poland).16
The Partnership Agreement for Poland indicates that ITIs will be used extensively in FUAs, in particular medium-sized cities losing their socioeconomic functions (which also include rural areas) and all other FUA designated in the voivodeship development strategies, including the FUA for voivodeship centres. The basis for the implementation of ITIs in Poland is the ITI territorial strategy or the supra-local development strategy. Activities resulting from an ITI strategy can be financed in PO5, but the main axis of the implementation of these strategies is based on Policy Objectives (PO) 1-4, under the relevant regional or national programmes.17
As in the previous period, CLLD will be implemented by local action groups based on local development strategies, with a focus on rural areas.18 Projects resulting from them may be financed from the EAFRD and the EMFF, as well as from the ESF+ and the ERDF.19 The choice to apply this instrument is left to the voivodeship boards decides about the application of this instrument under the Regional Programmes. IIT may also be used to support bottom-up development projects emerging from supra-local strategies.
ITIs have been central to driving urban-rural partnerships and territorial approaches in Poland
As should be clear from the preceding sections – and from the discussion in Chapter 2 – ITIs have played a crucial role in driving and supporting urban-rural partnerships in Poland. Their impact goes beyond the funded projects, as they have contributed to territorial cohesion20 by:
Promoting a partnership model of co-operation between various administrative units in functional urban areas;
Increasing the effectiveness of interventions by implementing integrated projects comprehensively responding to the needs and problems of cities and areas functionally related to them;
Enhancing the capacities of cities and FUAs to draft and implement plans for development projects under the EU Cohesion Policy interventions in their territory.
As of 2018, ITIs had been implemented in 21.3% of municipalities in Poland, which cover of 17.5% of the land area and are home to 47.6% of the population (Kociuba, 2018[12]). As noted above, Poland has required the implementation of ITIs in the FUAs of voivodeship capitals, and given the option to other FUAs. The idea is to encourage local governments within FUAs to establish closer co-operation to obtain investment funds, develop a joint strategy to address shared challenges, and implement it together. The possibility to draw funding from several priority axes of EU programmes helps ensure that strategies are integrated.
ITIs can be implemented in areas all along the urban-rural continuum and at different levels of governance, so they are well suited to the diverse nature of Polish local governments. An ITI can also deliver integrated actions in detached geographical units with similar characteristics within a region (e.g. a network of small or medium-sized cities). A further advantage is that an ITI does not need to cover the whole territory of an administrative unit. Some examples of the use of ITIs in Poland are outlined in Box 3.3. Forming the required partnerships is a complex process, but access to EU and national funds has been a critical incentive for local governments to make the effort, as shown by the increase in planned ITIs in the Dolnośląskie Voivodeship.
Dolnośląskie Voivodeship includes ITIs in its Regional Operational Programme for 2014-2020.ITIs are implemented by associations of local governments headed by a leader. For example: the Wrocław powiat heads the Wrocław Functional Urban Area ITI; the Wałbrzych powiat heads the Wałbrzych conurbation ITI; and the City of Jelena Góra heads the Jelenia Góra conurbation ITI. The board of the Dolnośląskie Voivodeship delegated its authority to the ITI associations to act as intermediate bodies in the implementation system of the Regional Operational Programme.
For the 2021-2027 period, the voivodeship board-initiated discussions in March 2020 to apply the territorial approach across the entire region, inviting all self-government units to participate. The goal was for every potential applicant to be able to apply for EU funds under Policy Objective 5.
The discussion resulted in agreements, letters of intent from individual municipalities and counties, followed by draft action plans/strategies. Along with the three FUAs that were already implementing ITIs, three more will be launched, in the Legnica-Głogów Functional Area, the Southern Functional Area and the Western Functional Area.
In the Pomorskie Voivodeship, the Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot Metropolitan Association has been in charge of implementing EU financed projects through an ITI. It has co-ordinated the implementation of projects worth about EUR 250 million in four thematic areas: transport and mobility, environment and energy, economic development and social development. The projects include the creation of a network of nodes integrating transport systems; the creation of the Metropolitan Bike System to promote active mobility; weatherisation of residential and public buildings; an integrated programme of co-operation of business incubators; and the creation of science and technology parks.
In 2021-2027, the Lubelskie Voivodeship will implement activities under the five objectives of the Cohesion Policy. The proposed basic allocation from the European Funds will be EUR 1.7 billion (25% ESF and 75% ERDF). The resources will be used to support strategic interventions in areas at risk of permanent marginalisation and medium-sized cities losing their socio-economic functions; regional strategic intervention areas, including FUAs; and other priority projects. The strategic objectives of the Development Strategy for the Lubelskie Voivodeship up to 2030 will be high-quality food, green economy, a healthy society, digitalisation and material technologies, and improved production and logistics processes.
Source: Information received from local governments in the OECD Questionnaire on Urban-Rural Linkages in Poland. For Lubelskie voivodeship: Marshal Office of Lubelskie Voivodship in Lublin (n.d.[13]), “European funds for Lubelskie 2021-2027”, https://www.interregeurope.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/tx_tevprojects/library/file_1625484926.pdf; for the Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot Metropolitan Association: Gajewski, R. (2018[14]), “The grounds for metropolitan cooperation. A case study of the Gdansk-Gdynia-Sopot metropolitan area”, https://doi.org/10.25167/sm2018.031.04.
In 2015, the Pomorskie voivodeship adopted the Integrated Territorial Agreements (ITAs), which are similar to ITIs but separate, for the implementation of its Regional Operational Programme in eight subregional cities. The ITAs focus on FUAs and cover areas such as collective transport, waste and rainwater management, buildings improvements, vocational training, pre-school education, and health care. To approve an ITA, the requirement was that the central city and at least half of the local governments in the functional area co-operate. The ITA constitutes a special mechanism for functional areas of subregional cities.
Table 3.1 uses Poznań as an example to show the types of ITI projects that can be implemented in a metropolitan area. Box 3.4 then shows how ITIs in the Warszawa and Lublin metropolitan areas are fostering co-operation. Relationships have been formed that on a larger scale than previously seen in Poland, resulting in deepened integration, reduced competition among municipalities, and collaboration to solve common problems.
The Warszawa Metropolitan Area is one of the most dynamic in Poland. To make the most of its potential, the City of Warszawa, which has county rights, formed an ITI with 14 urban municipalities, 12 urban-rural municipalities and 13 rural municipalities. The ITI was allocated about EUR 167 million from the Regional Operational Programme for the Mazowieckie Voivodeship 2014-2020. An intermediate body manages the implementation of the ITI. The projects funded include digital public services; low-emission transport, such as cycling routes and park-and-ride (P+R) lots to promote public transport use; and general and pre-school education (e.g. development of a care system for children under 3 years old, and education and career counselling). It is expected that by the end of 2022 there will be 471 km of bicycle routes, 62 P+R parking lots, and more than 1 700 new places of care for small children.
The Lublin Metropolitan Area includes 22 municipalities and also co-operates with five powiats. The smaller Lublin Functional Area (LFA) within it, which covers 16 municipalities, was created to implement an ITI, with about EUR 160 million under the Regional Operational Programme of the Lubelskie Voivodeship. Projects included an Integrated Communication Centre for the Lublin Functional Area; the construction and modernisation of bus stops and interchanges integrated with other types of transport in the LFA; the optimisation of connections between the S17/12 expressway and the airport; the revitalisation of a park; the revitalisation of a part of the Lublin city centre; and other area improvement projects.
Source: For Warsaw: Interreg Europe (2020[15]), Integrated Territorial Investments for Warsaw Metropolis – Strict Cooperation between 40 Communes, https://www.interregeurope.eu/good-practices/integrated-territorial-investments-for-warsaw-metropolis-strict-cooperation-between-40-communes; for Lublin: Lublin Metropolitan Area (n.d.[16]), “ITI instrument in the Lublin Metropolitan Area: Experiences and plans for the future”, https://projects2014-2020.interregeurope.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/tx_tevprojects/library/file_1625485026.pdf
Although the incentives created by ITIs can bring municipalities together, they cannot always change the fundamental dynamics between them. An example is the ITI created in 2014-2020 in the Bydgoszcz-Toruń FUA, in the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodeship, between two cities with a history of social and political conflict and competition (Box 3.5).
The Bydgoszcz-Toruń agglomeration in the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodeship has two urban cores: Bydgoszcz, with 361 000 inhabitants, and Toruń, with 207 000, that jointly serve as the capital of the voivodeship. The voivode office and majority of central government administration offices are situated in Bydgoszcz, while the self-government administration and Voivodeship Sejmik (assembly) are in Toruń. Economically, Bydgoszcz is stronger, with a more industrial profile, while Toruń is dominated by the service sector and has more recognisable tourist brand. The commuting zone includes about 20 additional municipalities.
In 2012, the national government invited the cities to form an ITI to access EUR 60 million in EU funds. However, a long history of social and political conflicts between the two cities undermined the effort. Problems arose over to the location of the main office of the ITI, management of the board, the way members’ votes would be counted, and the criteria for the distribution of funds. After months of discussion, a 25-member Bydgoszcz-Toruń Functional Area (BTOF) was created, with Bydgoszcz as president and Toruń as deputy president. The two presidents would hold alternate meetings of the steering committee and decisions would be made by consensus. This arrangement allowed both cities to maintain their equal positions as the main centres of the created area.
Another thorny issue was whether they should have a single functional area of Bydgoszcz-Toruń or two FUAs, one around each city. Bydgoszcz wanted to have its own functional area, while Toruń favoured a shared FUA. The national government and the Marshal of the Kujawsko-Pomorskie voivodeship opted for a common functional area and offered to increase funding to EUR 138 million. Despite further protests from Bydgoszcz, the plan proceeded. There were also disagreements about the number of representatives of individual cities and municipalities in the BTOF steering committee, and on the specific structure of the organisation, but ultimately the new inter-municipal union came together.
However, the mutual animosities continued to be strong, as both cities have strong identities. For 2021-2027, Bydgoszcz and Toruń will implement separate ITIs within their own functional areas.
Source: Government of Poland (n.d.[18]), Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodeship, http://bydgoszcz.uw.gov.pl/en/gospodarka.html; Szmytkowska M. et al. (2021[19]), “The making of the Bydgoszcz-Toruń partnership area as an example of a bipolar conflict”, https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1875994.
As the case of Bydgoszcz and Toruń suggests, imposing a shared ITI does not necessarily lead to integration. Most of the investments were spot-based or implemented within each functional area, without co-ordination. This case also suggests that economic benefits are not always enough to overcome political rivalries and historically rooted conflicts. This suggests that the creation of future FUAs will require bigger efforts to foster co-management, broader dialogue and real participation of many social stakeholder groups. The creation of partnerships should be based on common, conscious needs, and on a voluntary basis, so to share political commitment and eventual costs (e.g. economic, social, etc.).
Although the ITI mechanism is widely used in Poland, some subnational governments have come up with their own proposals and implemented instruments inspired by ITIs, but adapted to their needs (Box 3.6).
In 2013, the Zachodniopomorskie Voivodeship adopted the ‘Local Government Contract’ (LGC) for the implementation of its Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020. The LGC concentrates resources and means of intervention in selected thematic areas such as transport and education. Funds were made available for local government partnerships, which conducted a common diagnostic of problems, developed a vision for development, prepared a development strategy and implement it together with the private sector, academia and citizens. Six LGCs were negotiated and signed with the voivodeship government. The contracting parties were municipalities around the subregional towns of Wałcz, Szczecinek, Nowogard, Pyrzyce. The condition to have access to funds through the LGC is that the projects contribute to the objectives of the ROP of the voivodeship.
The Mazowieckie Voivodeship implemented the Regional Territorial Investments (RTI) as a form of partnership in five FUAs of regional cities. Local governments involved in the partnership are directly involved in the implementation of investments. For projects to be approved under this scheme must have an integrated character, which means that they should contribute to solve a tangible problem and at the same time support the development of the subregion. Partners must prepare an action plan consisting of a diagnosis of the area and an indication of related projects as well as a financial plan and timetable. Funding projects under the RTI formula, comes from the allocation of resources from the ERDF an ESF for the ROP.
The Lubelskie Voivodeship adopted the Strategic Territorial Investments (STI) for the implementation of its ROP. The STI consists in the implementation of integrated projects on the basis of strategic plans in subregional FUAs (Biała Podlaska, Chełm, Puławy, Zamość). The scope of the STI could vary from increasing the economic attractiveness of cities of their FUA with the use of their local assets, environmental protection, the installation of low-emission transport systems, increasing the quality of human resources and social inclusion. The resources for the mechanisms come from the ERDF and ESF funds. The STI aims at strengthening diverse supra-local functions and exploiting the internal potential of the subregions, developing internal and external functional connections, and improving accessibility to basic public services.
Source: Interviews with Polish local government officials.
CLLD implementation has been successful, but underused
As noted earlier, Community Led Local Development (CLLD) is an important instrument for encouraging local governments and other partners to create and implement local development strategies (LDS). It is implemented throughout Poland under EAFRD and EMFF in seven of the 16 voivodeships, and in Kujawsko-Pomorskie and Podlaskie, also under ERDF and ESF, with multi-funded strategies combining several EU funds.21
While ITIs are rarely used to address needs and partnerships in rural areas, CLLD is a formidable instrument for rural-rural partnerships and can also be instrumental to strengthen partnerships between rural areas and smaller cities. As explained in Box 3.2 above, although the design of CLLD in 2014-2020 made it most suitable to rural areas, changes for the 2021-2027 period make it more broadly applicable and thus increase its value for implementing integrated approaches in areas that include urban, peri-urban and rural municipalities. For example, CLLD could be particularly useful in areas with smaller urban cores, or with very large catchment areas.
In Poland, according to the Ministry of Agriculture, CCLD is already applied in about 90% of the area eligible for support. Although CLLD is a formidable tool for involving citizens and stakeholders at local level in developing concerted responses to the social, environmental and economic challenges of a given territory, so far in Poland it has been used with a limited scope or not to its fullest potential, probably also because administrative complexities that hinder many local authorities. In fact, the CLLD approach has been used in Poland (similarly to many other EU countries) mainly in small rural projects, involving a wide set of delivery agencies including social enterprises, other non-governmental organisations, foundations and rural small and mid-size enterprises (SMEs). During the programming period 2014-2020 only the Regional Programmes (RPs) of Podlaskie and Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodeships included the use of CLLD in its direct form.
The implementation of CLLD requires the creation of Local Action Groups (LAGs), which benefit from the key engagement of local actors in the design and delivery of strategies, in the decision-making and in the allocation of resources for the development of the given territory. LAGs bring together public, private and civil-society stakeholders in a particular municipality or even functional area. This makes them instrumental in involving the local community in strategy development and contributes significantly to building local capacity for planning, administration and implementation. This approach makes CLLD different from ITIs, which are mainly led by the public sector. In fact, CLLD requires local authorities to have great trust and openness to multilevel co-operation.
Although CLLD implementation in Poland has been positively assessed in many evaluations (LDnet, 2020[20]), Poland can do more to better exploit the potential of CLLD – for example, by setting up incentives for a wider use of CLLD for urban-rural partnerships and by fostering the participation of non-governmental organisations and of citizen organisations in the development of a renewed national urban policy.
The lack of understanding of the CLLD approach by some officials at national and regional level has been a barrier to development, optimal use of resources and wider community engagement. Implementation challenges include capacity support needs, particularly coordination, exchange between LAGs and a more equal understanding of the method. (LDnet, 2020[20]). Insufficient harmonisation of national rules also caused by a difficult harmonisation across the different EU funds to implement the CLLD, lack of trust towards government institutions as mentioned above, lack of a horizontal approach to local development among rural and regional policy makers, the lack of co-financing mechanisms, and fear of audits and controls are also bottlenecks which prevent CLLD from achieving its full potential in the country.
Lack of trust among municipalities – and more broadly in Polish society – hinders co-operation
Local governments, especially within FUAs, seem to be aware of the importance of collaborating with neighbouring municipalities and they are taking steps to do so. However, competition, lack of trust and historical rivalries among municipalities still hinder stronger and more effective co-operation (Szmytkowska et al., 2021[19]). There is also a lack of trust among members of local action groups that aim to implement development projects in rural communities (Zajda, 2014[21]). Indeed, as shown in Figure 3.4, trust in government institutions in Poland is relatively low compared with other OECD countries. This has important implications for inter-municipal co-operation and for participation in programmes such as LEADER.
Co-operation among local governments is voluntary, and building trust is crucial to success. Municipalities in the Grudziądz functional area, for example, have noted that to make an association work, there is a need to create a sense of safety and security to ensure the smaller municipalities that their voice will be heard and that the priorities of the larger municipalities will not eclipse theirs. Chapter 2 delves deeper into the issue of trust and how governance structures, such as a “one voice, one vote” approach regardless of municipalities’ size, can facilitate effective partnerships.
Source: OECD (2021[22]), Government at a Glance 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/1c258f55-en; OECD calculations based in the World Values Survey and European Values Study, 2017-2020.
A related challenge is that municipalities often have more incentives to compete for population and businesses than to co-operate. An important share of local governments’ own-source revenue comes from households and firms, so they may prefer to try to attract as many residents and businesses as possible, even if it is not the best approach for the FUA as a whole.
As discussed in Chapter 1, economic growth in Poland is concentrated in seven subregions with the highest GDP per capita in the country: Warszawa, Poznań, Wrocław, Kraków, Plocki, Legnicko-glogowski and Trójmiasto. If current trends continue, the biggest concentration of population will occur in major cities’ commuting areas, while other parts of the country lose residents (Wołek, 2018[23]). This highlights the importance of co-operation on sustainable mobility planning in Poland’s metropolitan areas – one of the most pressing challenges that municipalities face. It is complex work, due to the close connections between transport, spatial planning, and residents and commuters’ behaviours. For best results, it also requires focusing not only on the city, as is typically done now, but working closely together with municipalities in the broader commuting area, which have diverse demographic, economic, financial, administrative and political contexts. A positive example is the Sustainable Spatial Mobility Plan for the Wrocław Agglomeration, in the Dolnośląskie Voivodeship (Box 3.7).
The ITI Wroclaw Office is responsible for the promotion of partnerships among member municipalities, contributing to the objectives of the Regional Operational Programme Dolnośląskie Voivodeship 2014-2020. Rural areas in the functional area are suburban estates and villages near the city of Wrocław have over 5 000 inhabitants, and their agricultural function is marginal. Partnerships among urban and rural municipalities in the Wrocław agglomeration have been set based on the real needs of the functional area and not focused on either rural or urban projects in particular. Partnerships are built based on an integrated approach to project implementation and on a voluntary basis.
The strategic and planning documents for the Wrocław Functional Area do not include specific actions that intended to promote or build urban-rural partnerships. However, co-operation among local self-government units in the functional area led to the creation of the Oławskie Przewozy Gminno-Powiatowy” (counties and municipalities association) that was seminal in the creation and adoption of the Sustainable Spatial Mobility Plan for the Wrocław Agglomeration to improve inter-communal and city connections and have a direct impact on the number and quality of such connections.
The association of municipalities and counties has experienced a faster flow of information that has allowed the constant adaptation of the bus transport system connecting small towns and larger cities. The establishment of the Association also improved the financial situation of the bus company, which is the operator providing transport services for the Association. The association of local government has made it possible to obtain external funds for the creation of new communication lines and the modernisation of the bus fleet (replacement of buses with ecological ones).
Source: Information provided by the ITI Wrocław Office to the OECD.
Metropolitan governance remains underdeveloped
Poland’s FUAs, as discussed in Chapter 1, have a key role in the delivery of services such as transport, social services and business development assistance. The National Regional Development Strategy (NRDS) suggests that the role of the largest agglomerations is to support the development and quality of life not only in the metropolitan area, but across the voivodeship, through co-operation with other local governments (Government of Poland, 2019[24]). However, Poland lacks flexible legal structures for co-operation in metropolitan areas.
The country has been working on metropolitan reforms for two decades. In 2003, the Spatial Planning and Development Act recognised metropolitan areas, but without a clear statutory delimitation. After various attempted proposals and years of discussion, in 2015, Poland passed the Metropolitan Union Act, which entered into force on 1 January 2016, but has yet to be implemented, due to a lack of appropriate regulations.
In 2017, regulations were approved for the Górnośląsko-Zagłębiowska Metropolia only, with Katowice as its capital city, with unique provisions for its functioning and financing. Its income comes from a share of the personal income taxes paid by the metropolis’ residents, as well as membership fees paid by municipalities. The metropolitan union also receives a direct allocation from the central budget, separate from any EU funds.
No other metropolitan area has a statutory level nor has been granted the same rights and benefits, although there are other metropolitan areas that could benefit from them. The majority of metropolitan declarations in Poland are not legally binding documents, but they can be considered as the beginning of a movement towards more formalised political models. For example, the Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot Metropolitan Association, one of the most successful examples of metropolitan co-operation in the country, according to Gajewski (2018[14]), has been lobbying for several years to become a metropolitan union (see Box 3.8).
A metropolitan union is a different form of co-operation, with statutory obligations such as spatial planning, integration and co-ordination of public transport, strategic development planning, and policies of (business) promotion. It can also perform other tasks based on additional agreements with local governments and national government bodies. Metropolitan unions have access to central budget funding to protect the integrity of their activities regardless of the possible access to EU funds.
The Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot Metropolitan Association (GGSMA) was established in 2011 and comprises 57 local governments (municipalities, counties, and cities with county rights). Since 2015 it has been responsible for the implementation of an ITI. It has nine supporting members, including municipal companies such as the Gdańsk Lech Walesa Airport and the Olivia Business Centre – the largest complex office in the region.
The origins of the GGSMA could be tracked to 2003 with the formation of the Metropolitan Council of the Gulf of Gdańsk. It included representatives from Gdańsk, Gdynia, Sopot, Pruszcz Gdanski, Żukowo, Kolbudy, Kosakowo, Reda, Rumia and Wejherowo and the Marshal of the Pomorskie Voivodeship. Its goal was to accelerate the integration of the public transport system.
In 2005, the scientific community published a “Tri-City Manifesto” calling for a wide public debate on the creation of the Gdańsk metropolis. The premise was that the creation of an institutionalised metropolitan government would accelerate the economic development and growth of the region. As a result, the Social Committee for the Tri-City Metropolis was established, with the participation of the scientific and business community. In 2007, the Metropolitan Transport Union of the Gulf of Gdańsk was registered with the aim of organising a common transport system.
In September 2011, representatives of 15 communities from the northern part of the metropolitan area under the leadership of Gdynia signed a letter of co-operation under the partnership agreement of NORDA. The association expanded to more communities and later changed its name to the Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot Metropolitan Association (GGSMA). Its most important aim is the promotion of co-operation and the coordination of local activities. It supports the implementation of projects financed from the EU funds. The GGSMA developed the Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot Metropolitan Area Development Strategy by 2030, a spatial development plan for the metropolitan area, the Transport and Mobility Strategy, as well as a Low-Carbon Economy Plan.
The GGSMA has been lobbying for several years to become a metropolitan union – a legal structure that can be created through national law. Establishing a metropolitan union would grant access to more than PLN 170 million per year from the national budget, an amount equivalent to the sources dedicated to the implementation of the ITI.
Source: Gajewski, R. (2018[14]), “The grounds for metropolitan cooperation. A case study of the Gdansk-Gdynia-Sopot metropolitan area”, https://doi.org/10.25167/sm2018.031.04.
Due to the limitations set in the Metropolitan Act on the formalisation of metropolitan areas, functional areas have resorted to bottom-up metropolitan planning as an alternative. For example, the city of Poznań and the suburban municipalities created an informal agglomeration council. It eventually attained formal status and serves as a platform for co-operation in several areas, from business promotion to spatial planning (Box 3.9).
In 2007, the city of Poznań and 17 suburban municipalities and the county of Poznań created the Poznań Agglomeration Council as the non-statutory institutional arrangement expected to act as a forum for exchanging information between local governments and creating common policies. The purpose was to co-operate in areas such as: support for business initiatives, marketing activities, public transport, education, healthcare and spatial policy. In June 2011, the Council adopted the Development Strategy for Poznań Agglomeration “Poznań Metropolis 2020”, which coincided with the transformation of the informal Poznań Agglomeration Council into a statutory Poznań Metropolis Association.
Two programmes for the Development Strategy for Poznań Agglomeration are related to spatial planning: Concept for Spatial Development for the Metropolis, and Common Planning Standards. The Council created the Metropolitan Forum of Spatial Planning including planning officers from all municipalities form the agglomeration. The Poznań Metropolis Association has called the regional government to play a more active role in metropolitan spatial policy, even if that means reducing the planning power of Local governments.
Source: Mikula, Ł. (n.d.[25]), “Planning for urban regions in Poland: Top-down failures, bottom-up struggles”, https://www.unil.ch/files/live/sites/igu-urban/files/shared/Mikula_planning_urban_regions_Poland.pdf.
Similarly, in 2016, the local governments in the Bydgoszcz agglomeration formed the Bydgoszcz Metropolis Association to guide co-operation between urban and rural municipalities in areas such as local community integration, tourism promotion, senior policy, urban mobility and environmental protection. For rural municipalities, membership in the association makes it easier to deliver public services – such as through joint gas and electricity purchasing groups – improve the quality of life, and engage in economic development and tourism.
A key barrier to the establishment of voluntary, bottom-up and equitable metropolitan structures in Poland is that settlement structures have a specific hierarchy, and larger cities, for instance, have county status (Szmytkowska et al., 2021[19]). OECD has previously noted that Polish municipalities, particularly large and medium-sized cities, can manage development within their jurisdictions, but they have no direct influence on neighbouring municipalities (OECD, 2016[7]; 2021[6]). Existing metropolitan areas (e.g. Warszawa, Kraków, and Łódź) link municipalities of different size, population and wealth. The core municipality tends to have more wealth and administrative capacity, while neighbouring municipalities depend on it for jobs, retail activity and services.
The implementation of jointly developed policies among local governments will require strengthening the organisational structure, especially in matters relating to planning, infrastructure and public services. As a first step, the regulation on metropolitan areas should be strengthened. A Metropolitan Union Act could ensure that all metropolitan areas have reliable access to sources of financing, such as the national budget allocations and 5% of the income tax of residents, as in the Dolnośląskie Voivodeship.
A Metropolitan Union Act would also provide a legal framework and a formal setting for co-ordination on different policy areas and overcome barriers for policy and territorial integration. Poland should consider applying the Metropolitan Union Act to all metropolitan areas in the country as defined in the National Spatial Development Concept 2030. In the context of transport, for instance, this would allow metropolitan unions to establish their integrated tariff and ticket system compulsory within their borders and obtain additional financial resources for integrated public transport.
Relations across levels of government could be further reinforced
OECD has noted that Poland has already embarked on improving multi-level relationships focused on strengthening the institutional environment (OECD, 2021[6]). The NRDS suggests that co-operation of voivodes with local governments of large cities, including voivodeships of capital cities, based on accumulated experience with co-operation platforms will largely contribute to make the most of the development potential of the region (Government of Poland, 2019[24]). This co-operation is particularly encouraged in areas such as low-emission public transport, environmental protection, climate change adaptation, waste management and the use of new technologies. The Strategy for Responsible Development (SRD) points out the need to reaffirm the commitment to decentralisation and reduce the rigid control exercised by the national level over the actions of subsidiary governments, thereby preventing innovative activities as well as the need to reduce excessive reliance on EU funds and EU programmes to define public policies. Poland has already conducted several actions to reinforce the co-ordination across levels of government including territorial contracts, Regional Social Dialogue Councils and a Joint of National Government and Local Self-Government (Joint Committee). However, co-ordination across levels of governments occurs mostly on a project basis and depends strongly on the willingness to co-operate with the different parties. Rigid and complex legal forms also seem to hamper co-ordination across levels of government creating bottlenecks for vertical co-ordination, which often arise from a lack of understanding of the processes.
Poland supports dialogue across levels of government with its Joint Commission of Central Government and Local Government (JCGaLG).22 It is a forum that considers issues related to the functioning of municipalities and the state policy on local government, as well as with issues related to the local government within the scope of operation of the EU and the international organisations to which Poland belongs. This body is composed of the minister responsible for public administration and 11 representatives appointed by the prime minister (at the request of the chair), together with representatives of national organisations of local self-government units that work in 12 “problem teams” and three working groups. The JCGaLG develops a common position among levels of government and contributes to establishing the economic and social priorities of national and subnational government on matters such as municipal service management and the functioning of local governments (counties and municipalities), as well as regional development and the functioning of voivodeship (province) government (Lublinksa, 2017[26]). The JCGaLG develops social and economic priorities that can affect subnational development, evaluates the legal and financial circumstances for operating territorial units, and gives an opinion on draft normative acts, programmes and other government documents related to local government.
The complexity of Poland’s territorial organisation might be a barrier in dealing with problems that have a more functional character and that require thinking and planning beyond administrative boundaries. Regions (voivodeships) are responsible for creating the conditions for economic development, the maintenance and development of social and technical infrastructure of regional significance, supporting and carrying out activities to raise the level of education, promoting development opportunities in the region, among other things. Regional governments conduct their tasks through co-operation with territorial self-government units of its area; co-operation with the state administration of the region; co-operation with economic chambers, employers’ and employees’ organisations, churches, NGOs, research institutions and universities, neighbouring regions and even foreign regions (Lublinksa, 2017[26]).
Land use planning challenges constrain urban-rural partnerships
One of the benefits of urban-rural co-operation is a more efficient land use and planning (OECD, 2017[27]). In Poland, while the governance of land use is evolving in promising directions, there is still scope for reform. A major issue is that while municipalities elaborate planning documents to guide future developments, planning coverage remains low in many cases and such documents are thus ineffective. Moreover, there are cases of competition for different types of land uses (agricultural, residential, industrial, recreational, etc.). There seems to be a perception among local governments that national and regional planning documents do not always reflect the real functional links between local governments in a reliable manner and do not always analyse the potential and development challenges accurately, which in turn affects the extent of their implementation. For example, in the city of Łódź residents from neighbouring municipalities benefit from the services provided in the city of Łódź (Box 3.10). There does not seem to be any proper compensation or contribution for the maintenance of services such as public transport. Thus, demographic changes in the metropolitan area constitute a precondition for land-use planning. There is also a clear need for co-operation at metropolitan level for service provision.
In the Łódź region (voivodeship), the city of Łódź is a regional pole. It has by far the largest population in the region, at 668 000 in 2020.However, the city is experiencing the greatest population decline while surrounding counties are seeing population increases. The urban area of Łódź registered a population decline from 835 000 inhabitants in 1989 to 668 000 in 2020. The city’s surrounding counties saw population increases over that period, by as much as 8.61% in Łódź east and 2.60% in Zgierz, 1.13% in Brzeziny and 0.48% in Pabianice. Łódź population is old and shrinking while that of the surrounding counties is young and growing.
Due to the demographic dynamics, urban-rural linkages are a strategic objective for municipalities. Many residents from surrounding rural municipalities work or attend school in Łódź proper, use the services of the central city and shop there. Meanwhile, the adjacent rural municipalities provide food, greenspace and recreation/tourism for urban residents. For example, the neighbouring municipality of Nowosolna has a large working age population and robust local government revenues as a result. Many of the residents commute to Łódź to work. While the municipality has many services of its own such as schools, and a library, its residents may also draw on the services provided by the city of Łódź.
Source: For population statistics, see: PopulationStat (n.d.[28]), Lodz, Poland Population, https://populationstat.com/poland/lodz; OECD (2016[7]), Governance of Land Use in Poland: The Case of Łódź, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264260597-en.
At an intermediate level, Regional Spatial Plans spell out regional development strategies and provide guidelines for local land-use plans, but do not constitute a legal framework for land use in local plans. They also demarcate restricted areas, flood prone areas and mining areas. Land use policies of urban and rural areas need to accommodate other uses, for example, urban agriculture, recreation in nature/forest areas in urban areas, and non-agricultural activities in rural areas. Without coordinated policies, land use policies will be highly impacted by activities belonging to the informal sector like tax evasion and land unclear ownership.
The only binding land-use plans in Poland are the Local Spatial Development Plans. Although they are supposed to steer spatial development and municipalities have the opportunity to prepare them, there are still large gaps in plan coverage. There is a lack of continuity in land use zones and network infrastructure in planning documents of the neighbouring municipalities largely due to poor co-ordination. This leads to problems such as the location of metropolitan-wide infrastructure (e.g. ring-roads, waste water treatment plants, public transport, etc.). Affected municipalities do not have any legally binding zoning plan for large parts of their territory. Legally, Local Spatial Development Plans are required to follow the Regional Spatial Development Plan. However, there are no enforcement mechanisms to ensure that local plans actually adhere to regional ones. Consequently, Local Spatial Development Plans are in practice rarely constrained by the Regional Spatial Development Plans. OECD had already noted that the lack of specificity regarding the role of spatial models in development strategies, together with the absence of obligatory nature of strategies, leads to a gradual marginalisation of spatial issues in the management of development (OECD, 2021[6]).
Spatial planning is too fragmented and needs to be aligned with territorial approaches
Strategic planning plays a key role in fostering inclusive and sustainable development. It is a means to protect significant aspects of the natural and built environment, guide the efficient and effective use and distribution of resources at the local level, and guide the delivery of essential infrastructure. Formally, Poland has a hierarchical planning system with plans at the regional and local level. In practice, the influence of higher level plans on subordinate plans remains limited. Planning mostly occurs within the administrative boundaries rather than at the functional level, overlooking the linkages and connections between urban and rural areas.
It is possible within the current legal framework to co-design and adopt a shared spatial development policy, but the main way in which plans are now co-ordinated is through the hierarchical relationship between the different levels of government. Lower-level plans are required to conform to higher-level ones. Municipal draft studies to prepare the development strategies have to be submitted to regional authorities to verify compliance with the regional zoning plan. However, in practice, the Regional Spatial Development Plans lack the instruments to shape local planning. Local Spatial Development Plans also have to be approved by the regional level of government, but only within the responsibilities of the voivodeship self-government (OECD, 2016[7]).
Horizontal co-ordination occurs primarily through a consultation process. Few agglomerations have developed documents for their whole functional areas (the Poznań FUA is one of the exceptions). These documents are time-consuming and cost-intensive, which is why not many functional areas decide to implement them. Neighbouring municipalities may provide feedback on the municipal study of land use conditions and directions and on the spatial development plans. However, the local government leading the development of the plan does not need to act on the feedback.
In between regional and local plans there is the legal possibility to prepare metropolitan plans (e.g. the Spatial Development Plan for the Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot Metropolitan Area 2030). Improving strategic planning in local governments is regarded in the NSRD as part of the quest of increasing efficiency levels in local public administrations. This includes the practical application of the principles of selectivity, adopting in integrated approach, and conducting activities in partnership. The NSRD stresses that integrated strategic planning requires co-operation among functionally related local governments regarding joint investment planning, expansion and modernisation of the transport network, use of land for housing development, businesses activity, public service provision, and protection of green areas (Government of Poland, 2019[24]).
A significant part of the challenge to foster urban-rural partnerships comes from low coverage of local spatial plans and the reliance on one-off ‘planning decisions’ for an individual building or change of land use requests. In 2020, the share of the area covered by the applicable local spatial management plans in total area amounted to 46.5% in large cities, while in marginalised municipalities was 25.7% (Statistics Poland, 2022[29]). The 2003 revisions to the Spatial Planning and Development Act did not translate into a wide adoption of local spatial development plans as it was not designated as compulsory. Part of the challenge lies in the rules on property owner compensation for properties negatively affected by a local spatial development plan, creating a disincentive for municipalities to adopt them due to the potential future litigation (OECD, 2016[7]). This creates a speculative spatial planning system as the value of land is determined only from the arrangements of local plans. In consequence, local authorities rely on one-off planning decisions, which are a simplified administrative mechanism for building approvals and change of land use. They are used for the location of public and private investments in areas for which there is no valid land area development plan. A critical issue is that there is an over-reliance on planning decisions in cities with low plan coverage, leading to new developments and uses that are costly to serve and maintain, and may be contrary to objectives of broader spatial strategies facilitating sprawl (OECD, 2016[7]).
Local public workforce limitations constrain co-operation and joint work
Local development depends largely on the abilities and competencies of subnational government officials. For urban-rural linkages an effective management of the local public workforce matters for at least three reasons. First, if well managed, it increases local governments’ capability to conduct strategic planning, and design and implement investment projects in co-operation with neighbouring local governments. However, employees or candidates with specialised expertise are usually in short supply. Second, municipalities have greater capacity to negotiate priorities with other municipalities. Finally, it opens the possibility to innovate and modernise public service delivery. However, local governments want and need to hire candidates with the professional expertise and strategic orientation needed to deliver cutting edge public services. Technical skills such as knowledge of legislative provisions are not enough. Increasingly, public services are prioritising transversal skill sets and competencies that are even harder to assess, such as risk-taking, capacity to innovate and problem-solving. Working conditions, low salaries, job content, and the lack of career development opportunities may hinder the attractiveness of subnational local administrations as employers. In general, this is the situation that Polish local governments face to improve their administrative capacity.
OECD (2021[6]) has noted that attracting, retaining and developing human capital in Poland’s local governments is a constant challenge due to changes in the labour market created by megatrend such as digitalisation, globalisation and ageing populations. Younger generations are no longer attracted to the job stability and predictability of pensions in a ‘government job’, which is causing a brain drain in local governments such as the municipality of Międzyrzec Podlaski and Łańcut powiat. Moreover, smaller and rural municipalities in close proximity to urban centres have to compete with them to attract and retain skilled candidates. Moreover, the COVID-19 crisis will likely create pressure on public sector pay at all levels of government making it even harder to attract and retain a skilled workforce. The responsibilities of local governments, as discussed above, demand specific competences and skills, but recruiting is not always an option for smaller and rural areas in particular due to budgetary pressures.
According to the National Regional Development Strategy (NRDS), local governments need to strengthen the competences of officials particularly on strategic management. This involves the ability to prepare and implement comprehensive projects to promote local development and fundraising. This is particularly important in municipalities losing their socio-economic relevance and those at risk of marginalisation. OECD research has shown that local governments in Poland need specialist skill sets and staff with a broad range of transversal competencies (OECD, 2021[6]). The NRDS proposes the training of local decision-makers based on good practices of the Local Government Leaders Academy, especially those from rural and urban-rural communities. The dissemination of good practices on spatial planning related to joint investment planning, expansion of transport networks, land use planning, land protection and the development of economic activity may certainly support capacity building efforts in local governments.
According to Warwas (2018[30]), Polish local government administration should be supported by a strategic vision regarding human resources management to support a long-term vision for development. Indeed, the human factor in the local governments is key to enhance government’s performance and good public governance. A well-functioning local civil service helps foster and sustain good policy-making and implementation, effective service delivery, and accountability and responsibility in utilising public resources. Decentralising responsibility, authority and granting more managerial discretion on public service delivery and goods production to local governments requires them to increase their capacity and improve their management capabilities as most of the times they have to act with limited resources. In 2019, 57% of general government employment in Poland was located in subnational levels, almost 40% in central government and the rest in social security (OECD, 2021[22]).
Fostering urban-rural linkages requires not only a skilled and highly trained workforce, but also human resource management processes that are flexible and provide a strategic approach on how the local public administration should contribute to development. Indeed, as OECD (2021[6]) has already pointed out, Poland’s local governments need to improve their attractiveness as employers of choice by focusing on managerial leadership, the recruitment process and payment. However, the management of the local public workforce should be flexible to allow for career progression, movements of staff, and transfer of knowledge. For example, local public employees could be shared among municipalities. The creation of metropolitan bodies for service delivery could facilitate the sharing of staff, as these bodies could be staffed with municipal employees. The advantage would be that metropolitan service bodies would be staffed with personnel with local knowledge and would increase the motivation of potential recruits to join the local public workforce.
Local governments have limited revenues and large obligations
Local governments largely depend on national grants and subsidies
Local governments’ fiscal autonomy has been reinforced by decreasing dependence on central transfers. Local governments have a leading role in investing in projects that matter to metropolitan (functional) areas and contribute to strengthen urban-rural linkages. This certainly depends on the access to reliable sources of funding and the possibility of combing different funds with those of other local governments for implementing investment projects. The Polish Constitution establishes that subnational governments should be assured of public funds adequate for the performance of the duties assigned to them and that their revenues should consist of own revenues and general subsidies and specific grants from the state budget (Art 167) and that local governments have the right to set the level of local taxes and charges (Art 168) (Government of Poland, 1997[31]). However, recent changes to the tax system will limit local governments in the generation of their own income. The 2021 Tax Reform, called the ‘Polish Deal’ has reduced the amount of personal income tax (PIT) revenue distributed by central government to subnational governments each year. The PIT is municipalities’ main source of tax revenue. Tax revenue is the second largest revenue source after grants and subsidies (Figure 3.5). At the same time, the central government tends to carry out transfers in the form of various programmes according to subjective criteria for allocating funds between local government units.
Source: Fitch Ratings (2021[32]), “‘Polish Deal’ Tax Proposals Would Hit Municipalities’ Revenues”, https://www.fitchratings.com/research/international-public-finance/polish-deal-tax-proposals-would-hit-municipalities-revenues-06-09-2021.
Financial resources are both an incentive and a disincentive for inter-municipal co-operation and the formation of partnerships. The possibility to access funds for investment from the national government or the EU Cohesion Funds is a motivation for municipalities to join forces and create associations or partnerships. However, the lack of funding may hinder co-operation as, for example, municipalities without enough financial resources to participate in transport projects may be excluded from the co-operation scheme. The main cities tend to manage the transport system through a common ticket scheme and all municipalities that benefit from the service need to provide funding for the system to function. When a municipality, in general a small one, cannot afford it, it may be left out of the transport network. The challenge for Polish authorities is to ensure funding is available for situations like this one. Small and financially weak municipalities should be supported to be able to participate in urban-rural partnerships. Another situation is when municipalities do not have clarity or the prospect of accessing financial resources they just abandon the partnership.
In Poland, during the 2000s, government conducted reforms to the 1998 Act on Local Government Revenue and adopted the 2009 Act on Public Finances to provide subnational governments with more fiscal autonomy by reducing the share of central government transfers and earmarked grants, and increase the shared tax revenues through higher proceeds from personal income tax (PIT) and corporate income tax (CIT). Subnational government revenues in Poland come mainly from four sources:
Own-source tax revenues levied through limited taxation powers in accordance with nationally determined maximum rates.
Grants, including general-purpose grants and conditional (or earmarked) grants. The latter may include resources from EU budgets (Structural and Cohesion Funds).
Non-tax own-source revenues (user tariffs and fees; revenue from property, leasing and sales, including revenues from municipal companies and public utilities).
Despite efforts to consolidate local governments’ financial autonomy, their revenues remain highly dependent on central government grants and subsidies (Table 3.2). Property tax is the most important tax for municipalities, which are the only ones that hold the power to tax. The amount of the local taxes and fees is determined by each municipality but must comply with frameworks (and upper tax limits) determined by national legislation. Shared tax revenue comes from the share of personal income tax (48% of subnational tax revenue) and company income tax (9% of subnational tax revenue). In 2016, grants and subsidies represented 65% of county revenues, 56% of municipalities’ revenues and 47% of regional revenues. Cities with powiat status have a more diversified structure of revenue, grants and subsidies representing only 38% of their revenues (OECD/UCLG, 2019[33]; OECD/UCLG, 2019[34]). However, these results suggest that Polish regions and local governments will continue depending largely on EU funds to implement investment projects that help them to bridge development gaps. Despite these limitations, the share of subnational governments expenditure in total public expenditure substantially increased with decentralisation reforms going from 23% in 1995 to 34.4% in 2018 (OECD/UCLG, 2019[33]).
Providing public services is very costly
The limited own revenues of Polish local governments makes it difficult to finance public service provision. Delivering health, education and other services of general interest to inhabitants of rural and urban areas is a mandate for governments around the world, and for Poland this is not an exception. Many OECD countries have an explicit constitutional commitment to maintain equitable living standards across their territories, thus making this issue a priority. However, meeting this mandate is becoming more challenging in many countries in recent years because of tight fiscal budgets in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, demographic pressures of ageing societies, and increased public spending on social services and health care, particularly in the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, it is generally held that the cost of public service provision increases with the degree of remoteness and sparsity due to transportation costs, loss of economies of scope and economies of scale, and greater difficulty in attracting and retaining professionals (e.g., health care professionals). Figure 3.6 shows that in Poland, local governments represent 50.23% of total public investment, highlighting the need for better and more cost-effective local investment practices.
Source: OECD (2020[35]), OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/26173212.
Private sector participation in urban-rural co-operation is still limited
Involving partners from the social or private sector is not always possible through the organisational form of co-operation (Table 3.3), except in Local Action Groups (LAGs) which bring together actors from different sectors to develop the local economy through EU micro-grants to local businesses and NGOs. Other forms by which the private and public sectors can take part in inter-municipal co-operation include partnership agreements based on civil code and Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). Partnership Agreements are a loose agreement on co-operation for the implementation of joint development projects as part of the co-ordination activities of independent municipalities, which can be observed in the activities of functional urban areas. PPPs deliver new services for citizens in particular in businesses where the local governments have o capital to invest, for example parking areas, multi-purpose buildings. They offer wide opportunities for the private sector to participate in inter-municipal co-operation.
Community participation in urban-rural dialogues remains weak
Despite efforts, for Poland creating spaces and mechanisms to engage in dialogue and planning processes with different population groups such as women, youth, elders, people with disabilities and people at risk of being left behind remains a challenge. In Poland, citizens are most of the times involved in the last stage of the planning and decision-making process, in other cases they are only informed about the plans, and there is an incorrect use of participants experience and feedback (OECD, 2021[6]). Moreover, local micro, small and medium enterprises are often not invited to join the process of elaboration of the local development strategies. The NRDS acknowledges that an efficient administration uses modern information and communication technologies (ICTs) to engage with residents and other local governments. To ensure an efficiently management of functional urban areas, it is necessary to implement management that integrates and co-ordinates actions within the area, which is a highly complicated task.
OECD found that Poland’s local governments seem to be increasingly involving a wide range of stakeholders in development planning and other decision-making processes (Box 3.11) (OECD, 2021[6]). It seems to be widely assumed that participation improves regional and urban policy making. For example, according to the Spatial Planning and Development Act, local governments have to engage with the wider community for spatial and land use planning. This is in line with the OECD Principles on Urban Policy (Principle 9) that promote engaging stakeholders in a co-designed, co-implemented and co-monitored urban policy (OECD, 2019[37]). Across local governments, this engagement seems to be more developed for co-designing the local development strategies than for co-implementing and co-monitoring it. However, on local development planning citizens’ participation is regarded as essential but it is not compulsory. The regulatory framework for local planning does not provide guidance to local governments, and therefore local decision-makers may not be made accountable for mobilising a wide range of possible stakeholders in the planning process.
Although a culture of community engagement is growing in Poland and it is specified by law, there can be significant differences in how open the engagement process is and how meaningfully the public is engaged in decision making. The public participation component may have open or restrictive communication and plans may be presented at different stages of development (OECD, 2016[7]). Occasionally, the upsurge of discontent against certain urban projects or plans does force the question of consultation versus participation into the spotlight. The problem is that Poland’s Spatial Planning and Development Act of 27 March 2003 does not provide guidance to local planners on participatory mechanisms. It provides broad provisions for the development of the background and technical studies for spatial planning and the need to harmonise local plans with spatial development plan of a region, and subsequently the latter plan with decision on spatial planning at national level. It does, however, mention that everyone should have a right to know the plan and comment it, but it gives no details in that respect.
In Poland, engaging with local stakeholders is mostly an activity of the municipalities, as counties do not have a close relationship with the local community. Łańcut county, for example, relies on the information transferred by the municipalities after consultation with citizens on development needs. OECD found that the process of stakeholders’ engagement across Polish municipalities differ in their level of sophistication that is largely determined by the amount of resources available and the capacity of the local administration (OECD, 2021[6]). Municipalities use different instruments from town hall meetings, surveys, workshops, to online tools to interact with citizens, etc. Most public ‘consultation’ meetings fall into particular types in which information is passed from experts or politicians to citizens, and in which little dialogue takes place.
The municipality of Międzyrzec Podlaski (urban) has introduced public consultation processes on issues such as parking spaces facilities, use of renewables, and investment projects. The municipal LDS and the spatial and zoning plans, following the regulations, are also submitted to citizens and higher level government institutions for comments and feedback.
The municipality of Płock, according to regulations, conducts extensive consultations (town hall meetings) for the development of its LDS and anyone interested in the planning process has the possibility to take part in the discussions.
The Jelenia Góra agglomeration has encouraged the participation of the private sector in the implementation of projects supporting the integration of urban and rural areas, for example through tourism (ex. The Trail of Tradition and regional production in the Polish-Czech region of the Jelenia Góra valley, the Jizera mountains and the Karkonosze mountains) and environmental projects (ex. Pro-ecological campaigns organised by the Association of Karkonosze Municipalities).
The municipality of Kutno has, reportedly, one of the highest indices of public participation in community affairs in the country as 2% of the citizens (800 inhabitants) are involved in the different stages of the LDS preparation.
The municipality of Międzyrzec Podlaski (rural) allegedly consults almost every decision with citizens as there are monthly meetings with heads of villages to discuss local problems and possible solutions. Citizens have the possibility to submit comments and proposals during the consultation meetings organised by the municipality or via online.
The municipality of Katowice organises workshops on different policy areas included in the LDS where different institutions take part to develop the strategic goals. It has a close relationship with the academia and the private sector for the development of the LDS and spatial plan.
In 2017, the municipality of Kraków organised a participatory process for the building of its LDS. It include the organisation of workshops and surveys where experts, businesses, and citizens were consulted on their vision for the development of the city till 2030. The material collected was used for in-depth discussions with representatives of the scientific, social, economic and public sectors to agree on a development vision for the city
Source: OECD (2021[6]), Better Governance, Planning and Services in Local Self-Governments in Poland, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/550c3ff5-en; for Jelenia Góra: information provided by the municipality.
Stakeholders’ participation in supra-local development planning remains to be seen as this is a new practice in Poland. Moreover, the lack of information on local planning on the part of local governments, weak mutual trust, insufficient training of local public officials on civic engagement, limited funding for participatory processes, and a poor understanding on the importance of civic engagement are some of the problems that hinder local stakeholders from participating in community affairs and planning. The experience of the ‘spa Jelena Góra’ functional area suggests that, for example, to stimulate the participation of private actors in projects that have an urban-rural impact, they should have something to win.
Consider the potential for municipal mergers to reduce administrative fragmentation
Poland is less territorially fragmented than many other OECD countries, which makes the task of fostering co-operation somewhat more manageable. In 2020, Poland had an average of 4.59 local governments per 100 000 residents, while the OECD average was 9.96.23 Only 1% of its municipalities have fewer than 2 000 residents, although the municipal average and median sizes are relatively low (OECD, 2017[4]). The country would clearly benefit from more territorial integration, especially to strengthen urban-rural linkages. One option would be to promote voluntary mergers.
Some European countries, such as Belgium, Denmark, Estonia and Finland, have merged local administrations to reduce fragmentation and achieve a municipal base of sufficient scale across the whole territory to manage the full scope of local governments’ tasks (EC, 2021[38]). The main goal was to reduce costs by making local governments larger and improving the quality and coverage of public services. However, restructuring a territorial organisation reform is not a decision to take lightly, as there are political, legal and practical implications. For example, ramifications for local authorities could be negotiating binding agreements, registration of name changes, re-assigning contracts, transferring assets, etc. whereas for higher levels of government those implications could be changes in data registries, national statistics, among others. Municipal amalgamation should perhaps be the last option.
If Poland considers amalgamation as an option in certain regions, it may take into account the following structural elements of the Danish reform conducted in 2007: a new map of the country, a new distribution of tasks, and a new financing and equalisation system (Government of Denmark, 2022[39]). The reason is that those elements provide incentives to local governments to join the amalgamation exercise. It may be necessary to form a Commission on Territorial Administrative Structure composed of representatives from the ministries of Interior and Administration, Funds and Regional Policy, Finance, Agriculture and Rural Development, and Infrastructure, representatives of local governments (e.g. associations of municipalities) led by the Chancellery of the Prime Minister. Its role would be to provide technical, legal and expert analysis on multi-level governance as well as make recommendation on the most effective model of organisation of the public sector taking into account transparency with respect of distribution of responsibilities, a balance between competencies and financial responsibility, and closeness to citizens.
Expand institutional options for inter-municipal co-operation to provide more flexibility
Another, far more broadly applicable option is to institutionalise inter-municipal co-operation by enhancing existing mechanisms for co-operation and adding new ones for greater flexibility. It is essential that leaders of municipalities of different sizes meet regularly to learn from one another and strategise together. The City of Győr in Hungary and its neighbours offers an example (Box 3.12).
The City of Győr is situated along the Budapest-Vienna axis in north-west Hungary. It has a shrinking population, while in 2012 it counted 131 00 inhabitants in 2016 it had 129 000. The population decrease is explained by intensive suburbanisation. However, while the administrative city is shrinking, its functional urban area is growing, as the City Győr with its hinterland belongs to the economically most successful Hungarian regions and its location at the border with Austria and Slovakia, together the development of the automotive industry play a crucial role in its development.
Győr maintains a relatively small number of co-operations with other municipalities of the settlements network, and even if formalised co-operations existed since 2003 (such as the Győr Multi-purpose Micro-regional Association), their dynamics are lagging far behind the desired level, as the Hungarian Government approved a new Act on Local Governments in 2011 that transformed the division of tasks between the local and the subnational levels of public administration. The new narrowed down the responsibilities of local self-governments; and some competencies were absorbed by the state (primary and secondary education, health care services etc.). The legislator overruled the institutional frameworks of the co-operation of municipalities (multi-purpose micro-regional association, micro-regional development council, association forms according to the Act on municipalities). The conditions for co-operation have become more difficult and the targets of co-operation are more restricted than before. Consequently, the rural-urban linkages have changed thoroughly. The City of Győr was not satisfied with this new frame of micro-regional co-operation and linkages, and decided to join an urban network formed by small and medium sized cities targeting to keep the balance of the Danube basin as an ecological system in the cross-border area.
The main co-operation sectors among Győr and its hinterland in the planning period 2014–2020 were public services such as social care, public education, health care; tourism; housing, real estate policy; and transport including both public transport and individual car transport. Regarding the cross-border-co-operation, its focus is on territorial cohesion, environment and economic development of the entire urban-rural region. Győr tries to maintain linkages with other members of the settlement network through Arrabona EGTC, against the trend of dynamics that are lagging far behind the desirable level.
Source: Pascariu, S. and D. Czischke (2015[40]), Promoting Urban-rural Linkages in Small and Medium Sized Cities: Final Thematic Report, https://urbact.eu/sites/default/files/urban-rural_thematic_report.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2022).
Poland could also draw inspiration from the Welsh (UK) corporate joint committees (Box 3.13), which could contribute to reinforce urban-rural linkages in a number of ways. First, by bringing together local authorities within a specific area, the committees facilitate intervention at a regional level, generating scale helping local authorities deliver on specific policy and investment priorities and project decisions. This could be particularly the case if the committees are attributed human and financial resources (drawn from the resources of constituent municipalities and EU funds) and are given responsibility for managing these within their remit. Moreover, if local governments are given the possibility to decide if they need those committees and if so how to manage them this could allow tailoring their activities to the needs and capacities of member local governments in a specific territory (i.e., FUAs) under a place-based approach. To establish those committees, local governments could have the freedom to decide on whether they need them for delivering on any policy or service area as long as they have support from the voivodeship government. The national and voivodeship governments could allow the establishment of such committees in areas that contribute to building and maintaining regional growth, inclusiveness and attractiveness, and are conducive to stronger urban-rural linkages such as: economic development, strategic planning for the development and use of land, public transport, and education.
The Welsh government is working to establish corporate joint committees (CJCs) as proposed in the Local Government and Election (Wales) Bill. The CJCs are a formal inter-municipal co-operative mechanism in order to support local authorities in economic development planning and policy implementation. The bill aims to provide a mechanism for consistent regional working and collaboration with a clear framework for governing collaborative arrangements, setting clear expectations in those areas where regional-level collaboration is important. It also seeks to reinforce the ability of local authorities to work at a regional scale.
The purpose of CJCs would be to provide i) a more consistent governance mechanism and model for collaboration between the national and local levels; ii) a clear framework to underpin regional working approaches; iii) a model to help simplify regional arrangements, reducing duplication and complexity in regional working and collaboration arrangements; and iv) a more efficient and effective model for collaboration, reducing the effort required in creating and recreating new collaborative working arrangements. Regulations would enable CJCs to establish subcommittees; acquire, appropriate or dispose of property; and hold and manage funds, including borrowing or lending, providing or receiving financial assistance, and charging fees. General CJC financing would come from the constituent local authorities. CJCs would also be able to employ and remunerate support staff.
Source: OECD (2020[5]), The Future of Regional Development and Public Investment in Wales, United Kingdom, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/e6f5201d-en; Welsh Parliament (2019[41]), Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021, https://business.senedd.wales/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=26688.
Strengthen metropolitan management as a key way to promote supra-local development strategies and broader co-operation
Promoting the creation of supra-local development plans is another valuable way to institutionalise inter-municipal co-operation across the urban-rural continuum. The amendments to the Act on Principles of Implementation of Development Policy have broadened the options for local governments to collaborate, but there is no record of any supra-local development strategy having been adopted yet, though some are under being discussed or under development.
A key way to accelerate the adoption of supra-local strategies is to address the major gaps in metropolitan governance structures discussed above, starting with a new Metropolitan Union Act. This will give metropolitan areas the administrative and financial foundations for jointly managing development. Poland can learn from international experience; Box 3.14 shows different types metropolitan-level co-operation mechanisms in place in OECD countries. The advantage of these types of inter-municipal co-operation is that they do not form a new tier of government, which is something Poland righty seeks to avoid, and they are flexible. For example, Poland’s FUAs may wish to have a metropolitan-wide co-operation on public transport and infrastructure, but certain municipalities in the FUA may additional set monosectoral joint authorities with other municipalities within or outside the FUA to undertake activities such as waste disposal or cultural activities. Some might want to partner with municipalities even beyond the boundaries of their voivodeship.
There are three types of inter-municipal joint authorities that can be identified in the international experience:
Metropolitan-wide inter-municipal joint authorities. They are normally administered by indirectly elected boards and have a jurisdiction which closely matches the functional area, have their own financial resources, adequate funding, significant responsibilities, and adequate staffing. An example is the French communautés d’agglomération and communautés urbaines which cover functional areas. They are defined in functional terms by the National Statistical Institute (Insee), and administered by either communautés urbaines, for those over 500,000 inhabitants, or by communautés d’agglomération, for those between 50,000 and 500,000 people. The communautés are regulated by indirectly elected councils, composed of the representatives of the municipalities of the urban area. Both types of joint authorities undertake functions of area-wide importance, such as public transport, environment, social housing, spatial planning, economic development, culture, sewerage, and waste disposal. They may also exercise powers which the municipalities transfer to them. Another example is the Communauté Métropolitaine of Montreal (Canada) (CMM) established in 2001, covers 82 municipalities and is led by a council composed of the mayor of the amalgamated city of Montreal, who chairs the council, and representatives of other municipalities. The CMM is responsible for economic development, strategic and land use planning, culture, social housing, solid waste disposal, and metropolitan infrastructure. The CMM has no direct resources of its own; most funding comes from municipalities (73%) and the Province of Quebec (27%).
Inframetropolitan inter-municipal joint authorities. This form of inter-municipal co-operation takes place in a portion of the metropolitan area only. Therefore, although co-operation is plurisectoral, vary with respect to functions devolved to the joint authority, their funding, and other responsibilities. An example is the Association for the Development of the North of Milan (Italy) established in 1996 on a voluntary basis, which includes four municipalities with about 300,000 inhabitants (the entire metropolitan area has four million inhabitants approximately). A council composed of the representatives of the four municipalities, the Province of Milano, and the chamber of commerce directs the work of the Association, and the mayor of the most important municipality acts as the chairman. Its areas of activity include urban regeneration and strategic planner which are functions delegated by the municipalities and can be withdrawn. Funding comes from the four municipalities, as well as grants from the province, region, state, and the European Union.
Monosectoral inter-municipal joint authorities (with plurisectoral potential). These are metropolitan-wide monosectoral joint authorities with a potential to move towards the administration of other policy sectors. Examples are the German transit federations or Verkehrsverbund (VV), found in almost all large urban areas of Germany, Austria and the German-speaking area of Switzerland. They involve the central municipality, the kreise of the metropolitan area (the central municipality having the functions of a kreise in Germany) and the Land. These transit federations are responsible for the planning and management of public transport in the metropolitan area. They set fares, administer subsidies and manage public and private transit operators.
Source: For the Communauté d’agglomération of France: Government of France (2021[42]), Qu'est-ce qu'une communauté d'agglomération ?, https://www.vie-publique.fr/fiches/20126-quest-ce-quune-communaute-dagglomeration; for Montreal: Communauté Métropolitaine of Montreal (n.d.[43]), Homepage, https://cmm.qc.ca/ accessed on 23 January 2022; for Germany Topp, H.H. (1988[44]), “Cooperation in transit delivery in West German metropolitan areas”, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00170591; the typology is based on: Rojas, E., J. Cuadrado-Roura and J. Fernández Guell (eds.) (2008[45]), Governing the Metropolis - Principles and Cases, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC.
Notably, the types of inter-municipal co-operation listed in Box 3.14 are compatible with the voluntary partnership model proposed by the Association of Polish Cities called “territorial co-operation teams” to enable co-operation among neighbouring local governments in terms of spatial development, development policies and strategies, and joint ventures. This mechanism would allow individual municipalities to decide for each service whether to delegate it to the co-operation team or keep it under the relevant municipal authority. This form of co-operation allows maintaining the autonomy of individual local governments forming a union while facilitating joint initiatives for the economic development and improvement of well-being. The Act on Metropolitan Areas already provides for co-ordinated spatial planning, co-ordination of investments, public transport planning and development policy but this is only applicable for metropolitan areas (Borowka and Szlachetko, 2017[46]), and there is a need to facilitate this co-ordination in other areas. This co-operation would avoid making any differentiation between policies for urban and rural areas separately.
Improve national/subnational co-ordination for urban-rural linkages and regional development planning
Strengthening urban-rural linkages for development is not only a matter of cross-jurisdictional co-operation. It requires support from upper levels of government. The national, but more importantly, the voivodeship level (region) have a key role in facilitating and encouraging linkages and forming partnerships for service delivery and infrastructure construction. OECD had already concluded that “Poland needs to embed vertical relations between the national, regional and local self-governments with a more bottom-up approach in which local governments can take the initiative for investment projects that better respond to local needs” (OECD, 2021, p. 222[6]). This same conclusion applies in enabling urban-rural linkages. Every level of government has a role to play to support fluid relationships across jurisdictions and ensure reducing development gaps. Table 3.4 depicts some specific actions each level of government can have to support urban-rural linkages in Poland. It is worth noting that support should also come from supra-national levels, in particular the EU. The reason is that most of the action taken so far in Poland that promote urban-rural partnerships are done due and in the framework of the EU Cohesion Policy. Local governments join forces through partnerships to access EU funds (see below) and it could help by proposing new governance alternatives or flexible manner to use the resources for investment in a way that meet local needs in a more efficient and effective manner.
OECD (2021[6]) had already formulated specific recommendations to Poland on how to strengthen co-operation across levels of government (Box 3.15). To complement those recommendations, Poland may consider reassessing the role of the voivodes (government- appointed governors) and the voivodeship marshals (heads of the regional administration) to entrust them with the responsibility of co-ordinating the design and implementation of the Regional Programmes with local governments, and for ensuring a co-ordinated approach to regional economic development as well as alignment with national goals. The idea is for voivodes and marshals (together with their offices) to work with the local authorities in their region to identify common economic development needs and priorities and then collaboratively develop the region’s strategy to realise these. This could include a framework for urban-rural partnerships in the region. While engaging with local governments may be seen as a clear task for regional authorities, establishing this degree of partnership appears challenging due to a government culture that is more accustom to a centralised, top-down approach. Poland may consider creating regional offices for development and investment, which would be the logical body in charge of multi-level co-ordination with the political and administrative back-up of voivodes and marshals. This could also facilitate the role of marshals as brokers of subnational interests within the national government. The regional development office would work with multiple stakeholders, support local governments in designing and implementing regional development initiatives within a functional approach, and effectively become the locus of a top-down and bottom-up approach to advancing regional development priorities.
In 2021, OECD recommended Poland some actions to further strengthen co-operation across levels of governments. The main recommendations are:
For the national government:
Strengthen territorial contracts by specifying territorial goals and regional development priorities; extending the scope of the contracts to the whole territory, encouraging investments that favour urban-rural, urban-urban or rural-rural partnerships that consider the functional area; encouraging partnerships with municipal associations to support investments at a supra-municipal scale; incorporating monitoring mechanisms.
Take advantage of the policy planning process to ensure that priorities, objectives and policy implementation are aligned across levels of government. For this, local and supra-local development strategies should be based on an assessment of regional and local characteristics and specific competitive factors, with investments aligning with regional needs.
Make sure that consultations across levels of governments are a two-way engagement process by promoting bottom-up initiatives; involving the private sector and civil society from the early stages of the definition of territorial agreements; and ensuring that the procedures to establish a territorial agreement are simple.
For the local governments:
Actively seek dialogue opportunities with the national and regional levels as well as other key relevant stakeholders by participating systematically in formal consultations arranged by other levels of government and provide comments/suggestions when decisions affect its territory/citizens; officially designating a person(s)/team(s) to support the mayor, in charge of seeking and establishing co-operation with the voivodeship and/or national government; and actively seek innovative ways of engaging with stakeholders.
Source: OECD (2021[6]), Better Governance, Planning and Services in Local Self-Governments in Poland, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/550c3ff5-en.
Poland could also consider formalising agreements between levels of government to generate trust-based relationships, regardless of the size of the government. They can clarify “grey areas” where responsibility for action or outcomes has not been concretely established. However, partnerships agreements may be established not only with individual local governments but also with unions, or associations of local governments which may group municipalities of different kind (urban, urban-rural, and rural). Memoranda of understanding, terms of reference and contracts are all examples of formal agreements that could be signed between upper levels of government and municipal associations/unions for the management of a FUA. Over time, these agreements can help foster trust in the capacity of each party to meet their obligations, while also helping manage joint responsibilities for public investment planning, including for regional development. An example for Poland could be the formal contracts between the national government of Iceland and regional governments, which have led to greater trust, capacity and advancing decentralisation (Box 3.16). A key advantage of those formal contracts is that they assist local governments in filling capacity gaps and facilitate the production of regional plans have a stronger local focus. Although the experience of Iceland is of formal contracts between the national government and regions, in Poland these formal contracts may be established with municipal unions (FUAs) with the participation of the voivodeships and the national government.
Since 2013, Iceland has used successive five-year contracts between its regions and the national government to ensure the financing and implementation of the regional-level plans. For example, the Northwest Region has signed three consecutive contracts with the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Education and Culture to support implementing its regional plan, which emphasises regional development and innovation, culture, environmental issues and education and population. An advantage of the contracts is that they ensure funding against clear and measurable success indicators established by the region. The Northwest Region’s experience is that this approach has helped increase trust on behalf of the government. Over time, the region has fewer rules to abide by, an increased allowance for administrative costs and the elimination of constraints on the distribution of funding between priority projects and competitive funds. In addition, more autonomy has been granted concerning who is appointed to Competitive Fund Distribution Committees. Thanks to the agreements, trust has also increased on the side of the regions, as has capacity. For example, also in the Northwest Region, their 2020-24 contract has received support from expert consultants, the costs of which were paid by the Ministry of Transport and local authorities. The plan has a stronger local focus than in the past thanks to the greater degree of autonomy.
Source: Hilmarsdóttir, U. (2019[47]), Regional Plans in Iceland: Decentralization of Funding and Power to Local Authorities through Regional Associations of Municipalities, cited in OECD (2020[5]), The Future of Regional Development and Public Investment in Wales, United Kingdom, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/e6f5201d-en.
Create regional agencies for economic development that work with public and private sector stakeholders
As suggested above, there is a palpable need to involve the private and social sectors in regional development initiatives and enhancing urban-rural linkages depends to a large extent on how the public sector work together with a wider range of stakeholders from different sectors. Creating joint regional agencies for economic development would allow working together with businesses and innovators in their respective regions to fuel economic growth locally. These agencies could develop programmes to enable business to grow and even support innovators to start businesses. The agencies would help tailoring national economic programmes to fit regional needs and circumstances, provide access to financial assistance, bring together key players from the different municipalities in the region to work with them and understand their needs, support community economic development, and ensure that voivodeships’ economic growth strategies eliminate regional gaps.
For example, in Canada, Regional Development Agencies have been key in building innovation and skills plans for the country’s very diverse regions. The agency focused on the Quebec region, for instance, supports projects targeting entrepreneurial growth, innovation, diversification and local economic development Another, focused on Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, and Yukon, works with Northerners and Indigenous peoples, communities, businesses and organisations to help build diversified and dynamic economies that foster long-term sustainability and economic prosperity.
Make better use of strategic planning as a tool to strengthen regional and local development
Spatial development strategies should be based on a common vision and objective that would benefit all municipalities in an FUA. Regional and country leadership may be needed to convey the importance of a shared approach, emphasising that no one is imposing a decision over other municipalities’ land – instead, the point is to act collectively in order to benefit collectively in the medium and long term. Planning processes can play a crucial role in this regard, not only by laying out a clear agenda for action, but also by promoting the development of a shared vision.
Poland needs to develop planning tools within the framework of the Act on Planning and Spatial development. Such tools should strengthen inter-municipal co-operation when preparing spatial planning acts; for example, through giving feedback, and joint preparation of planning documents. It is also important to introduce systemic solutions that take local conditions into account in planning supra-local investment projects. Basing them on the so-called “special acts” dedicated to individual investment projects makes the spatial planning system ineffective and, in the long term, shifts the costs to local communities. Thus, coordination of spatial planning in urban-rural areas requires systemic regulations that consider the opinions of municipalities in planning investment projects of supra-local importance. It is also necessary to complete the process of integration of spatial and socio-economic planning. In improving planning, Poland may consider the following points:
To ensure sustainable urban-rural development, functional areas operating with ITI funds should be given the possibility to better integrate (or valorise) their territorial strategies and plans within the relevant Regional Operational Programmes.
To the possible extent, policies for functional areas (metropolitan areas) should not differentiate between urban and rural areas as it is done in the Wrocław functional area.
The diversification of tools to make associations or inter-municipal unions operational is necessary. Instruments such as the Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) seem to allow for an efficient operation of the associations but more options are needed.
There are no legal and tax solutions encouraging to implement investment projects in areas equipped with technical and social infrastructure. It is also necessary to introduce legal tools enabling the transparent share of private equity in the costs incurred by municipalities in connection with the implementation of commercial investment projects (e.g. development housing estates). These costs are particularly high in urban-rural areas. Another option is the creation of joint expert bodies to give opinions on plans such as municipal urban or architectural commissions. Inter-municipal co-operation on local planning can take place at a technical and organisational level, for example, by keeping joint databases and geoportals, or through co-ordination arrangements concerning common standards in local plans (for example the https://wroSIP.pl website). These databases should be public to facilitate planning across municipalities and facilitate access to information to private actors.
Invest in capacity-building and professional skills in local governments
The OECD has already provided some recommendations on how to improve the management of the local public workforce in Poland to make it more effective (OECD, 2021[6]). For local governments, it advised:
Investing in supporting leaders and managers to ensure that they have the autonomy, tools, support and accountability to use effectively their leadership capabilities;
Focusing on the attraction and development of transversal skills and competencies;
Reviewing the effectiveness of human resources management practices and investing in strategic workforce management capabilities.
For national governments, meanwhile, the OECD recommended providing targeted training and consulting with local self-government organisations regarding long-term pay strategy for local governments’ staff and elected representatives. These recommendations are valuable for increasing administrative capacity and capability of local governments. They can be complemented by three additional actions that could contribute to foster urban-rural linkages:
Consider the viability of establishing shared service bodies in functional areas. There is accumulated experience on the establishment of shared services bodies among national ministries or across central government in OECD countries (ex. Denmark. Sweden, the Netherlands). These agencies manage support services such as HRM, ICT, procurement and others as a way to improve capability and make a more efficient management of resources. Although experience is at the central level of government, there is no reason not to consider a similar exercise at subnational level, in particular at metropolitan level. Local governments could consider creating a share service agency in charge of managing the local public workforce, and other administrative services, for the member municipalities. This could be of particular interest to small and rural municipalities that generally have limited capacity and capability to conduct recruitment processes. These bodies could also be in charge of upskilling the local public workforce through continuous training. However, the potential of share service bodies will depend on the willingness of municipalities to transfer tasks to a metropolitan service centre and contribute to its financing. It will also depend on the careful selection and training of staff employed in those bodies as well as on how well rules and procedures are redesigned to enable HRM to be offered on a shared basis.
Focus on future capabilities and human capital. The movement of urban residents to rural areas; the impact of megatrends such as ageing populations, digitalisation and globalisation; and the growing functional integration of local governments, demand that municipalities pay attention to their future skills requirements and integrate workforce and human capital considerations into broader policy changes that could impact on service delivery. Local governments may develop competency management frameworks that identify the capabilities needed in the workforce and link together a number of human resource management activities (recruitment, staff development, performance management) to enhance capacity. The majority of local governments are focusing on improving training and knowledge management. However, longer-term assessments of capability requirements are required and local public administrations need to put in place strategies to ensure that they will have the necessary capabilities in the future. Capabilities will depend both on having the necessary human capital and on having the requisite leadership, management and organisational capacity.
Invest in developing the strategic planning skills. Strategic planning is an area where local governments still need to strengthen their skills (OECD, 2021[6]). The need for upskilling the local workforce on strategic planning is even more important in the context of the creation of supra-local development plans. Training on strategic planning with the support of upper levels of government and academia will be essential. The manual currently under preparation by the Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy could offer some guidance on how upskill the local workforce on strategic planning. Another option is municipalities forming joint teams for supra-local development planning as they can produce significant benefits in terms of management and resource efficiencies. However, it is important that the team is seen as specifically working on the strategic plan project and is not pulled into other work areas. Co-location can have a beneficial impact on team dynamics and working relationships. Municipalities should make the most efficient use of the expertise, skills, experience and local knowledge available in their workforce.
Tackle Poland’s two main dilemmas in subnational financing
As discussed above, access to finance, mainly from EU funds, has been a key incentive for urban-rural partnerships. The general explanation is that local governments lack enough financial resources to invest in public service delivery and infrastructure construction. Without the access to EU funds most of the progress done in regional development would probably have not been possible. Thus, a first challenge for Poland is to be able to finance those investments primarily with its own resources, mainly at subnational level. Second, Poland needs to match municipal responsibilities with sources of revenue. While municipalities are in a better position in terms of own-source revenue than counties and voivodeships, it is often remarked that they have seen more responsibilities devolved to them and yet very little in the way of increased fiscal decentralisation to match it (see Chapter 2). The mismatch between responsibilities and revenues makes Polish voivodeships and municipalities very dependent on European funding, in particular for public investment. EU funds have greatly contributed to accelerating the development of Poland. They have allowed, for example, local governments to undertake infrastructure investments that have shaped the local reality and that would have not been possible without access to this source of funding. The decentralisation process conducted over the last decades have given municipal governments more responsibilities but without the necessary financial resources. In particular for fostering urban-rural linkages, it is critical to find reliable sources of revenue for metropolitan work.
To tackle these challenges Poland may consider the following actions:
To manage the costs of public services, policy responses should consider the spatial distribution of the services, the spatial distribution of the targeted population, digital forms of access (including the availability, affordability of broadband and the digital skills to use them), the unavoidable trade-off between cost and distance.
To reduce the gap between expenditure and revenue at subnational level, OECD has recommended Poland to increase the tax autonomy of local governments to reduce the dependency of local and regional authorities on state transfers (OECD, 2021[6]). This requires further decentralising revenues by granting larger tax autonomy to local governments, for example, more taxing power over rates and bases, in particular property tax. It will be necessary to conduct a review of competences and functions of local governments and their sources of revenue to avoid having unfunded responsibilities.
Poland needs to ensure that subnational financing have a functional approach. From the urban-rural linkages point of view, providing reliable sources of funding for metropolitan (functional) areas is a key priority. The challenge for Poland, as for any other country, is to select the taxes that are available and that could support metropolitan areas work. The difficulty here is that, with exceptions, metropolitan areas do not have statutory level. However, property tax could be a source of revenue for metropolitan areas, but in the case of Poland, it is the municipalities main own source of financing for municipalities and it does not even cover municipal needs. Table 3.5 provides some examples of the taxes used to finance metropolitan areas in high and middle income countries. Poland should make as extensive as possible the use of charges and fees mostly when the metropolitan area provides services susceptible of being finance with user charges.
Enable participatory processes for stronger urban-rural linkages
Poland requires a participatory model of metropolitan co-management, with equality and responsibility of all partners and effective encouragement and inclusion of residents in public activity (Szmytkowska et al., 2021[19]). Polish authorities at all levels of government may need to embark on a more strategic and clearer path for engagement, while also building the engagement capacity of the “engager” and “engagee”. OECD has already formulated some recommendations to Poland on how to foster stakeholders’ participation in local planning (OECD, 2021[6]). Those recommendations are relevant for contributing to fostering stronger urban-rural linkages as local strategic planning is a key area to address to strengthen those linkages. However, Poland could undertake three more actions to increasing the level of community engagement in local development.
Put citizens at the core of urban-rural partnerships. Regional development strategies and urban-rural partnerships in particular need to be tested or analysed through an inclusive lens because of the potential to some unintentionally contribute to widening regional disparities. When thinking about how inclusive local governments development strategies are, authorities may wish to consider at least three points: how relevant is the urban-rural partnership for all citizens; how is feedback from community members integrated into the supra-local development strategy, and do all residents or neighbourhoods receive the same benefits from the strategy?
Diversify the participation in local action groups (LAGs). Research has showed that the main problem with LAGs in Poland is the low level of activity of their members and to a lesser extent the trust component (Zajda, 2014[21]). Rural municipalities are small and players in these groups are generally the same. The advantage is that everyone knows each other and this can generate the levels of trust necessary to openly discuss complex or sensitive policy issues. However, because people may participate in multiple bodies, there is a risk of consultation fatigue and drawing down on already limited human resources. There are at least two possibilities to improve this situation. First, Poland may regulate the participation in the LAGs boards and introduce a rotational membership to give more people the opportunity to participate. Another option is to develop stakeholder engagement strategies to facilitate community engagement beyond the LAG. These strategies are generally an overarching document on citizen or stakeholder participation in policymaking, developed by a national or subnational government, a government ministry/department, or another type of public body.
Engage directly with citizens through participative budgeting. It is beyond the scope of this report to discuss the budget process in Poland at subnational level. To increase responsiveness, efficiency, impact and trust in local governments, however, it is necessary to strengthen citizens and civil society involvement in the budget process. Citizens’ participation could produce budgets and projects that are more achievable since citizens are better positioned to inform local authorities what the real needs are. Residents should be invited to discussions and decision-making on the allocation of public services funds. To engage citizens in budgeting, local governments should focus participative budgeting on projects that local residents from both urban and rural areas can deliver and monitor.
Strengthen territorial development and urban-rural-linkages through EU policy
As discussed above, although Poland has been relatively successful in capitalising on EU funds, several challenges have emerged. In discussions with the OECD, regional actors mentioned delays in the new EU planning; certain difficulties in fully integrating national and EU procedures, these last ones being often too complex for smaller municipalities; sometimes a lack of synergies or of a systemic strategic vision between the administrative territories. These issues are quite common to the other EU members.
Strengthening urban-rural relations in EU policy areas and delivering effective urban-rural partnerships in Poland would mean particularly to explore and develop better complementarities between EU funding streams, including between the Structural Funds and the 2nd pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (Rural Development pillar). For example, investments in agricultural equipment or farm management can yield higher returns if complemented by adequate transport or telecommunications infrastructure, which can be co-financed by Cohesion Policy.
As already pointed out, different sets of rules at EU level and different managing agencies and responsible political authorities at national or regional levels have often led to little or no co-ordination between rural development programmes and cohesion policy. In 2014-20, the Community-led Local Development (CLLD) instrument made it possible to combine cohesion and rural development funding in support of local development strategies (LDS), but this possibility has had relatively modest uptake in Poland since procedures for each funding source remained different. In 2021-27, the new possibility for CLLD to combine multiple funds and to nominate a “lead” fund and apply only its rules may provide new possibilities for greater use of this instrument, integrating ITI in supporting integrated development and rural-urban partnerships and linkages.
For this new programming period, Poland is willing and ready to further capitalise on its very successful experience of using ITI in functional urban areas, also thanks to the fact that many municipalities have been requested to prepare supra-local development strategies. However, Poland should also make better use of the possibilities offered by CLLD in order to foster co-ordination between the CAP and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The possibility of using better and more integrated European Social Fund (ESF+) for developing urban-rural linkages should be also explored (despite the complexity of the EU regulations for the harmonisation of funds), for example to support not only labour market and skills measures in functional areas, but also to increase the capacity of actors and stakeholders in more rural areas to develop more articulated and CLLD and deliver better and more integrated projects at local level. New ITI and CLLD arrangements will need to be able to take into account urban-rural specific challenges and programme partnership structures should allow both urban and rural stakeholders to have their interests represented.
Suggestions to enhance the efficacy and efficiency of integrated urban-rural development and linkages in Poland may include:
Fully exploit the possibilities to integrate actions and funding offered by the new (2021-27) Cohesion Policy’s thematic objectives and concentration, in particular by the new objective 5 "Europe closer to citizens" by:
At a higher and strategic level, utilising the Partnership Agreement (PA), the national and regional programmes and the National Strategic Plan for CAP to ensure enhanced coherence, co-ordination and integration of the ERDF, ESF+ and the Rural Development Fund in rural areas. Also, increase the territorial orientation of those programming documents (PA, RDP, 2020-2027 Programmes) incentivising a stronger targeting of urban-rural linkages and partnerships;
On the ground, fostering the elaboration of Territorial Strategies with the support of local socioeconomic stakeholders, implementing actions and interventions favouring an integrated or complementary use of Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI), Community Led Local Development (CLLD) and LEADER. Consider developing additional national legal and financing instruments to facilitate the preparation and implementation of integrated territorial investments (e.g. simplifies contracts, revolving funds for project preparations, etc.).
Activate or develop integrated or complementary actions and funding (using ERDF, ESF+, RDF) with the specific aim to develop urban-rural linkages on well-defined objectives such as:
Creation of jobs outside the agriculture industry (new businesses, development of tourism related activities etc.);
Increase quality connectivity (transport and broadband) between urban and rural areas;
Support for agricultural SMEs (support for innovation and the development of new products), the agro-alimentary industry and the forestry industry;
Foster the concrete implementation of the “Territorial Agenda 2030” and integrate it with the OECD Principles for Urban Policy and Rural Policy. This can be taken at any government level and can vary in character and focus. Every key player may implement the Territorial Agenda in connection with the OECD principles in the context of their regular mandate.
More specific suggestions regarding ITI implementation in Poland include:
ITI implementation requires efficiency and co-operation of the institutions responsible for the governance and implementation of ROP. However, for ITI unions to contribute to the development of FUAs in a more efficient manner, Poland may consider giving them powers broader than just the designation of strategic projects and allowing them to have managing authority for conducting the full procedure of open call for proposals.
Co-operation in the programming of functional development of an FUA among municipalities within a FUA is one of the most important aspects for the success of ITI unions. This should include the organisation of many governing functions covering a FUA. Government provisions provided local governments with the possibility of establishing partnerships on a voluntary basis and many cities and communes took advantage of it. ITIs fostered inter-municipal co-operation, which should be the basis for the implementation of new projects in the new programming period. For that purpose, the national government could issue new guidelines and adopt legislation to grant ITI unions powers to decide on who should or should not participate. It is important, however, that the guidelines maintain the flexibility of activities in which they operate.
Poland could promote the creation of more associations as ITI unions already have co-operation experience, but still local governments should continue having freedom in the scope of formalisation of partnerships in the new programming period. However, legal provisions to offer the possibility of changing the legal form of partnership based on request of the interested ITI union throughout the programming period could reinforce the culture of co-operation and reinforce the implementation of the ITI tool.
Finally, regarding CLLD implementation, Poland’s national government could consider to further invest in improving the understanding of the CLLD tool across local governments, in particular municipalities. The Polish government attaches great importance to informing local communities about LEADER principles and how obtaining support and it has provided a cascade information system. The Managing Authority provides information to implementing entities (voivodeship self-governments), which inform the LAG. LAG, in turn have the task of informing local communities and advising potential beneficiaries. Information is also published on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. The instrument has been implemented in Poland and Local Action Groups (LAGs) have been established, but as mentioned above, it is essential However, more can be done to improve CLLD its understanding as a tool for developing urban rural partnerships and make its implementation smoother to foster a greater level of community participation in local development. For example, to this end, Poland could:
Produce a dedicated CLLD communication plan to strengthen the understanding at all levels and disseminate best practice in the use of the instrument to develop urban-rural partnership. The aim should be to share clear, simple messages, and empower benefitting communities. A transparent process, learning from each other, build trust and stronger relationships with plans that are audience appropriate.
Set in the local development strategies (LDS) that go beyond rural areas, urban-rural territories and the municipality's economic problems and potential opportunities and what might be the best way of tackling them through common CLLD projects.
Invest more in community leadership and capacity building and promote social investment opportunities.
Ensure that applications to funding are assessed based on criteria such as: linkage with urban-rural partnerships and local common priorities; building community development and widening involvement; benefits and outcomes for local people are tangible; there is clarity on project and how it will work and how it will be managed; and there is a realistic budget and value for money.
Encourage the organisation of CLLD Decision Day events where groups and organisations submitting bids present their projects to enlarged the local communities y and engage in dialogue and there is anonymous voting.
Encourage the participation of NGOs in areas such as sustainable transportation, citizen engagement and urban-rural revitalisation. While many of these organisations engage with local government through advocacy, they could also in some instances managed aspects of the engagement process and delivered civic education while working across different jurisdictions.
With a move towards stronger urban-rural partnerships, the Polish national government is asking subnational governments to assume more responsibility in development and investing in planning. This calls for rethinking the scale of local governments’ activities and accentuates the needs for strengthened and more differentiated instruments that build implementation capacity. For local governments, within and outside FUAs, overcoming capacity constraints will be critical to their success in regional development planning and investment. Municipal size does not automatically dictate the degree of local capacity but it can play a role. The important aspect is how effectively local governments are co-ordinated and co-operate towards the achievement of common goals by building on each other’s main assets. Local governments need communication channels and flexible mechanisms to work together underpinned by a political commitment to achieve a collective vision.
In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, Poland could use urban-rural linkages to underpin its recovery strategy while ensuring to deal with long-term regional development challenges such as inequalities, and suburbanisation. The functional inter-dependence and mutual benefits are a strong reason to initiate co-operation. Suburbanisation is a growing concern in Poland. The new National Urban Policy, currently under elaboration, will certainly face this challenge but every solution or policy action must be assessed against the long-term impact on both urban and rural communities that have the responsibility to deliver public services, social cohesion, and ensure environmental protection.
The influx of war refugees will certainly test Poland’s urban-rural co-operation maturity. While refugees are mostly based in urban centres where they have access to services and have a network of contacts, they will need to move to suburban areas or rural areas to access longer-term housing, education and other services. Commuting may increase in Poland’s metropolitan areas. Investing in digital connectivity will be more necessary than ever as refugees may live in rural areas but may need to access services provided in other cities on line and in their own language. No community alone, either urban or rural, will be able to meet the needs of the new inhabitants. Planning for the long-term is key even though their stay is temporal. In this context, the challenge for Poland is to ensure the sustainability of urban-rural partnerships to improve efficiency in the public sector and improve public spending. A bottom-up approach is essential for the sustainability of partnerships and Poland’s authorities at all levels need to nurture it.
References
[49] Bahl, R., J. Linn and D. Wetzel (2013), Financing Metropolitan Governments in Developing Countries, https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/financing-metropolitan-governments-developing-full_0.pdf (accessed on 2 September 2021).
[46] Borowka, K. and J. Szlachetko (2017), “The regulations on metropolitan areas in Poland”, in Cingula, M., M. Przygoda and K. Detelj (eds.), Economic and Social Development (Book of proceedings), Varazdin Development and Entrepreneurship Agency, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346946328_The_regulations_on_metropolitan_areas_in_Poland (accessed on 17 November 2021).
[43] Communauté Métropolitaine of Montreal (n.d.), Homepage, https://cmm.qc.ca/.
[38] EC (2021), Approaches to Tackling Fragmentation of Local Government, Directorate-General for Structural Reform Support (DG REFORM), European Commission, Brussels, https://doi.org/10.2887/231261.
[32] Fitch Ratings (2021), “‘Polish Deal’ Tax Proposals Would Hit Municipalities’ Revenues”, https://www.fitchratings.com/research/international-public-finance/polish-deal-tax-proposals-would-hit-municipalities-revenues-06-09-2021.
[14] Gajewski, R. (2018), “The grounds for metropolitan cooperation. A case study of the Gdansk-Gdynia-Sopot metropolitan area”, Studia Miejskie, Vol. 31, pp. 53-67, https://doi.org/10.25167/sm2018.031.04.
[39] Government of Denmark (2022), Structural Reform, https://english.im.dk/responsibilities-of-the-ministry/economics-of-municipalities-and-regions/structural-reform (accessed on 8 April 2022).
[42] Government of France (2021), Qu’est-ce qu’une communauté d’agglomération ?, https://www.vie-publique.fr/fiches/20126-quest-ce-quune-communaute-dagglomeration.
[9] Government of Poland (2022), Strategia Rozwoju Ponadlokalnego - poradnik praktyczny, Ministry of Funds and Regional Development, Warsaw.
[24] Government of Poland (2019), National Regional Development Strategy, https://www.gov.pl/web/fundusze-regiony/krajowa-strategia-rozwoju-regionalnego (accessed on 15 December 2021).
[31] Government of Poland (1997), Poland’s Constitution of 1997 with Amendments through 2009, https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Poland_2009.pdf?lang=en (accessed on 12 January 2022).
[3] Government of Poland (1990), Act of 8 March 1990 on Local Government, https://www.global-regulation.com/translation/poland/3353885/the-act-of-8-march-1990-on-the-municipal-government.html (accessed on 16 November 2021).
[18] Government of Poland (n.d.), Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodeship, http://bydgoszcz.uw.gov.pl/en/gospodarka.html.
[47] Hilmarsdóttir, U. (2019), Regional Plans in Iceland: Decentralization of Funding and Power to Local Authorities through Regional Associations of Municipalities.
[15] Interreg Europe (2020), Integrated Territorial Investments for Warsaw Metropolis – Strict Cooperation between 40 Communes, https://www.interregeurope.eu/good-practices/integrated-territorial-investments-for-warsaw-metropolis-strict-cooperation-between-40-communes.
[12] Kociuba, D. (2018), “Implementation of integrated territorial investments in Poland - Rationale, results, and recommendations”, Quaestiones Geographicae, Vol. 37/4, pp. 81-98, https://doi.org/10.2478/QUAGEO-2018-0038.
[17] Kociuba, D. (2017), “Integrated territorial investments (ITI) in Poland”, in Kopczewska, K. et al. (eds.), Measuring Regional Specialisation: A New Approach.
[20] LDnet (2020), CLLD Country Profile: Poland, https://ldnet.eu/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2020/11/PL-CLLD-country-profile_v3.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2022).
[16] Lublin Metropolitan Area (n.d.), “ITI instrument in the Lublin Metropolitan Area: Experiences and plans for the future”, https://projects2014-2020.interregeurope.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/tx_tevprojects/library/file_1625485026.pdf.
[26] Lublinksa, M. (2017), “Decentralisation and multi-level governance in Poland: Ensuring coherence between national and subnational development strategies/policies”, Ministry of Economy, https://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/Decentralisation-and-multi-level-governance-in-Poland.pdf (accessed on 9 March 2022).
[13] Marshal Office of Lubelskie Voivodship in Lublin (n.d.), “European funds for Lubelskie 2021-2027”, https://www.interregeurope.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/tx_tevprojects/library/file_1625484926.pdf.
[48] Martinez-Vázquez, J. and A. Muñoz (2018), “Metropolitan financing in Brazil: Current trends and lessons from the international experience publications”, No. IDB-DP-645, Inter-American Development Bank, https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Metropolitan-Financing-in-Brazil.pdf (accessed on 2 September 2021).
[10] Metropolia Krakowska (2021), Strategia Metropolia Krakowska 2030, Metropolis Krakowska Association, Krakow, https://metropoliakrakowska.pl/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Strategia-Metropolia-Krakowska-2030.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2022).
[25] Mikuła, Ł. (n.d.), “Planning for urban regions in Poland: Top-down failures, bottom-up struggles”, Institute of Socio-Economic Geography and Spatial Management, Poznan, https://www.unil.ch/files/live/sites/igu-urban/files/shared/Mikula_planning_urban_regions_Poland.pdf (accessed on 6 December 2021).
[6] OECD (2021), Better Governance, Planning and Services in Local Self-Governments in Poland, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/550c3ff5-en.
[22] OECD (2021), Government at a Glance 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c258f55-en.
[35] OECD (2020), OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/26173212.
[5] OECD (2020), The Future of Regional Development and Public Investment in Wales, United Kingdom, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e6f5201d-en.
[2] OECD (2019), Making Decentralisation Work: A Handbook for Policy-Makers, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9faa7-en.
[37] OECD (2019), OECD Principles on Urban Policy, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/cfe/ (accessed on 16 March 2020).
[4] OECD (2017), Multi-level Governance Reforms: Overview of OECD Country Experiences, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264272866-en.
[27] OECD (2017), The Governance of Land Use in OECD Countries: Policy Analysis and Recommendations, OECD Regional Development Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268609-en.
[7] OECD (2016), Governance of Land Use in Poland: The Case of Lodz, OECD Regional Development Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264260597-en.
[50] OECD (2016), OECD Territorial Reviews: Córdoba, Argentina, OECD Territorial Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264262201-en.
[8] OECD (2013), Rural-Urban Partnerships: An Integrated Approach to Economic Development, OECD Rural Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264204812-en.
[33] OECD/UCLG (2019), 2019 Report World Observatory on Subnational Government Finance and Investment - Key Findings, http://www.sng-wofi.org/publications/2019_SNG-WOFI_REPORT_Key_Findings.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2019).
[34] OECD/UCLG (2019), World Observatory on Subnational Government Finance and Investment - Poland, http://www.sng-wofi.org/country-profiles/Fiche%20POLAND.pdf (accessed on 8 July 2020).
[40] Pascariu, S. and D. Czischke (2015), Promoting Urban-rural Linkages in Small and Medium Sized Cities: Final Thematic Report, URBACT, https://urbact.eu/sites/default/files/urban-rural_thematic_report.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2022).
[28] PopulationStat (n.d.), Lodz, Poland Population, https://populationstat.com/poland/lodz.
[36] Potkanski, T. (2016), “Forms and experience of inter-municipal co-operation in Poland”, https://rm.coe.int/16806fa10d.
[45] Rojas, E., J. Cuadrado-Roura and J. Fernández Guell (eds.) (2008), Governing the Metropolis - Principles and Cases, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC.
[29] Statistics Poland (2022), Regional Development of Poland - Analytical Report 2021, https://stat.gov.pl/en/regional-statistics/publications-and-studies/aggregated-studies/regional-development-of-poland-analytical-report-2021,2,2.html (accessed on 24 May 2022).
[19] Szmytkowska, M. et al. (2021), “The making of the Bydgoszcz-Toruń partnership area as an example of a bipolar conflict”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 29/11, pp. 2017-2030, https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1875994.
[11] Tomašić, R. (2016), Report on New Territorial Development Tools in Cohesion Policy 2014-2020: Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) and Community-Led Local Development (CLLD), European Parliament Plenary Sitting, 22 February 2016.
[44] Topp, H. (1988), “Cooperation in transit delivery in West German metropolitan areas”, Transportation, Vol. 15, pp. 279-295, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00170591.
[1] UNHCR (2022), Ukraine Refugee Situation, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine (accessed on 5 May 2022).
[30] Warwas, I. (2018), “Wyzwania dla zatrudniania pracowników samorządowych”, Opinie i Analizy, Vol. 29, http://www.samorzad.pap.pl (accessed on 20 December 2021).
[41] Welsh Parliament (2019), Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021, https://business.senedd.wales/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=26688.
[23] Wołek, M. (2018), “Sustainable mobility planning in Poland”, Transport Economics and Logistics, Vol. 76.
[21] Zajda, K. (2014), “Problems of functioning of Polish local action groups from the perspective of the social capital concept”, Eastern European Countryside, Vol. 20, pp. 73-97, https://doi.org/10.2478/eec-2014-0004.
Notes
← 1. For further information, see: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/05/03/in-poland-the-influx-of-ukrainian-refugees-is-driving-up-rents_5982268_4.html.
← 2. The concepts of co-ordination, co-operation and collaboration build on one another, where co-ordination is at the basis and can grow into collaboration. Co-ordination means a joint or shared information insured by information flows among organisations. It implies a particular architecture in the relationship between organisations (i.e., centralised or peer-to-peer; direct or indirect), but not how the information is used. Co-operation is a joint intent on the part of individual organisations. It implies joint action but does not address the relationship among participating organisations. Collaboration implies both joint action and a structured relationship among organisations. Source: (OECD, 2016[50]).
← 3. For further information, see: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20200001378 (in Polish).
← 4. The Ministry of Funds and Regional Development proposed to make the obligatory the local development strategy as the project to amend the Act on Principles on Implementation of Development Policy eliminated the study on the conditions and directions of spatial development in a gmina (municipality) from the planning system.
← 5. See https://ec.europa.eu.
← 6. ESIF Open Data platform (https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/EU-Level/ERDF-CF-ESF-Territorial-delivery-instruments-Imple/i4ed-3nn4).
← 7. Answers to questionnaire.
← 8. See https://ec.europa.eu.
← 9. See www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.
← 10. The preparation of the Local Development Strategy (LDS) is an essential and integral part of the LEADER and CLLD approach and process. According to the EU Common Provisions Regulation-CPR (EC) 1303/2013 Art. 32 (2), “Community-led local development shall be… carried out through integrated and multisectoral area based local development strategies”. The CPR, Art.2 (19) provides a definition of a Local Development Strategy: “[A] ‘community-led local development strategy’ means a coherent set of operations… to meet local objectives and needs, and which contributes to meeting the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, and which is designed and implemented by a local action group.”.
← 11. In the new EU programming cycle 2021-27, Cohesion Policy has set a shorter, updated menu of 5 Policy Objectives (PO) for growth, which will be implemented through the following EU Funds priorities. The European Regional Development Fund will support investments in all 5 PO, but PO1 and PO2 are the main priorities. The European Social Fund+ main priority is PO4. The Cohesion Fund supports PO2 and PO3. The Just Transition Fund provides support under dedicated specific objectives (art. 8 of JTF regulation). The Interreg programmes have 2 additional policy objectives at their disposal (art. 14, Interreg regulation): “A better cooperation governance” and “A safer and more secure Europe”. (https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/how/priorities).
← 12. For further information see: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_2221.
← 13. For further information, see: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GTelxPR9dREJ:https://www.ebrd.com/documents/admin/poland-coronavirus-policy-response.pdf%3Fblobnocache%3Dtrue+&cd=4&hl=es&ct=clnk&gl=fr.
← 14. See www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.
← 15. Ibid.
← 16. Integrated territorial and urban strategies: How are ESIF adding value in 2014-2020? European Commission, December 2017.
← 17. See www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.
← 18. See also Endnote no.16.
← 19. It is worth noting that already in the previous years, (e.g. under the Rural Development Program for 2007-2013), the support was directed taking into account the functional links between rural areas and small towns. Therefore, the definition of "rural areas" in the program included administrative rural areas together with cities up to 5,000 residents. In the case of the LEADER approach, implemented as axis 4 of the RDP 2013-2013 and (giving rise to the CLLD approach later applied under other than EMFF funds), this definition was further extended - as it also included cities up to 20,000. residents. A similar approach was used under the Rural Development Program for 2014-2020. The implementation of CLLD enabled further and wider local development, taking into account the urban-rural relationship, the need for which was evident, but the regulations on individual EU funds limited the possibility of applying this approach to a greater extent. This is also described in chapter 2 (Box 2.14).
← 20. See www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.
← 21. Urszula Budzich-Tabor, Contributor: Joanna Gierulska, November 2020 (https://ldnet.eu/clld-country-profile-poland/).
← 22. For further information see: Lublinksa, M. (2017), “Decentralisation and multi-level governance in Poland: Ensuring coherence between national and subnational development strategies/policies”, https://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/Decentralisation-and-multi-level-governance-in-Poland.pdf and http://encyklopediaap.uw.edu.pl/index.php/Joint_Commission_of_Government_and_Local_Government.
← 23. For further information see: https://doi.org/10.1787/data-00531-en.