A new vision for the Capital-Region
Study session spurs on the debate of how to create the metropolitan community of Brussels
Regions consider following Dutch example
The Council of the Flemish Community Commission (VGC) and the Flemish Advisory Council for Administrative Affairs organised a study session in the Brussels parliament last week to discuss the creation of this new consultation body, which was a key innovation in the sixth state reform agreed on during the long government negotiations of 2010-11.
One of the speakers at the study session was professor Fred Fleurke of the Free University of Amsterdam. He provided background information on the development of the metropolitan region of Rotterdam-Den Haag in the southern Netherlands. Next year, the 24 municipalities of the city regions of Rotterdam and Haaglanden will enter a metropolis union, and, after a transition year, the new governmental body will be able to take decisions that apply to both regions.
The organisation can only take independent decisions on two policy areas: mobility and the establishment of businesses. In three other policy areas – territorial planning, living and green development – the body also has a say, but the municipalities need to co-operate voluntarily, and each has a right of veto.
A matter of trust
“The original ambitions of the mayors of Rotterdam and Den Haag for the body were much larger, affecting seven pillars of policy,” said professor Fleurke. “But the reluctance of municipalities to give up their sovereignty showed that you need to proceed gradually, through a bottom-up approach.”
The reluctance of municipalities to give up their sovereignty showed that you need to proceed gradually
This advice for a pragmatic strategy was approved by Jean-Luc Vanraes, chairman of the VGC’s council. “I pledge to work one dossier at a time,” he said, “to strengthen the trust between the different partners of the metropolis.” Vanraes hopes to start discussing concrete issues, such as the establishment of a national football stadium at the Heizel complex. This location has been suggested by the Brussels-Capital region, but the area lies in Grimbergen – part of Flemish Brabant.
Mobility is another key challenge that urgently requires more intense collaboration, according to Vanraes.
Creating a metropolitan community of Brussels will be a complex affair, although the existence of a Brussels metropolis is already a reality through the growing influence of Brussels in the neighbouring regions. The area includes 135 municipalities, if you look at the range of the planned Brussels Regional Express Network – a rapid transit system to connect the centre with municipalities within 30 kilometres.
The Brussels-Capital region itself already consists of 19 districts with a certain degree of independence. Furthermore, the growing internationalisation of the municipalities of Flemish Brabant in the periphery of Brussels (known as de rand) creates friction among Dutch speakers living there.
Professor Eric Corijn, director of the Centre for Urban Research Cosmopolis at the Free University of Brussels (VUB), listed these and other challenges. According to Corijn, the big difference with other large cities nearby, like Paris, is that the rich prefer to live outside the centre of the capital. The result is a dual image of a wealthy, international city that is the main European political centre but also has very high unemployment, especially among young people.
Corijn recommended expanding the centre of Brussels and considering the canal zone as the backbone of the city instead of a border area. Efforts should be made to improve the image of the municipality of Sint-Jans-Molenbeek, which is now often seen as a problem area. He added that the young and diverse identity of the Brussels population poses both challenges and opportunities.
The importance of connections
Corijn urged policymakers to look at the bigger picture instead of focusing on conflicts between language communities and realise the potential of connections with other cities in Belgium and Europe. He feels, for example, that co-operation between the knowledge centres in Brussels, Leuven and Louvain-La-Neuve in Wallonia could create a Belgian Silicon Valley. The importance of Brussels also provides many opportunities for co-operation with cities such as London, Paris and Amsterdam. Saying that Brussels was the solution, not the problem, Corijn hoped for more optimism on what he called “our small world city”.
The strengths and weaknesses of Brussels were also underlined by Jan Van Doren, deputy-director of the knowledge centre of the Flemish Chamber of Commerce (Voka). He listed the city’s multilingual character, access to markets, accessibility and quality of staff as its main economic strengths. The principal economic weaknesses, he believes, are the cost of staff, mobility inside the city and the governmental policy. He also demonstrated the mismatch on the labour market: According to his figures, 61% of unemployed people in the Brussels metropolis are low-skilled and 82% of them live the Brussels-Capital region.
Last month, the branch of Voka in Brussels changed its name from Voka-Comité Brussel to Voka Metropolitan. Voka Metropolitan wants to forge better links between Brussels and Flanders – including cities like Ghent, Antwerp and Leuven. Essential themes that demand better collaboration revolve around accessibility and employment.
The increased interest of Voka in Brussels, however, has not been received well at the employers’ organisation Brussels Enterprises Commerce and Industry (Beci). In an interview with Brussel Deze Week, Beci CEO Olivier Willocx said that the strategy of Voka equals “imperialism”.
Photo: williamsdb/flickr
Voka
companies represented by Voka across Flanders and Brussels
regional chambers make up the association
chambers of commerce across Europe
- Voka
- Flanders Investment and Trade
- Agentschap Ondernemen
