Figure 8.2: Different kinds of metropolitan governance arrangements

clear fiscal and administrative structures. Establishing their political legitimacy remains one of the biggest obstacles to metropolitan governance.52 Metropolitan governance reforms are challenged by conflicting interests, competing aims, reduced planning and development responsibilities, and less fiscal and borrowing autonomy than that which is present in individual cities.53 Currently, many metropolitan structures are fiscally dependent on the participating local governments and require consensus building. A promising example comes out of France, a countr y with a long tradition of institutionalized inter-municipal cooperation, in which all municipalities are part of an inter-municipal structure with an own-source tax, forming a fourth level of quasigovernment.54 Similarly, Sri Lanka has articulated an urban vision for competitive, environmentally sustainable and welllinked cities, by connecting the countries five metro regions with district and provincial capitals and towns.55

Figure 8.2: Different kinds of metropolitan governance arrangements

Inter-municipal cooperation mechanisms

Metropolitan and regional authorities Consolidated local governement

Metropolitan or regional government

Type A: Metropolitan Council of govenments Established as horizontal cooperation among the local governments

Examples: Many cities in Brazil; Ruhr, Germany; Turin and Milan, Italy; Paris, France; Greater Toronto, Canada; Los Angeles County, USA; Valle de Aburra, Columbia.

Established through voluntary organization

Examples: Sao Paulo, Brazil ; Bologna,Italy;Montreal, Canada; numerus examples in the United States. Type A: A higher -level metropolitan local government

Type B: Planning & Service Delivery Authority Examples: Canadian examples such as Greater Vancouver Regional Service District (GVRSD) and Metropolitan Transport Authority (ARTM) in Montreal . Lyon and Marseille, France; Lagos MegaCity Development Authority, Nigeria; "Developemnt agencies" in Delhi, India and Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Source: GIZ and UN-Habitat, 2015. Type B: Regional government Established through amalgamation of local governments or annexation of territory

Example: Municipalities in South Africa; Turkey, City States(Singapore)

Established as a separate metropoliitan

local government for coordination/ selective

fucntions(type A) or established by a higher level government for metropolitan area (type B)

Examples: Quito, Ecuador, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire(until 2001); Barcelona, Spain; London, UK; Budapest,Hungary; Stuttgart, Germany;Toronto, Canada(1954-98); Portland, USC; Shanghai(all large Chinese cities)

Examples: Abndjan, Cote d'Ivoire (from 2001); Madrid, Spain;Manila,Philippines

Box 8.2: Metropolitan governance in Valle de Aburrá, Colombia

The Metropolitan Area of Valle de Aburrá (AMVA) was established in 1980 and is composed of Medellín and nine other municipalities, home to 4 million people. The AMVA is governed by a metropolitan board, composed of the mayor of Medellín, the mayors of the other member municipalities, and various councilors and representatives from NGOs and the national government. The AMVA has adopted more than 150 metropolitan agreements over the last 10 years covering metropolitan public policies, territorial plans, financing mechanisms, budgets and administrative decisions in areas including transport, environment and security.