Cohesion Policy and cities: the urban contribution to growth and jobs in the regions
QeC-ERAN
Rue van Artevelde 80
B-1000 Brussels
Belgium
Tel: +32 2 524 45 45
Fax: +32 2 524 44 31
E-mail:
/ “New realities and themes for the urban dimension in cohesion policy”
Urban café report
in response to the EC staff working paper
“Cohesion Policy and cities: the urban contribution to growth and jobs in the regions”
Structure of Report:
- Introduction…………………………………………………………….3
- EU urban policy context….……………………………………….. 4
- Urban café conference report.…………………………………..11
- General response………..…………………………………………..15
- Specific response….………………………………………………..16
- Annexes:
- List of Participants
- Conference Programme
Qec-European Regeneration Areas Network (Qec-ERAN) welcomes that the Commission has launched a wide ranging debate through the EC staff working paper on “Cohesion Policy and cities: the urban contribution to growth and jobs in the regions”.
In response to the EC staff paper, Qec-ERAN, with the support of the Committee of the Regions, has organised an urban café on “the new realities and themes for the urban dimension in cohesion policy” which took place at the Committee of the Regions on 22 February 2006.
The event attracted a widespread representation from stakeholders and main actors such as Members of the European Parliament (EP Intergroup on Urban Policy and Housing, EP Intergroup on Anti-Racism and Diversity), the European Investment Bank, Eurocities, EuroHealthNet, the European Social Housing Observatory, the European Regions Research and Innovation Network, the Council of European Municipalities and Regions as well as numerous delegates from regional and local authority representational offices. A full participants list is attached.
The first part of this report outlines the overall EU urban policy context of the last 15 years on which the EC staff working paper is based. This is followed by the urban café conference report highlighting some of the general and specific responses to the EC consultation that were made during the debate at the urban café. These general and specific responses have been submitted to the European Commission as part of the consultation process.
2. Setting the policy context: EU Urban Policy 1990-2006.
All policies of the European Union have an impact in some way on Europe’s cities, although this impact is not always easy to measure. The following text highlights the main programmes, policy papers and key actions which have shaped urban development in the last fifteen years.
These are mainly the URBAN programme, a EU Community Initiative within EU Cohesion Policy, which targets sustainable economic development and regeneration in the most deprived urban areas of the EU. It includes the Urban Pilot Projects (1989-1999), URBAN I (1994-2000),which was a follow up to the Pilot projects and consolidated the lessons learnt from the UPP, and the on-going URBAN II programme.
Other key actions that have influenced EU urban policy where led notably by the Dutch and UK Presidency. The Dutch Presidency with its common framework on sustainable communities set urban issues high on the EU political agenda and during last year’s UK Presidency the Bristol Accord was adopted which sets out eight characteristics of a sustainable community and an agreement to compile good practice case studies that demonstrate sustainable communities’ characteristics to an agreed template.
Other important policy documents have been the “Towards an Urban Agenda” (European Commission Communication 1997) and the “Sustainable Urban Development in the European Union: A Framework for Action” (1998).
A) The Urban Programme
The Urban Pilot Programme – 1989-1999
The Urban Pilot Programme aimed to support innovation in urban regeneration and planning within the framework of the broader Community policy for promoting economic and social cohesion. The EU recognised that cities are the main focus of economic growth and development, technological innovation and public service. At the same time, they all too often offer the worst examples of congestion, pollution, industrial decay and social exclusion.
These concerns led the European Commission to enter into negotiations directly with Member States, cities and regions, to identify how Structural Fund resources could best be applied within urban areas.Article 10 of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), adopted to finance pilot actions and innovative measures, enabled the Commission to use a small proportion of ERDF resources to fund projects that piloted innovative ways of tackling
problems of urban disadvantage and unemployment.
In July 1997, the European Commission approved the Second Phase of the Urban Pilot Programme. This phase was initiated on 30 November 1995 when a Call for Proposals was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
The URBAN I Programme – 1994-1999
The URBAN I Community Initiative was launched in 1994 as a response to the continued challenges facing Europe’s towns and cities: high unemployment, the risk of social exclusion, a neglected physical environment etc. as well as a consolidation of the experience gained through the Urban Pilot Projects (UPPs).
During the 1994-99 programming period, URBAN I financed programmes in a total of 118 urban areas. There were a total of 118 URBAN programmes which included nearly 3 million inhabitants. The total allocated European Union funding was 900 million euros, 83% of which was from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), and 17% from the European Social Fund (ESF).
URBAN I had a number of aims which it shared with other Community Initiative:
- to adopt and encourage innovative approaches;
- to promote transnational networking and exchange of experience;
- and to mainstream new approaches and good practice into national policy and programmes.
Evaluation of the URBAN I programme
The evaluation of the UBRAN I programme was based on an assessment of 118 URBAN programmes and 5 Urban Pilot Projects. The evaluation investigated the following aspects: the selection of programme areas and the strategies adopted; effectiveness; management and implementation systems; impact; and Community value added.
The evaluation found that the URBAN programme was a success in a number of respects. The programme contributed to improving the quality of life in the target areas and beyond, and built capacity both at the level of the municipality and within the local communities.
The evaluation identified the following lessons identified for the post 2006 period:
- An effective use of future SF resources might involve the specific earmarking of resources for urban interventions. The context for such interventions is changing: The EU will be enlarged substantially, and cities might be facing new challenges in order to maintain or improve their competitive position. This will require new answers. Such concepts could be focussed on ‘realising city visions’, achieving urban renaissance, incorporating notions of the ‘creative’ city, the ‘safer’ cities, the ‘engaged’ city, and promoting sustainable urban development and cooperation between urban areas within regions.
- Preferably these interventions should be managed by municipal level authorities. The value added of the URBAN area based intervention was often greatest when it was applied as part of a wider urban policy and strategy.
- The experience of URBAN I provides some hints for such future actions. At the same time the SF should contribute to the continuation of learning through networking and the exchange of experience. The development of the capacities of urban professionals and other key actors could build on the experience of URBAN I.
URBAN II is the Community Initiative of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for sustainable development in the troubled urban districts of the European Union for the period 2000-06.
As a follow-up to Urban I in 1994-99, Urban II aims more precisely to promote the design and implementation of innovative models of development for the economic and social regeneration of troubled urban areas. It will also strengthen information and experience-sharing on sustainable urban development in the European Union. Urban II programmes are based on guidelines (for programming period 2000-2006)drawn up by the Commission.
A key component of URBAN II is the exchange of experience and good practice with regard to urban development and the economic and social regeneration of urban areas. This exchange of information is facilitated by developing methods for quantification and appropriate performance indicators, which are to be inspired by the Urban Audit .
Another key feature of URBAN II is the provision for exchange of good practices across Europe. This is the subject of a specific programme: the "European Network for Exchange of Experience", or "URBACT".
URBACT's objectives are to highlight best practices and to draw lessons from successes and weaknesses identified in these programmes. The target group is urban actors from the 216 cities benefiting from the URBAN I and II programmes and Urban Pilot Projects.
B) Key European Commission policy papers on EU urban policy
Towards an Urban Agenda – European Commission Communication 1997
Following the UN Conference on Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat II), the EU supported a more active intervention in urban development. The EC examined possibilities for improving urban development and for increasing the effectiveness of existing Community intervention in urban areas.
Towards an Urban Agenda analysed the key challenges which affect all cities in the European Union to a greater or lesser degree. It then took stock of existing EU policies which have an impact, directly or indirectly, on cities. This followed directions for future actions and the approach which urban policy in Europe could take as a starting point for debate. It also proposed the organisation of an Urban Forum in 1998.
The main issues identified by the Communication can be summarised as follows:
- The twin challenge facing European urban policy is one of maintaining its cities at the forefront of an increasingly globalised and competitive economy while addressing the cumulative legacy of urban deprivation. These two aspects of urban policy are complementary. Economic progress which undermines the cohesiveness of urban areas is unlikely to be sustainable over the longer-term;
- The EU should play a complementary role in addressing urban issues as it has responsibility for policies in a number of sectors which have a direct bearing on the development and quality of life in urban areas. Possibilities for adapting these policies to improve their contribution to urban development need to be more exhaustively explored;
- The role of the public sector and city management is increasingly less that of direct provider of services. Member States have very different approaches to this issue. While recognising this diversity of organisational set-ups, the Commission has underlined that, although Member States are free to define their own policies in this matter and that it has no interest in who specifically provides the services, it is clear that the services must serve society as a whole, ensuring continuity, equality of access, universality and transparency.
- It is becoming more and more evident that cities play a crucial role for structural policies. A greater attention to urban development in future strategy building and programmes could result in an integrated strategy between actions in urban areas and in their wider regions, as well as in terms of economic and human resource development. To achieve such coherence, it is important that local authorities participate closely in the preparation and implementation of regional development programmes. Local authorities can also often bring in necessary expertise and knowledge on the local economy and labour market.
- There is an increasing need for significant and comparable information about cities, particularly amongst local and other public authorities in charge of urban policy. To ensure a solid base for improved decisions on common issues related to urban development, the Commission proposes to develop a two-step approach. This resulted in the Urban Audit which measures the quality of life in EU towns and cities through the use of a simple set of urban indicators and a common methodology.
URBAN I’s new approach and lessons learned from its evaluation informed developments in the formulation of EU policies for the next programming period 2000-2006, by putting issues related to sustainable urban development high on the Community priorities.
The Framework for Action for SustainableUrban Development adopted by the Commission in October 1998 recognised the importance of the urban dimension in Community policies, and highlighted in particular the possibilities offered by the regional development programmes co-financed by the Structural Funds. The Action Plan set out four main objectives:
- strengthening economic prosperity and employment in towns and cities (which in fact account for 80% of the population of the Union);
- promoting equal opportunities, social integration and the rehabilitation of run-down areas;
- improving the urban environment (management of transport, waste, energy etc.);
- contributing to good urban governance and increased participation of local actors and citizens.
Commission Communication on “The programming of the Structural Funds 2000-2006 : an initial assessment of the Urban Initiative (June 2002)”
This Communication forms part of the Commission's work programme for 2002. It discusses the main features of the URBAN Community Initiative Programmes for 2000-2006, with a particular focus on the characteristics of eligible areas, the negotiations with the MemberStates and the value added by the European Union.
The Communication concluded that the approaches developed under URBAN and the other Community Initiatives have many potential lessons for the future of European Policy, including:
- The integrated approach, whereby social, environmental and economic measures are combined in a limited area to form a coherent response to the multi-facetted problems of the area.
- A focus on relatively small areas, which maximises impact, as well as value for money.
- The flexibility to select areas according to national needs and priorities, while at the same time resulting in areas which fit community criteria and have been selected in a transparent manner.
- Administrative simplification and flexibility, particularly the rationalisation of the Community contribution into one Fund with one set of procedures, while still covering the full range of measures.
- The strong focus on a local partnership, including local community groups. This builds local capacity, making the programmes more effective. It also promotes new European models of governance, bringing Europe closer to its citizens.
Common framework for urban policy - Developed under the Dutch Presidency (second half of 2004)
At its Ministerial meeting on Territorial Cohesion and Urban Policy in November 2004, the Dutch Presidency presented its common frameworkfor urban policy. The new common framework seeks to build on the momentum created during the French Presidency, when Ministers meeting in Lille (2000) adopted a programme of co-operation in urban policy.
The Lille programme for co-operation identified nine areas as priorities:
- A better acknowledgement of the role of towns and cities in spatial planning,
- A new approach of urban policies on national and community levels,
- Support the community life in the disadvantaged neighbourhoods,
- Measures to tackle social, ethnic and discriminating segregation,
- Work at different spatial scales,
- Partnership between the public and private sectors,
- Diffusion of best practises and networking,
- Use of modern technology (Information Technology like Internet),
- A further analyses of the urban areas.
The common framework proposed by the Dutch Presidency therefore seeks to take forward key components for urban policy and puts forward the following recommendations for successful urban policy:
- Policies for economic, social and environmental development in urban areas should be integrated not treated separately.
- Urban policy must support both places and people. Policies that support people and places are not mutually exclusive. It is possible and desirable to have strategies that focus upon individual needs but also upon the social and physical infrastructure which make cities attractive in the long term.
- Urban policy should adopt an integrated approach and recognise the linkages between housing, education, transportation, security, health and welfare policies rather than treating them separately. Urban problems are not separated into functional specialisms. It is important that policies are not segregated into such specialisms. There remains a great challenge at both national, regional and local government level to make organisations flexible and integrated
- Mainstream government departments programmes and resources in addition to special urban initiatives are crucial to cities. Many governments have developed special urban programmes for particular areas or particular policy sectors. These are important. But increasingly it is recognised that it the resources and policies of mainstream government programmes for all the service which affect cities- housing, education, transport, social security, security – that make the difference to urban success or failure. Those policies and the departments, which deliver them, need to be committed to urban areas if they are to succeed.