Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Commission Communication: Towards an urban agenda in the European Union'
30. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 95/89 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Commission Communication: Towards an urban agenda in the European Union’ (98/C 95/19) On 13 May 1997 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication. The Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 20 January 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Vinay and the co-rapporteur was Mr Muller. At its 351st plenary session (meeting of 28 January 1998), the Economic and Social Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion. 1. Introduction 1. 1. Europe is the most urbanized continent in the world, and has been for at least three thousand years. The city paradigm is thus deeply ingrained in the culture, society and economy of Europe’s peoples. Notwithstanding the specific problems which at certain periods — and especially today — have influenced city life, economic and cultural development is still determined primarily in cities. It is thus particularly pleasing to note that the EU institutions have adopted a number of initiatives which bear witness to their concern for all aspects of both the present and future situation of urban areas. The Commission communication is the latest and particularly worthwhile demonstration of the EU insti- tutions’ growing interest in an issue of considerable economic and social importance. The communication is divided into four main parts. 1. 2. The first chapter looks at the challenges facing Europe’s cities. The per capita economic contribution of the urban population to regional and national GDP is disproportionately high. But this is not reflected in employment rates. The decline in the quality of the urban environ- 1. 2. 1. ment makes it necessary to overhaul urban planning policies in order to ensure that they support sustainable socio-economic development. 1. 2. 2. On the socio-political front, city dwellers’ weakening sense of a shared identity is leading them to take less part in the local democratic process. City management is further complicated by the fragmentation of decision-making powers, which are spread over different tiers of authority — not only local, but also regional, national and EU. and employment, economic and social cohesion, the integration of cities into the trans-European networks, and sustainable development and quality of urban life. 1. 3. 1. As recipients of much of internal and external investment in the EU, cities must equip themselves to become ‘capable of delivering top quality services’ and to have ‘good infrastructure endowments’ (point 2. 1). Cities’ capacity to innovate is generally central to the economic success of their local region. 1. 3. 2. In recent years, much attention has been paid to the socio-economic problems of urban areas. The the urban pilot projects Commission mentions (Article 10 of the ERDF), the success of which spurred it to launch the Urban initiative in 1994. This initiative, financed by the Structural Funds, involves establishing partnership-based integrated development programmes in deprived urban districts. The Integra scheme, launched more recently, the ESF’s ‘Employment’ Community initiative. is part of Trans-European networks and metropolitan 1. 3. 3. and urban transport links are closely connected, and are essential for remedying the imbalances in the general urban system and in individual urban areas. 1. 3. 4. All this has also to be viewed from the angle of sustainable development, which is recognized as ‘a determinant aspect of the quality of life for the present and future generations’. The communication mentions important developments in the last few years, such as the 1990 green paper on the urban environment, and the sustainable cities project which was launched in 1993. Environment policy — with the ‘greening’ of the Structural Funds — and R&D policy are specifically targeted to sustainable development. 1. 3. The second chapter of the communication looks at current EU actions related to urban development. It thus examines policies for promoting competitiveness The third chapter of the communication looks 1. 4. at the way ahead. The Commission stresses that ‘the C 95/90 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 3. 98 starting point for future urban development must be to recognize the role of the cities as motors for regional, national and European economic progress’ (point 3). 1. 4. 1. The Commission argues that from now on, ‘the various actions at the EU level should be assessed from the viewpoint of a coherent and sustainable development of cities’. It thus affirms the need for EU policies to have an urban perspective. The Commission recognizes the crucial role 1. 4. 2. played by the Structural Funds, and recommends that local authorities participate in the preparation and implementation of regional development programmes. 1. 5. Lastly, the communication attaches particular importance to the transfer and dissemination of good practice. An ‘urban audit’ of the strengths and weak- nesses of European cities is to be launched by the Commission. In the fourth part of the communication, the 1. 6. Commission proposes that a debate on urban issues be engaged with the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, local authorities and other interested parties. This debate will culminate with an Urban Forum which the Commission intends to convene in 1998. 2. General comments Various Committee opinions have recommended 2. 1. that more attention be devoted to the urban effects of EU policies, on the grounds that the socio-economic development of cities should be one of the main objectives pursued by Community funds. In its opinion on the Europe 2000 + report the 2. 1. 1. Committee, while recognizing that ‘there is still no EU strategy for improving urban balance’ (1), argued that ‘the EU’s high level of urbanization obliges it to devote special attention to problems and trends in urban areas’. This should be a priority concern of the EU debate on urban matters. 2. 1. 1. 1. With this in mind, the Committee suggested that the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) should offer ‘pointers for possible measures of to decentralize over-congested Community interest areas, diversify urban economies according to regional needs, enhance urban growth points in disadvantaged areas, stimulate and develop multi-centred urban net- works, control urban sprawl and promote a new partnership between town and country’ (2). 2. 1. 1. 2. These recommendations added up to a com- plex and significant programme which was to come together in an EU urban policy. 2. 1. 2. The Committee has also drawn up an own- initiative opinion on the role of the EU in urban matters. This opinion stressed that urban policies have a ‘European dimension’ because they ‘concern principles, factors and conditions which are of strategic importance for the development prospects of the EU and for the quality of life of the European public’ (3). 2. 1. 2. 1. The opinion put forward a number of practi- cal proposals, such as increasing the EU’s commitment to urban pilot projects (innovative measures under ERDF Article 10), gearing the Structural Funds more to urban development, examining the spatial and urban impact of all schemes that concern cities, encouraging forward-looking urban partnership schemes, and estab- lishing a forum of EU, national, regional and local the socio-economic partners and other authorities, interested parties to prepare EU strategies for urban areas. 2. 1. 2. 2. A precondition for this policy of increased EU attention for urban issues is that the Commission ‘give a stronger lead (. ). In particular, it would be helpful for the Commission to draw up a set of guidelines for the EU urban system’ (4). The Committee’s thinking on this is that the 2. 1. 2. 3. urban environment should ‘reflect the new perception of cities as a key element in making development policy fully consistent with policies designed to achieve economic excellence and social equity’ (5). 2. 1. 2. 4. The opinion concluded that ‘the issues raised in this consideration of the EU’s role in urban matters are so important for EU development and quality of life that they exceed the confines of an opinion. They require constant and careful attention. ’ (1) Opinion on Europe 2000 + — Cooperation for European territorial development (additional opinion), OJ C 301, 13. 11. 1995, point 2. 2. 6. (2) OJ C 301, 13. 11. 1995, point 2. 6. 6. 4. (3) Opinion on the role of the EU in urban matters, OJ C 30, 30. 1. 1997, point 3. 3. 1. (4) OJ C 30, 30. 1. 1997, point 5. 3 (ii). (5) OJ C 30, 30. 1. 1997, point 6. 3. 5. 30. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 95/91 2. 2. The Commission communication is wide- ranging and represents a quantum jump in the approach to urban issues, which are now recognized as a central consideration in the planning of future Community policies. highlighting the attention paid to the promotion of sustainable development ‘as a determinant aspect of the quality of life for the present and future generations’ (point 2. 4). This fits in well with the objective of improving social cohesion in cities. 2. 2. 1. It is also pleasing to note that the Dutch Presidency’s conclusions at the informal council of regional policy and spatial planning ministers, held in Noordwijk in June 1997, include the statement that ‘cities are at the heart of the European model of society as places of solidarity and social integration. Cities are the motors of economic growth, competitiveness and employment creation. They need to be places where jobs and economic growth are created for a wider economy and labour market. They should contribute to a balanced development of the urban system in Europe, and thereby reduce the opportunity gap between the various localities of the Union’. 2. 2. 2. The mainstreaming of urban issues is also extremely timely in wider policy terms, because it shows the public the practical ways in which EU decisions can improve the quality of life. This is especially important at the present stage of the EU integration process, which is as delicate and demanding as it has ever been. The first merit of the communication is thus that it places urban issues among the priorities of the Community agenda. The Committee appreciates the close link 2. 2. 3. which the communication makes from the outset between cities and socio-economic/cultural trends. This line of thought, which underpins the whole communi- cation, offers a practical and highly effective approach to the issues under discussion. 2. 2. 4. The first three paragraphs are a case in point. Their highlighting of the imbalances caused by economic and technological change — which has brought great opportunities but has also created large pockets of unemployment and alienation — bears witness to the social sensitivity which informs the whole communi- cation. 2. 2. 7. In its earlier opinion, the Committee stressed the need for an integrated, focused approach and called for ‘urban development schemes that establish the practical, economic, administrative and technical pre- requisites for an improvement in social cohesion’ (1). 2. 2. 8. The second European conference on sustaina- ble cities, held in Lisbon in October 1996, assessed the impact of the ‘Aalborg charter’ signed in May 1994, in which over 300 European cities undertook to adopt concerted measures in support of sustainable develop- ment. The Commission initiative thus confirms the choice made with the launch of the sustainable cities project in 1993. This project sought to fuel discussions on the sustainability of Europe’s urban areas, promote pooling of experience, and disseminate best practice on sustainable local development. The major UN confer- ence on human settlements (Habitat II) also deserves mention here. The Commission proposals are neatly encapsu- 2. 2. 9. lated in the statement that ‘the various actions at the EU level should be assessed from the viewpoint of a coherent and sustainable development of cities’. This gives the gist of the communication in a nutshell. If its recommen- dations are heeded, Community policy decisions can take on a practical and immediately tangible nature calculated to make the European public more receptive to, and more involved in, the work of the Union. 2. 2. 10. The Committee endorses the view that the starting point for the future is ‘to recognize the role of the cities as motors for regional, national and European economic progress’. The communication asks for comments on 2. 2. 11. four points of key importance for the future of the EU’s cities: The Committee also endorses the description 2. 2. 5. (point 1. 5) of city dwellers’ weakening sense of identity and identification — ‘often demonstrated by the low level of participation in the local democratic process’. — the need for an urban perspective in EU policies; — services of public interest and urban development; 2. 2. 6. The detailed description of current EU action related to urban development (chapter 2 of the communi- cation) gives an effective portrayal of the Community policies which, in different ways and to varying degrees, have an impact on urban issues. Here it is worth (1) OJ C 30, 30. 1. 1997, point 4. 6. 2. — the contribution of the Structural Funds; C 95/92 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 3. 98 — information on and promotion of experience-pooling between cities. appropriate funding, but the prime responsibility rests with the Member States and the local authorities. 3. A Europe of the cities: EU policies and urban development 3. 1. While the Community’s interest in urban issues is relatively recent, considerable progress was made between the first informal council of spatial planning ministers — held in Nantes in 1989 — and the June 1997 meeting in Noordwijk. Similar headway has been made since the first studies on Europe 2000, culminating in the publication of the first official draft of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) and the present communication. cohesion, A number of Commission papers and studies 3. 2. have pressed for appropriate policies. They range over spatial planning, regional development, economic and sustainable urban development, social research and development, conservation, transport, communications and the information society, employ- ment and vocational training, the role of small busi- nesses, the fight against crime, social exclusion, and other issues. They also demonstrate the urgent need for an urban policy that is coordinated both horizontally (as regards ways and means) and vertically (as regards remits and subsidiarity). It is against this background that the Committee 3. 3. has assessed the communication, which undoubtedly fills a gap and represents the first practical attempt to put forward a systematic EU policy for urban matters. 3. 4. To facilitate discussions, it would be helpful to define some priorities which are valid for the EU urban system in general and for the cities of certain regions in particular. These priorities will be especially relevant to the forum on urban issues which the Commission plans to hold in 1998. 3. 7. 1. The communication rightly states that ‘Mem- ber States have primary responsibility in developing the urban policy for the next century’, adding that ‘it will be essential to engage all levels (. ) within a framework of interlinking relationships and shared responsibility and achieve better policy integration’. 3. 8. The EU’s main role here is to provide encourage- ment and set out broad guidelines which can be used by the Member States. 3. 9. The Commission must thus take further steps to prepare itself to meet these new needs and responsibili- ties. The Committee therefore welcomes the Com- mission’s decision to ‘examine how it can adapt its internal coordination to contribute to urban develop- ment’ in the light of the response to the communication. 3. 10. Assessing the impact on urban areas must be a constant concern when coordinating EU policies on economic development and employment, infrastructure, energy and networks, the environment, social exclusion and crime. This approach will focus the policies in question and ensure that they meet the real needs of local residents more closely. Such coordination has hitherto been sporadic 3. 11. rather than strategic. Future action should combine an EU strategic approach with the ‘bottom-up’ approach which is vital for a policy that impacts on daily life and local government. Here it is worth pointing out that the subsidiarity principle should also apply to relations between the national and local authorities. 3. 5. A scale of priorities would help to guide decisions and clarify objectives. In financial terms too, pinpointing the most urgent needs would make it easier to plan efficiently and assess the subsequent results. 3. 6. The Commission has done much useful work in the last few years, but its work needs to be taken a step further. This will also involve the Member States. 3. 12. Within this framework, the individual EU poli- cies (networks, environment, employment, the fight against exclusion, etc. ) must — as the Commission rightly notes — have ‘clear targets for improvement of the urban environment with specified time scales’ and must be ‘aimed at sustainable development’, because each of them has a direct influence on urban development and quality of life. 3. 7. There is no doubt that action on urban issues must be based on subsidiarity. The role of the EU is to inter alia by providing strengthen and develop, 3. 12. 1. These targets and time scales could provide a full-scale ‘EU urban agenda’ that sets out in detail the overall strategy, priority measures, resources, antici- pated results, and assessment criteria. 30. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 95/93 3. 12. 2. Here the Committee thinks that it would be useful to upgrade, redeploy, revamp and/or strengthen such instruments as: — the spatial planning observatory; 4. 3. 1. The Committee would recall its statement, in the opinion on the role of the EU in urban matters, that ‘refurbishment of buildings and urban renovation are clearly not enough (. ). The aim must be to alter the social, economic, employment and cultural causes of social and urban marginalization’ (2). — the EU project-centres for the spatial planning of major internal and border regions, both urban and rural, in the Member States; — the adoption of appropriate practices for experience- swapping and assessment of results. 3. 13. The Committee also thinks it appropriate that the fifth R&D framework programme (1998-2002) should include among its basic objectives the solution of urban development problems; the actions regarding the ‘city of tomorrow’ and ‘Europe’s cultural and architectural heritage’ are particularly relevant. These measures must be closely linked with those of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund (1). 4. A city designed for city dwellers: services, quality of life and participation 4. 1. Because of its special features, the EU urban system can effectively combine economic development with environmental sustainability and social solidarity. European cities have always been firmly anchored in their particular region and marked by a strong sense of local identity, concern for social cohesion and a balance between city and countryside. The rich economic, social and cultural urban heritage offers enormous potential for enhancing economic, social and environmental balance across the Union. 4. 2. However, the process of change brings serious dangers. The physical face of cities is constantly chang- ing, whether as a result of continual growth or because of deteriorations which produce slow but steady changes. 4. 2. 1. Global competition drives economic changes which have a major spatial, social and environmental impact. Innovation and technologies have boosted cities’ cultural assets, further enriching them and offering new job opportunities. 4. 3. There have been many studies of urban decay and of the resultant social problems, and an equally large number of diagnoses and proposed remedies. (1) OJ C 355, 21. 11. 1997. 4. 4. The Committee argued that it was necessary to shift attention from the symptoms (run-down buildings and neighbourhoods, unemployment, social mar- ginalization) to the causes (lack of job opportunities, weak cultural models, low incomes, etc. ). This would mean ‘reshaping urban development mechanisms and mechanisms for distributing the benefits of services, infrastructure, transport and so on’ (3). 4. 5. Such an approach requires an assessment of the urban implications of EU sectoral policies; it also raises the question of the type of services offered to city dwellers by the public and private sector. The Committee stresses the vital role which 4. 5. 1. public services play in urban development, for instance for the production of socially useful products and services and in strengthening social cohesion (4). 4. 6. It is the city which forms the interface with the citizen, as the quality of life and sustainability of development are determined by the services provided there: transport, energy distribution, telematics net- works, parks and gardens, childcare, services for the disabled, leisure facilities (cinemas, theatres, concert halls, sports centres). 4. 7. A major change is needed in the planning, implementation and management of infrastructure and services, whether they be the responsibility of the local authority or of other public or private bodies. Infrastructure, for example, cannot be viewed simply as a service or as a generator of employment. It should also be used as an instrument for reorganizing the urban neighbourhood, in order to boost opportunities for local residents, and provide a better economic framework for local business. 4. 8. To this end, more attention should be paid to the contribution which the public and the organizations (2) Opinion on the role of the EU in urban matters, OJ C 30, 30. 1. 1997, point 6. 3. 2. (3) Opinion on the role of the EU in urban matters, OJ C 30, 30. 1. 1997, point 6. 3. 3. (4) OJ C 287, 22. 9. 1997. C 95/94 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 3. 98 of civil society can make to urban planning. This will mean abandoning the entrenched practices which have restricted management functions to central and local authorities and a few experts chosen by them. worthwhile schemes are also now being undertaken for the renovation of inner cities and outer suburbs. 4. 9. It is important that local democracy should work synergically with the various strands of civil society (universities, associations and cultural centres, social groupings, and so on). 4. 10. Encouragement should be provided for for- ward-looking partnerships which bring together the various public authorities — with the support of socio-economic organizations, groups set up by the communities directly concerned, and private financial, organizational and professional resources — in schemes designed to meet the needs of local residents. Such partnerships can do much to promote social cohesion, and can also help to make the procedures of the local administrative authorities more efficient and more transparent. 4. 11. Deciding on priorities for infrastructure and services is an important aspect of urban and spatial administration, as disagreement is likely between differ- ent interest groups. 4. 11. 1. When deciding priorities, the prime aim must be to further the public interest. In tandem with this, it will be necessary to established precise ‘rules of the game’ and to make arrangements for hearings, consul- tations and decision-making, so as to reconcile the various interests as efficiently and transparently as possible. It must also be ensured that services are access- 4. 12. ible to all. The role of the EU can be crucial here. As the Commission states, ‘although Member States are free to define their own policies in this matter and (although the Commission) 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’ (point 3. 2 of the communication). 4. 13. Improvement of urban balance 4. 13. 2. Urban regeneration, involving the economic and functional improvement of rundown public and private buildings in city centres, provides a major opportunity to create new jobs and boost local develop- ment. 4. 13. 3. Regeneration schemes should focus on the restoration, maintenance, protection and safeguarding of heritage sites, beauty spots and the housing stock in general. Such schemes should be included in integrated urban regeneration programmes. 4. 13. 4. At the very least, steps must be taken to safeguard the social and cultural fabric and historical identity of areas that have a long-established residential population and a mix of small businesses and shops. Above all, this means maintaining a vital balance, with its profound socio-cultural implications that determine the very identity of the city, so as to ensure that regeneration does not drive out current residents. Such a balance will also serve to strengthen city dwellers’ sense of belonging. 4. 14. Outer suburbs pose a different problem. They are often neglected or treated merely as dormitories. In some particularly rundown neighbourhoods, disparities are so blatant that they are a constant threat to basic citizens’ rights. This can deeply wound urban communities. 4. 15. It is therefore important that urban policy- makers make the renewal of rundown areas a key objective, and that they allocate human and financial resources to this. 4. 15. 1. Intervention should address not only the physical aspects of urban decay (architectural, urban planning, environmental) but also the key social prob- lems of unemployment and exclusion. Neighbourhoods and suburbs must be viewed as parts of a single and distinctive whole, and these parts must be interlinked using appropriate instruments and criteria. Another complex problem for urban areas is how to improve the balance between city centre and suburbs. Countless analyses have been made, and a 4. 13. 1. variety of approaches adopted. A large number of 4. 15. 2. When revitalizing inner cities and upgrading suburbs, a ‘bottom-up’ approach should be adopted, with close involvement of local residents, the organ- izations of civil society, the social partners and cultural entities. 30. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 95/95 4. 15. 3. Local centres — scattered across the metro- politan area but linked by an efficient transport and communications network — can provide a location for prestigious activities relocated from the inner cities, at the same time helping to upgrade outer suburbs and easing congestion in city centres. 5. 2. 3. The Community has undoubtedly done much in recent years to help cities tackle their most serious problems. However, the results have not always lived up to expectations, chiefly because the lack of an overall strategy has meant piecemeal assistance and a ‘top-down’ approach to the selection of objectives. 4. 15. 4. The ultimate aim should be for each neigh- bourhood to become ‘a miniature city’ with dis- tinguishing features which give its residents a sense of belonging, a clear social identity, and a generalized feeling of solidarity (1). To this end, encouragement should be given to neighbourhood regeneration schemes which, although self-sufficient, also intrinsically support urban development in general. 5. Cities as an instrument for cohesion: the role of the Structural Funds 5. 2. 4. The Committee thinks that the reform of the Structural Funds provides an ideal opportunity for a radical change of direction. 5. 3. Some 80 % of the population lives and works in urban areas. Hence measures to tackle urban problems have a wide validity which entitles them to preferential allocation of funds. Urban considerations should also be a key plank of structural policies in general. The Structural Funds can play an important role 5. 1. in a policy for urban areas. 5. 3. 1. Selection of objectives should be ‘bottom-up’, directly involving the communities concerned and the relevant local government officials. 5. 1. 1. With a view to ensuring that funds are used more effectively to help urban areas, it is necessary to adopt ‘an integrated strategy between actions in urban areas and in their wider regions, as well as in terms of economic and human resource development’. 5. 2. Socio-economic cohesion — the fundamental objective of the funds — is a particular problem in urban areas, given the scale of the difficulties and their immediate social impact. 5. 2. 1. Significant economic assistance is needed to address a number of pressing problems, such as youth unemployment, the exclusion which threatens certain social groups and entire neighbourhoods, the new poverty, the needs of the elderly and the disabled, the rise in crime, and environmental decay. The Commission (2) estimates that 40 % of 5. 2. 2. ERDF financing (objectives 1 and 2) and between 50 % and 80 % of Cohesion Fund financing are currently used in urban areas. This adds up to a considerable proportion of structural support. 5. 3. 2. The Commission is moving in this direction when it states that ‘it is important that local authorities participate closely in the preparation and implemen- tation of regional development programmes’. However, this assumes that the local authorities have the requisite powers. 5. 4. target The reformed Structural Funds must resources directly at urban areas, coordinate and inte- grate this support with funding for the regions, and closely involve local residents, the social partners and the local authorities. 5. 4. 1. The Committee appreciates the Commission’s new approach to urban areas, as apparent in the reform of the Structural Funds. 5. 4. 2. In chapter II. 2 of Agenda 2000, the Commission states that the new objective 2 will also fund measures for ‘areas undergoing economic change’, and that the programmes to support new objective 2 areas will also support ‘urban areas in difficulty’. (1) For a more detailed illustration of this thesis, see R. Camagni, European cities and global competition: the economic challenge — report presented at the 2nd biennial conference of cities and urban planners in Europe, held in Rome on 8 to 13 September 1997, pages 10 to 13. (2) See Annex III: Estimate of the financial impact of the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund on cities, in communication COM(97) 197 final. 5. 4. 2. 1. The Commission goes on to mention ‘urban areas in difficulties’ with reference to social exclusion, concluding that ‘the development of rural areas should build better links between the countryside and local towns. This should facilitate the diversification of industrial, craft, cultural and service activities’. C 95/96 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 3. 98 5. 4. 2. 2. The Committee nevertheless considers, for the reasons mentioned above, and in view of the scale and urgency of the problems facing urban areas, that more details should be given on the political weight and role which towns and cities should assume in project planning, and of expenditure priorities ensuing from the reform of the Structural Funds envisaged in Agenda 2000. it would be appropriate to build on the Similarly, fundamental role of the partnership at all stages of Structural Fund procedures, from planning to final evaluation (1). It would be expedient to show how the urban dimension can be integrated into Objective 1 regional programmes, bearing in mind that an EU urban policy cannot ignore lagging regions beset by serious deficiencies in terms of income, production structures and employment. 5. 4. 3. cation’s intention to: The Committee also supports the communi- — concentrate Structural Fund expenditure on pockets of high unemployment in inner cities; — mainstream the experience gained in the Urban and Integra initiatives; — transfer urban development experience and best practices. Aside from the outlook presented in Agenda 2000, however, the Committee thinks that the approach adopted in Urban should be continued, as it has already yielded positive results and been politically important, and has addressed the problems facing the less prosper- ous urban areas in an integrated manner. Furthermore, it is in both the general interest and that of the socio-economic partners to call for a substantial upgrading of the programmes coming under ERDF Article 10, so as to develop flexible operational instru- ments that can be tailored to differing local circum- stances and changing conditions. The Committee also asks the Commission to consider the possibility of inserting EIB and EIF assistance more specifically in coordinated national and EU schemes. 5. 4. 4. When allocating resources, it must be borne in mind that cities are increasingly becoming centres of development and are crucial for a region’s competi- tiveness, but that they also face the greatest concentration of economic and social problems. 5. 4. 5. Hence, making urban areas a priority target for the Structural Funds will help to directly address (1) See the Opinion on the involvement of the economic and social partners in Community regional policy (OJ C 127, 7. 5. 1994). some particularly pressing social and economic prob- lems, such as youth and long-term unemployment, new forms of poverty, and new social exclusion of immigrants. 5. 5. The Structural Funds must be used to finance integrated measures; to set up businesses; to improve infrastructure and the environment; to provide training and social services; and to promote equal opportunities and employment. 5. 5. 1. Cities can become nodal points for local devel- opment. Here mention should be made of the welcome decision to monitor the progress of the territorial employment pacts, as these can be an instrument for relaunching and enhancing local development. Such instruments often focus on the city and its unemployment and exclusion problems. Moreover, this is the type of measures which the public feels to be closest to their needs. 6. The city network: information, exchange and trans- fer of innovation Exchange and replication of successful experi- 6. 1. ence, good practices and innovation should be stepped up. The Committee takes this opportunity to note 6. 2. that several points of the first official draft of the ESDP mention the desirability of giving the document a wide airing at European level before taking any operational decisions. The Committee hopes that the debate will be as wide and thorough as possible, involving not only the national and EU institutions but also the social partners, and non-governmental organizations and associations. An ‘urban audit to assess strengths and weak- 6. 3. nesses of European cities’ has been proposed by the Commission. Such an audit will greatly assist the formulation of a new EU policy approach to urban issues. The audit should extend beyond the EU to cover a few carefully chosen cities in non-member countries, so that a comparative analysis can be made of urban trends within and outside the EU. 6. 4. The audit will be ‘bottom-up’ with direct involve- ment of the local authorities. It will provide a broad and detailed picture of the ‘sustainability’ of urban development, and the resultant instruments and infor- mation will be extremely useful for guiding EU policies in the years ahead. 30. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 95/97 6. 5. These decisions go in the direction already advocated by the Committee when it spoke of ‘the case the for systematic EU monitoring of the state of EU’s cities and of the integrated urban development programmes and their results’ (1) and called for these results to be made available. The Committee therefore welcomes the proposed audit. 6. 6. Alongside this important instrument for infor- mation-gathering and discussion at EU level, networks and experience-swapping and cooperation between Europe’s cities should also be reinforced. Civil society, universities and researchers, town planners and socio- economic development specialists should take part in these exercises alongside the local authorities. their democratic support which gives the Union the strength and authority to ensure the success of its policies and to achieve its fundamental objectives. 7. 1. 2. The Committee therefore considers it desir- able, inter alia with an eye to the important discussions soon to be held on urban policy, that a redoubled commitment be made to cooperation with the European Parliament, which is already working very seriously in this sphere and may well decide to set up a specific body on the subject. 7. 2. Conclusions 6. 6. 1. Mention may be made of the biennial confer- ence of cities and urban planners, which brings together large numbers of academics and experts from all over Europe and has produced extremely fruitful discussions. The conference was launched in Lyon in 1995, and met again in Rome in September 1997. Firstly, the Committee feels that some priorities 7. 2. 1. for the urban agenda — relating to competitiveness and employment, economic and social cohesion and sustainable development — should be spelt out in more explicit terms than is done in the Commission communication. 6. 7. It is therefore important to step up transnational exchanges of experience between cities, with the objec- tive of amassing all useful and relevant experience in urban regeneration and sustainable development. The Commission should also draw on the work and experience of organizations and networks such as the sustainable cities campaign. 6. 7. 1. More opportunities should be created for city mayors and administrators from different countries to meet and debate together, focusing on various shared problems, the solutions to be adopted, and the results achieved. The Committee supports the Commission’s 6. 8. thoughts on the co-financing of programmes for net- works related to economic development, SMEs, tech- nology, environmental improvement and equal oppor- tunities. Such networking must be established and strengthened, as it brings people closer together and enables them to compare their experience and establish a practice of cooperation and experience-pooling functioning as a key pillar of a Europe of cities and citizens. 7. Final considerations 7. 1. Preliminary remark The Committee would stress the political 7. 1. 1. importance of cities. As has already been pointed out, 80 % of the EU population lives in urban areas, and it is 7. 2. 2. Conservation and management of the urban cultural heritage should be paramount. This is the first ‘policy option’ highlighted by the Noordwijk draft of the ESDP, and it is also of great symbolic importance. The historic and artistic heritage of Europe’s cities is part of our global heritage, as well as being an important economic resource which needs to be safeguarded and properly exploited. 7. 2. 3. It follows that there must be a serious commit- ment to the regeneration, restoration and conservation of the centres of major historic cities and of smaller towns with a strong cultural identity that must be preserved and strengthened. 7. 2. 4. Secondly, sustainable and integrated develop- ment also presupposes a commitment to improving outer suburbs. In the large metropolitan areas in particular, this could provide an opportunity for multi- centred development. This would help to relieve pressure on inner cities, and would give a precise role and socio-economic identity to neighbourhoods which are currently in decline. 7. 2. 5. The problem of how to enhance the quality of city life should also be tackled by boosting new telecommunication and transport technologies to link cities with the rest of their metropolitan area. 7. 2. 5. 1. The Committee stresses the need to pay careful attention to the problems faced by cities in remote regions, which are at a disadvantage in terms of overall competitiveness. This problem should be recognized, and redistribution policies adopted to encourage cohesion and regional integration. (1) Opinion on the role of the EU in urban matters, OJ C 30, 30. 1. 1997, point 6. 3. 6. The role which cities are able to play in the 7. 2. 6. new global economy will depend partly on the ability of C 95/98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 3. 98 the individual administrations to organize strategies for development and competitive — in the positive sense — provision of infrastructure and services. At all events, coordination policies will be needed in order to ensure that the pursuit of economic excellence does not prejudice the objectives of social equity and quality of life. Competitiveness should help to find practical solutions to a number of pressing social problems such as youth unemployment and the inte- gration of immigrants and the socially excluded. Special attention should be paid to the structural problem posed by the situation and role of the elderly, whose numbers are set to grow in the next few years throughout the EU. In conclusion, a new ‘sense of citizenship’ must be forged, based on participation and social solidarity. 7. 2. 7. All possible steps must be taken to encourage the dissemination of good practices. The urban audit planned by the Commission can be an excellent exercise and should be repeated periodically. 7. 2. 8. The Committee reiterates how important it is to take account of the urban dimension when framing Community policies, in particular as regards competi- tiveness, employment, social cohesion and sustainable development. 7. 2. 9. The Committee also thinks that the local authorities should be given the powers needed to devise and implement development programmes. 7. 2. 10. The Commission communication undoubt- edly represents a quantum jump in the approach to urban issues, as it views them as a key yardstick for future Community policies. This commitment would be strengthened if, following the success of the Noordwijk meeting, Council meetings on urban policies could be formally included in the annual schedule, so that the Brussels, 28 January 1998. work becomes a fully structured part of the Council programme. Urban policy — with due respect for the 7. 2. 11. subsidiarity principle — can provide an important interface for Community strategies on economic devel- opment and employment, infrastructure and networks, environment protection, exclusion and crime. 7. 2. 12. The Committee would again stress the urgent need to tackle the social and economic roots of the most acute problems in urban areas by reshaping urban development mechanisms and the machinery for gaining access to the opportunities offered by the system as a whole. 7. 2. 13. The Committee draws attention to the need to use integrated, finely targeted methods when conducting urban development schemes. It also stresses the need to involve local communities in the choice of objectives, and to use partnership arrangements when pursuing these objectives. 7. 2. 14. Conserving the specific cultural features of each city is also important. This heritage must be respected and upgraded in order to reaffirm city identity and its residents’ sense of belonging, as well as to strengthen their involvement in city life. 7. 2. 15. Turning to the resources to be allocated to cities, the Committee emphasizes the important role of the Structural Funds and appreciates the Commission’s intention to use them for urban problems. It would however urge the Commission to target the funds more precisely to urban development goals, and not to neglect the experience gained during the Urban initiative. Lastly, the Committee hopes that the measures 7. 2. 16. envisaged in the Commission communication and the decisions taken at the forum to be held in 1998 will effectively strengthen the locomotive role that cities play in the EU’s economic, social and cultural development. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS