Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Draft Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning economic and social regeneration of cities and of neighbourhoods in crisis in order to promote sustainable urban development - Urban'
23. 2. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 51/89 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Draft Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning economic and social regeneration of cities and of neighbourhoods in crisis in order to promote sustainable urban development — Urban’ (2000/C 51/19) On 19 October 1999 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Committee decided to appoint Mr Vinay as rapporteur-general for its opinion. At its 368th plenary session (meeting of 9 December 1999), the Economic and Social Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion. 1. Introduction 1. 1. The Commission communication sets out guidelines for a Community initiative, entitled Urban, for the economic and social regeneration of cities and deprived urban neighbour- hoods, with a view to promoting sustainable urban develop- ment, as defined in Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999. The Committee has had to draw up its opinion quickly because the Commission intends to adopt the relevant guidelines as soon as possible. The initiative follows the launch of the Commission’s 1. 2. highly innovative communication on Sustainable urban devel- opment in the European Union: A framework for action. The earlier communication set out four guidelines for addressing urban problems, building on the reform of the Structural Funds. The Committee recently issued a favourable opinion on this. (1) 2. The Commission proposal 2. 1. The Commission notes that the current Urban pro- grammes have delivered visible improvements in the quality of life in their target areas. It explains how this experience prompted it to use the framework for action in order to mainstream the urban dimension into Community policies and, in particular, to assistance from the Structural Funds. The Commission outlines the key points of the 2. 1. 1. framework for action and stresses the need to ensure that the new Urban offers distinct added value and is complementary to the other main programmes. Urban can provide a bridge between smallscale innovative schemes (piloted under Urban Pilot Projects and Life) and the adoption of an integrated approach in the main Structural Fund programmes. (1) OJ C 368, 20. 12. 1999 on Sustainable urban development in the European Union: A framework for action. 2. 1. 2. Urban’s chief aim is thus to promote the formulation and implementation of particularly innovative strategies for small and medium-sized towns and cities and for distressed neighbourhoods in larger cities. Urban regeneration strategies must adhere to certain 2. 2. principles. First and foremost, there must be a sufficient critical mass of population and support structures. A strong local partnership is also needed, in order to define challenges, strategies, priorities, resource allocation, and so on. The partnership should include economic and social players, NGOs, and residents’ groupings, including those active in the environmental field, as well as other interested bodies. 2. 2. 1. assistance under the Structural Funds. The strategies must complement the main forms of 2. 3. Some 50 urban areas may be covered under the new initiative, each with a population of at least 10 000. Each must present a single problem to be tackled within a coherent geographical area and must demonstrate, using national indicators, that it is in need of economic and social regener- ation or faces a crisis situation. The eligible areas, which must also meet at least three of the criteria listed in the Commission document, may be located either within or outside objective 1 and 2 areas. 2. 4. Schemes must also respect certain priorities, such as redevelopment of brownfield sites, improvement of security and prevention of delinquency, and reduction of urban sprawl. Employment pacts are a further priority, as are education and training pathways for excluded persons, integrated public transport systems, and measures to reduce private car use. Waste treatment is also prioritised, alongside water and energy management. A detailed list of eligible measures is appended to the Commission document. C 51/90 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 2. 2000 2. 5. The communication goes on to explain in detail the procedures for preparing, presenting and approving the individual programmes, and the arrangements for monitoring, implementing and evaluating assistance. 3. 1. 4. Thanks to its special features, Urban proved to be a worthwhile experience not just for its practical achievements but also in the more political task of bringing the EU closer to the public. The decision to continue it is thus a significant one. 2. 5. 1. Urban is to be allocated EUR 700 million for the period 2000-2006. The breakdown of funding between Member States has been decided on the basis of such criteria as urban population density and unemployment figures, including those for long-term unemployment. A total of 56 measures are listed in the Annex, with average funding of around EUR 12 million. Measures may cover individual neighbourhoods or, if consistent with the conditions laid down, towns of 30 000/40 000 inhabitants, grouping together several areas. 2 % of the overall allocation will be managed directly by the Commission and used for coordination, experi- ence swapping, assessment and formulation of indicators. 3. General comments 3. 1. The Committee welcomes the Commission proposal. During the discussions on the reform of the Structural Funds, the Committee — like the European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions — had argued that the Urban programme had been extremely worthwhile and should be retained. The Commission appreciated the wisdom of this and broadly agreed, and it is particularly gratifying that Urban is one of the first acts of the new Commission. 3. 1. 1. The request to renew the programme was made because Urban was viewed particularly favourably. In both its design and implementation, Urban (launched in 1994) presented certain special features. Firstly, it targeted particularly rundown urban areas and took an integrated socio-economic and infrastructural approach. Secondly, it sought to closely involve local authorities and public and private associations, and the local community. 3. 1. 2. In short, the distinguishing feature of Urban was to place the focus on local residents, and not just on structures (although it obviously affected these too). 3. 1. 3. Some 116 schemes were funded under the last Urban programme, for a total of EUR 900 million. Overall, these were highly successful as regards both quality and lasting effectiveness. 3. 2. The new programme contains several improvements. Firstly, priority (albeit not exclusive priority) is given to small and medium-sized towns which were marginalised in the preceding programme an important part of the EU’s urban landscape. and which are nevertheless 3. 2. 1. Also noteworthy is the emphasis on exchange of good practice, and the decision to provide financial instru- ments for activities run by the Commission in such areas as assessment, classification and classification methods. Lack of resources meant the previous programme laid little emphasis on these activities. that The Commission’s explanation of 3. 2. 2. the status of measures to improve housing is worth highlighting. In Annex I, it explains that the ERDF (which is the funding source for Urban) is unable to finance such measures but that when these are inseparable from other development measures for the area concerned, the programmes must give evidence of appropriate financial allocations from the relevant national and/or local authorities, additional to the total amount eligible under the particular Urban project. This averts the risk that programmes which are appropriate and necessary might prove ineffective because they are not buttressed by other essential projects. 3. 2. 3. The fact that the list of measures eligible under Urban has been considerably extended could be seen as a positive development, particularly as the list is not exhaustive and includes measures adopted under the last Urban programme and the Urban Pilot Projects. 3. 3. However, the Committee feels it useful to make a few specific comments on the methodology and content of the new Urban. The Committee has on several occasions stressed the 3. 3. 1. need to mainstream the consultation and partnership principle into all Structural Fund action (1). The European Parliament (2) has made similar calls. Yet this element, which provided the ‘added value’ of Urban, seems to have been downgraded in the new proposal. (1) See OJ C 407, 28. 12. 1998 — Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds — cf. also OJ C 368, 20. 12. 1999 on Sustainable urban development in the European Union: A framework for action. (2) Resolution on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds — COM (1998) 131 — C4-0285/98/0090(AVC)). 23. 2. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 51/91 3. 3. 2. The priority aims of Urban also seem to have been watered down in the long list of possible measures and chosen objectives. The new Urban no longer includes the previous programme’s modest but crucial goal of ‘acting as a catalyst in a broad-based approach, by undertaking key schemes to help deprived urban areas or cities with serious problems to achieve a lasting improvement in living standards for their inhabitants’. authorities and local operators, etc. ). ’ It should also be pointed out that the active participation of citizens’ associations and other social groupings in the planning and management of the socio-economic regeneration of their area has done much to ensure the success of both the current Urban initiative and the Community’s Leader initiative. 3. 3. 3. The new proposal appears to favour a whole host of activities relating to the action framework for sustainable urban development. These have their merits, but they form part of a wider and more comprehensive plan than is appropriate for Urban. The scope of the new Urban is also clearly laid down in the criteria for eligible areas. 3. 3. 4. Urban must not be allowed to become a ‘miniature’ the action framework, with an all-embracing version of approach. Instead, it should continue to be a targeted and effective instrument for crisis situations, promoting initial socio-economic rehabilitation which then allows the areas concerned to benefit from wider initiatives such as those mentioned under the four objectives of the action framework. 3. 3. 5. It seems unlikely that innovative schemes for waste disposal or the building of pedestrian paths can provide an instant panacea for urban areas which in non-bureaucratic language may be termed socially and economically desolate. Such schemes should be pursued as a matter of course in all urban areas. 3. 3. 6. The Committee therefore thinks that the objectives and measures of the new Urban should be geared more closely to those conditions which the current text (point 11) considers crucial for the approval of assistance. 4. Specific comments The Committee attaches particular importance to 4. 1. initiatives which encourage direct social involvement and participation in the various Community schemes, inter alia in the form of partnerships between social interest groups. The Committee therefore calls for the reinsertion in the indicative list of eligible measures of an item from the previous Urban programme, worded as follows: ‘support in improving local decision-making committees, exchange schemes, the creation of partnerships between local (neighbourhood capacity 4. 1. 1. Also on the subject of participation arrangements, the Committee would stress the valuable role played by the social partners in the areas covered by the projects, and particularly in the socio-economic context of the areas which Urban is to assist. Such areas face serious employment problems, and have difficulty regenerating their economic fabric. 4. 1. 2. The role of SMEs and craft businesses should also receive greater emphasis, as these are often the mainstay of the urban economy. These businesses are the main creators of jobs and prosperity in the smaller towns and cities which are the priority targets of the new Urban. The Committee is pleased to see that the eligible 4. 2. measures include advice on security and crime prevention. Here mention should also be made of schemes involving commercial businesses and private areas that are used by the public. 4. 3. The instructions regarding procedures are extremely extensive and detailed. This may be beneficial but it may also create red tape. Except for a few essential specific points, it might be enough simply to refer the reader to the new regulation on the Structural Funds, as this covers virtually all the provisions mentioned. 4. 4. The reduction in the overall financial allocation for Urban may be a logical consequence of the changes made in the use of the Structural Funds. However, the Commission should do all it can to increase the allocation, not least because the 56 new measures proposed in the new initiative are to cover a programming period that runs from 2000 to 2006. Such a watered-down initiative runs counter to the Com- mission’s intention that Urban should have a strong visible impact both locally and at EU level. The Committee therefore thinks that the number of scheduled schemes should be increased. 4. 5. Lastly, and to underscore the comments made in this opinion and in its recent opinion (1) on the framework for action, the Committee would draw attention to the conclusions of the recent first convention of civil society organisations. In the topics discussed at the convention are several ways, (1) Cf. OJ C 368, 20. 12. 1999 on Sustainable urban development in the European Union: A framework for action. C 51/92 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 2. 2000 relevant to the Urban initiative and to urban policies in general. Ultimately, the key to the success of any initiative will lie in the EU’s ability to develop an interactive relationship with its citizens and with the environments in which they live and operate, where decisions are taken that will affect the lives of future generations. Brussels, 9 December 1999. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Draft Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory (Interreg)’ (2000/C 51/20) On 19 October 1999 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned draft communication. The Committee decided to appoint Mr Barros Vale as rapporteur-general for its opinion. At its 368th plenary session (meeting of 9 December 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 78 votes to one, with five abstentions. 1. Introduction 2. General assessment 1. 1. The present opinion has been drawn up subject to the constraints imposed by the fact that the Committee is being consulted, as a matter of urgency, at an early stage in the institutional procedure. The tight deadline obliges the Committee to be systematic and home in on the key issues if it is to offer its opinion in good time. The Committee may issue a more detailed opinion on the Interreg III programme at a later date, using the traditional format. This later opinion will be able to consider the experience and lessons drawn from the operational measures which preceded the programme, and assess its future prospects. In any event, the Committee welcomes Commissioner 1. 2. Barnier’s move to consult it at this stage, and hopes that this will become standard practice in such situations. The Committee welcomes the proposal, which follows 2. 1. its past recommendations to reduce the number of Community initiatives and extend their scope and capabilities. However, the Committee regrets that the Commission’s proposals are not backed by information on the results of activities during the previous period. 2. 2. The Committee welcomes the plan to involve the economic and social partners more closely in the various stages of the programme. 2. 3. The proposal to oblige the regional authorities to involve local organisations right from the design stage of each programme is also a welcome step. The fact that the programmes will not depend solely on the central authority, but also on local players and operators, should make it easier to adapt them to the situation on the ground in each group of regions concerned, and should also make for more decentrali- sed and effective action