Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Community Framework for cooperation to promote sustainable urban development"

(2000/C 204/08)

On 10 May 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 May 2000. The rapporteur was Mr Vinay.

At its 373rd plenary session of 24 and 25 May 2000 (meeting of 24 May), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 106 votes for and four abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. The proposal for a Community Framework for cooperation to promote sustainable urban development derives from a number of sources: long-standing commitments on the part of the EU, studies of the current situation, repeatedly-stated sustainability requirements and, lastly, the initiatives envisaged by the recent Communication on "Sustainable urban development in the European Union: a framework for action" and by other provisions.

1.2. The EC and all its Member States signed conventions at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and committed themselves to Agenda 21, the global action plan for sustainable development. At almost the same time, the EC launched the fifth environment action programme, which will soon terminate.

1.2.1. Further commitments were made at the Kyoto Conference in 1997, where a decision was taken on a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, to be achieved between 2008 and 2012.

1.3. Overall, under the fifth programme and a series of directives, limits have been set and encouraging results secured, at least as far as certain specific emissions and water treatment are concerned: much still remains to be done, however, in terms of widespread and comprehensive sustainability.

1.3.1. One of the primary nodal points for effective achievement of sustainable development is represented by urban areas, which cover close to a quarter of the EU's land surface and account for some 80 % of its population.

1.3.2. For numerous reasons - such as mobility systems and requirements, concentration of energy and water consumption, urban and production structures, population density, waste disposal or microclimatic changes - cities crystallise environmental problems in concentrated form. Such problems are acutely felt by citizens, particularly where they concern air quality, noise pollution and, especially in the southern Member States, water resources.

1.3.2.1. The poor quality - in some cases outright decline - of the urban environment is the direct result of old spatial planning policy, services and infrastructure quality, inadequate or non-existent maintenance and collective and individual lifestyles, all of which must be transformed, and sometimes of the proximity of production sites. Two elements are crucial to progress in all these areas: an irreversible shift to sustainability in local authority decision-making, and informed, aware participation by concerned parties: the public authorities, citizens and businesses. However, as the Sustainable Cities Report of the Expert Group on Urban Environment pointed out, there are several causes for the shortcomings in the implementation of environmental legislation at local level, the chief one being the lack of information on good practice.

1.4. Numerous recent programmes and Community initiatives, including the framework for action and Urban, lay vigorous claim to the concept of sustainability in urban policy and call for the dissemination of good practice and of strongly innovative projects which, whatever their aim, also have the effect of significantly improving environmental quality.

2. The Commission proposal

2.1. Following a lengthy list of recitals referring to the points described above, a proposal is made to set up a Community framework for cooperation to encourage the conception, exchange and implementation of good practices with regard to sustainable urban development and Local Agenda 21. The main partners in the framework are stated to be the Commission and the networks of towns and cities organised at European level.

2.1.1. The types of activity eligible for financial support are indicated: these correspond in practice to the aims already listed. It is also stated that support may be provided to any network of towns and cities organised at European level, and that the activities concerned must take place within three years of receipt of such support.

2.2. The Commission will determine which activities are to be funded, as indicated above, and publish a description of the priority activities for support and of the selection arrangements, and application and approval procedures, in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

2.2.1. The Commission will ensure consistency, complementarity and synergy between these activities and other Community programmes and initiatives, particularly Urban. It is specified that projects under the LIFE instrument cannot be funded under the cooperation framework.

2.3. Having defined a number of points concerning individual types of support, the proposal goes on to lay down the criteria for selection of priority activities. These include: a lasting multiplier effect at European level; effective and balanced cooperation regarding the activities themselves and the financial participation; and a multinational approach encompassing both the EU Member States and neighbouring countries. The importance of a multisectoral approach is also emphasised.

2.3.1. The cooperation framework is open to the Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC) in accordance with the conditions laid down in the relevant agreements and protocols. It is also open to Cyprus and Malta, on the basis of additional appropriations under specific arrangements for them.

2.3.2. The Commission will be responsible for defining verification and audit procedures regarding the activities of the beneficiaries of Community support. In this respect, reference is made to certain Treaty articles, indicating a number of administrative steps it may take in the event of omission or non-fulfilment.

2.4. Lastly, it is established that a list of the beneficiaries of support and the amounts provided shall be published in the Official Journal, and that the Commission shall publish a report on the implementation of the cooperation framework by the end of March 2003.

2.4.1. The annexes contain a list of the eligible types of activity, with an overall breakdown of the total amount available. This is set at EUR 12,4 million for the four-year period.

3. General comments

3.1. The Committee welcomes the Commission's proposal, which is designed to provide a major boost to the dissemination of knowledge both to local authorities and in order to encourage citizens to participate in an informed way.

3.1.1. As was also emphasised at the recent meeting in Porto of EU environment ministers - and in terms which the Committee fully supports - many of Europe's most serious environmental problems arise in urban areas, often in close connection with global environmental challenges, and are of a scale affecting the quality of life of millions of citizens. A consistent, sustainable approach to urban development policy can however significantly improve the quality of life in towns and cities.

3.1.2. In a series of opinions, the Committee has voiced a strong interest in, and concern for, the quality of the urban environment(1), the close link between urban policy and sustainable development(2), and the importance, in addition to devising and supporting innovative actions, of effective dissemination of good practices in pursuing these objectives.

3.1.3. However, the Commission document contains some points which need clarification and some definitions which should be tightened up.

3.2. Specific reference is made, both in the recitals at the beginning of the proposal and in point 9.2 "Grounds for the operation" of the Annex, to Action 20 under the framework for action for sustainable urban development. They cite in particular the Commission's undertaking to support local government networking actions, which are also open to cities in the applicant countries, and to ensure a legal framework for funding such activities on a multiannual basis. These included, where appropriate, the European Sustainable Cities and Towns Campaign, a European Mobility Management Platform, Car Free Cities, Local Integration and Action favouring ethnic minorities, Local Energy Agencies and many other initiatives.

3.2.1. Some uncertainty arises at this point because it is not clear, on the basis of this reference, whether the purpose of the proposal is, as stated in Article 1, to encourage the conception, exchange and implementation of good practices with regard to sustainable urban development - something which could be done by any network of cities organised at European level - or, on the other hand, to support the networking of local bodies for the reasons listed above.

3.2.2. Moreover, the explanatory memorandum claims that the partners of the future framework for cooperation are the Commission and the European Sustainable Cities and Towns Campaign and networks of cities. The "Financial impact" and "Elements of cost-effectiveness analysis" sections of the annexes set out details of the campaign's expenditure, activities and objectives: this is repeated and assessed in very favourable terms in point 9.2 "Grounds for the operation". Point 9.3 "Monitoring and evaluation of the operation" mentions the campaign, as apparently does the section on "Administrative expenditure".

3.2.3. As indicated earlier, the European Sustainable Cities and Towns Campaign, along with other initiatives, is mentioned in the framework for action for sustainable urban development in the EU. It is an interesting initiative which has been promoted by a number of cities including those involved in the 1994 Aalborg European conference on sustainable cities, and also supported by five major networks of cities with financial assistance from the Commission's environment DG.

3.2.3.1. It is therefore encouraging that continued support for the initiative is planned, but the Commission proposal identifies all networks of cities organised at European level as participants in the framework for cooperation - without giving advance preference to any particular entities.

3.3. Initiatives planned under Action 20 of the framework for action included development of an urban dimension in the new "European network for detection of good practice", under the future Innovative Actions for the Structural Funds. The purpose was to collect and disseminate good practice and facilitate exchange of experience not only on the framework for action, but also all urban sustainable development projects undertaken via other EU-funded programmes. It is also worth noting that the Urban initiative, which is not mentioned in the framework for action as it was launched subsequently, has a specific budget allocation for disseminating good practice.

3.3.1. In the opinion on sustainable urban development: a framework for action(3), the Committee fully endorsed the creation of a "positive" information network for good practice, and stressed the importance of information, findings and results as a whole being geared to the coherent development of all four of the objectives set out, and defined as interdependent, in the framework for action.

3.3.2. The concept of sustainable development, and more specifically for cities, is not - and indeed cannot be - restricted to the environmental aspect alone, but also rests upon economic and human resources and the achievement of social sustainability. The March 1996 report of the Expert Group on Urban Development explained how the sustainable urban management process combined environmental, social and economic aspects. In its recent communication on its work programme for 2000(4), the Commission itself emphasised that the 6th Environmental Action Programme would constitute the environmental pillar of a more comprehensive sustainable development programme, stating that the key challenge remained reconciling sustainable environmental development with social progress and sustainable economic development.

3.3.3. While referring explicitly to an integrated environmental approach as part of a strategic framework, the proposal - as its title makes clear - sets out to promote sustainable urban development. The Committee naturally welcomes this. More specific guidance should however be given on how the initiatives covered can be correlated and brought together with all existing or forthcoming measures to disseminate the entire wide range of possible good practices deriving from the framework for action or other Community programmes or initiatives which, although with varying aims and sometimes with no specific reference to environmental issues, nevertheless contribute to sustainable urban development.

3.3.4. Some form of tie-in with the Commission's interservice group should also be introduced. As specified in the framework for action, the group's duties include checking on the progress made in its implementation, and close monitoring of the work of the European network in identifying the best available solutions to urban problems.

3.3.5. In the light of the comments made above, Article 4 of the proposal, referring to consistency, complementarity and synergy with other Community programmes and initiatives, appears insufficiently detailed. This is all the more so given that the framework for action specifies that a number of cross-cutting actions with multiple purposes such as the establishment of an integrated network of databases on urban issues, benchmarking and indicators will be the joint responsibility of relevant services.

3.3.6. The Commission's initiatives in this area are, however, welcomed. These include the setting up in 1998 of a database of good urban management and sustainable development practice, and the recent introduction of common European indicators, through a series of 10 local sustainability indicators. Such initiatives are necessary, and should be consolidated.

4. Specific comments

4.1. The Committee would emphasise that it welcomes the content of the proposal, but believes that rather than a framework for coordinating dissemination of good practice, it constitutes a procedure aimed at supporting local government networking activities - as previously announced by Action 20 of the framework for action. The title of the proposal should therefore be amended accordingly.

4.1.1. Action of this kind needs to be supported at Community level, and is fully in keeping with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality set out in Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

4.1.2. The Committee wishes to emphasise that it favours an initiative to support local government networking. Networking brings added value to all sectors, deriving directly and chiefly from the pooling of knowledge and procedures, leading not only to greater overall efficacy for initiatives undertaken by those involved, but also to lower implementation and experimentation costs for individual actions. The aim of providing Community support for city networks is therefore of enormous importance, as these networks are the main agents for sustainable development - from the environmental point of view in particular, as explained above.

4.1.3. From this point of view, it is crucial that this provision be effectively open to all networks, with no predetermined channels or preferred approaches for any of them. Since local authorities which are already alert to environmental issues often find it easier to join networks, the cities involved should encourage other urban centres to become involved, resulting in a sort of "mixed-ability" network of cities with varying levels of progress in the sustainable environment process.

4.1.4. The Committee would also recommend that all network initiatives under the Community Framework for cooperation be accompanied by an "impact statement" covering the cost-benefit ratio and outcome of the initiative. These statements should be made public.

4.1.5. The Committee also believes that broad, effective European-level coordination in disseminating good sustainable development practice is absolutely vital, given the wide range of measures and bodies involved and the multiple opportunities they provide. These extend beyond local authorities to include the Member States, industry, research centres, universities, new technology companies etc.

4.1.6. Efficiently coordinated dissemination of information and know-how, designed to have the broadest possible impact, must also contain either a definition of clear, stable and universally accepted integrated economic, social and environmental indicators, which is one of the framework's objectives, or a kind of acquis communautaire for the overall concept of sustainability against a backdrop of analytic reference to the principle of subsidiarity. The Committee feels that a wide-ranging audit would be a useful step in this direction.

4.2. The Commission's text tackles possible implications for employment only in point 9.2(C) of the annex, where the potentially positive effects of the measure in this area are mentioned.

4.2.1. The Committee has repeatedly emphasised the crucial importance of a fruitful combination of the twin priorities of environmental protection and job creation(5), as something which is not only possible and necessary in practice, but which would also be helpful in refuting the widespread preconception that there is a fundamental incompatibility between the two elements. The ESC therefore feels that spin-offs of this kind should also be sought, analysed and publicised when disseminating good practice, and that this aspect should be clearly spelled out in the decision.

4.2.2. The potential function of the social partners in association with local authorities should also be emphasised, particularly with regard to designing good practice in sustainable urban environmental development sectors. Significantly, Agenda 21 highlights the important role of the social partners in pursuing sustainable development.

4.2.3. In general, the document remains rather vague on how individual citizens and economic or civil society organisations can be actively involved. Their participation, taken as a group, is only mentioned as the last of the criteria for selecting priority activities [Article 6.1(f)].

4.3. In contrast, the inclusion of the CEEC in the measure is to be warmly welcomed, not simply on political grounds but also because it broadens the opportunities for exchange and cooperation, and because they are on the whole countries suffering from particularly serious environmental problems, especially in their urban areas.

4.3.1. Agenda 2000 had already emphasised how the environment was one of the key issues in enlargement. The Commission subsequently drew up a communication(6) specifically on accession strategies for the environment, in which it argued that the convergence of the applicant countries in environmental terms merited special attention. The Committee agrees with the support for local authorities mentioned in the proposal, which the above-mentioned communication had already signalled as necessary, and is convinced that involvement of CEEC cities in European urban networks is of the greatest importance, as part of a strategic approach to environmental sustainability.

4.3.2. The Committee believes that European networks should also draw cities from neighbouring non-EU countries, such as those in north-eastern Europe and the Mediterranean, into the exchange of good practice and takes this opportunity to urge that the decentralised cooperation programmes under the Euro-Mediterranean partnership be reactivated.

Brussels, 24 May 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice Rangoni Machiavelli

(1) Own-initiative Opinion on the role of the EU in urban matters, OJ C 30, 30.1.1997.

(2) Opinion on the Commission Communication: towards an urban agenda in the European Union, OJ C 95, 30.3.1998.

(3) OJ C 368, 20.12.1999.

(4) COM(2000) 155 final of 9.2.2000.

(5) Opinion on the Communication from the Commission on environment and employment (building a sustainable Europe), OJ C 235, 27.7.1998.

(6) COM(1998) 294 final.