Communication from the Commission - Towards an urban agenda in the European Union
Date: 1997-05-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU policy, European Regional Development Fund, urban area, urban population, urbanisation

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 06.05.1997 
COM(97)  197 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

Towards an urban agenda 
in the European Union 

- 2-

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 

1.  CHALLENGES FACING EUROPE'S CITIES 

1.1 Cities in a changing context 

1.2 Cities, unemployment and social exclusion 

1.3 Imbalances in the European urban system 

1.4 Urban Environment 

1.5 Fragmentation of power and integration of urban society 

2.  CURRENT ACTIONS AT EU  LEVEL RELATED TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

2.1 Promoting competitiveness and employment 

2.2 Policy in favour of economic and social cohesion 

2.3 Transport and transEuropean Networks 

2.4 Promoting sustainable development and the quality of life in cities 

3. DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE 

3.1 The need for an urban perspective in European Union policies 

3.2 Services of public interest and urban development 

3.3 Contribution of the Structural Funds 

3.4 Raising knowledge and promoting exchange of experience between cities 

4.  FOLLOW UP OF THE COMMUNICATION 

ANNEXES 

Annex 1 

Socio-economic data on urban deprivation 

Annex 2 

Local expenditures in the EU Member States 

Annex 3 

Impact of the structural funds on cities 

Annex 4 

Some relevant forthcoming events 

3 

4 

5 

6 

6 

7 

8 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

16 

17 

INTRODUCTION 

Europe's towns and cities remain  its primary  source  of  wealth creation  and  the centre  of  its 
social  and  cultural  development.  However,  there  are  rising  problems  relating  to  rapid 
economic  adjustments,  unemployment,  environmental  conditions  and  traffic  congestion  but 
also poverty, poor housing, crime and drug abuse. 

Policy efforts  in Europe already address many of the problems affecting  European cities; but 
these  efforts  have  often  been  piecemeal,  reactive  and  lacking  in  vision.  It  is  clear that  new 
efforts  are necessary to strengthen or restore the role of Europe's cities as places of social and 
cultural  integration,  as sources  of economic  prosperity  and  sustainable  development,  and  as 
the bases of democracy. 

At  the  European  level,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Committee  of  Regions  have 
supported a more active intervention from the Union in urban development, and the Member 
States and the European  Commission  acknowledged  their common  concern  about the  future 
sustainable  development  of  cities  at  the  recent  UN  Conference  on  Sustainable  Urban 
Development (Habitat II). 

This  Communication  examines  possibilities  for  improving  urban  development  and  for 
increasing the effectiveness  of existing Community  intervention in urban areas. The intention 
is not to develop Europe wide urban policies for matters which are best dealt with at a local or 
regional scale. However, since it is clear that cities in the European Union are facing a number 
of common problems, there are also opportunities at the European scale to share and  facilitate 
potential  solutions. This would  not  require  additional  powers  at the  European  level.  Rather, 
much can be achieved through a more focused approach using existing instruments at national 
and Community level and enhanced co-operation and co-ordination at all levels. 

There  are two  further  elements  which  should  be  taken  into  account  when  discussing  urban 
issues at EU level. First, the challenges related to urban  development  provide an  opportunity 
for the EU to become a more meaningful  body for its citizens by bringing tangible benefits  to 
daily lives. It also requires a more explicit recognition of the importance of local democracies, 
the  level  of  political  authority  closest  to  the  citizen.  Second,  cities  play  a  crucial  role  in 
underpinning a European model of society, based on equal opportunities regardless of gender 
and  ethnic  origin.  Whilst  urban  authorities  cannot  be the  sole agencies  to  act  on  these  large 
issues, they should be fully  involved in the policies related to these matters, as there can be no 
effective  solutions on the ground without their active participation. 

This Communication  is structured  into four  parts. The first  part  sets out the key  challenges 
which  affect  all cities to a greater  or lesser  degree. The  second part  takes  stock  of  existing 
EU policies which have an impact, directly  or indirectly,  on cities. The third  part  proposes 
some  directions  for  future  actions  and  the  approach  which  urban  policy  in  Europe  could 
follow-up  of  this 
take  as  a  starting  point  for  debate.  Finally,  fourth  part  proposes  a 
communication, in particular the organisation of an Urban Forum in  1998. 

1.  CHALLENGES  FACING EUROPE'S  CITIES 

Some  80% of  the  European  population  lives  in  towns  or  cities,  making  Europe  the  most 
urbanised continent in the world. Although there is a great variety in European urban areas, 
they face common features which are briefly  summarised in this first  section. 

1.1  Cities in a changing context 

Around  20% of  Europeans  live  in  larger  conurbations  of more then  250,000  inhabitants, a 
further  20% in medium sized cities and 40% in towns of  10-50,000 inhabitants. London and 
Paris are the only two European agglomerations with approximately  10 million inhabitants. 

Demographic data confirm  that the urbanisation  of European society is continuing, although 
at a slower rate than in previous decades. 

The population growth of cities is a result of natural growth rates, inflows  from  rural or less 
prosperous  areas  and  from  migration  especially  from  third  countries.  At  the  international 
level, the EU has been an important destination for immigrants and this has helped to  offset 
the  trend  of  population  decline.  In  1990  for  instance,  an  estimated  2,1  million  persons 
entered  into  the  Member  States  from  abroad,  while  almost  1 million  people  left  the  EU. 
Apart  from  Ireland,  all  Member  States  nowadays  are  experiencing  net  immigration. 
Estimates for the period  1987-1991 suggest that two thirds of immigrants have moved  into 
large industrial agglomerations and capital cities. 

Other  cities,  however,  have  experienced  declining  population  during  the  1980s.  The 
disappearance  or  relocation  of  traditional  employers  and  suburbanisation  are  the  main 
causes for  this decline. Brussels, London,  Paris, Lille, Porto, Hannover,  Torino,  Barcelona, 
and  the  Randstad  cities  in  the  Netherlands  are  all  examples  where  the  centres  of  the  city 
have lost population  compared  to their periphery. This dispersal  of home, work and  leisure 
facilities entails, inter alia, an increasing need to travel. 

In terms of  economic  performance,  larger  cities  remain  the  main  source  of  prosperity,  and 
they  contribute  disproportionately  more  to  regional  or  national  GDP  compared  to  their 
population,  reflecting  the  higher  productivity  of  cities.  However,  GDP  growth  has  often 
been  of  a  'jobless'  nature.  For  instance,  the  urban  regions  of  Brussels,  Rhine  Ruhr  and 
London  had  annual  GDP  growth  figures  of  5% to  6%,  while  annual  employment  creation 
over the same period was +0,2 (Brussels), +0,1 (Rhine-Ruhr), and -0,2 (London).  Similarly, 
some  medium-sized  cities,  such  as  Parma,  Rennes,  Cambridge,  Braga  and  Volos,  have 
continued to grow on the basis of economic success. 

In most cities, total employment increased during the period  since the mid-1980s due to the 
significant  expansion of the service sector, which represents today  some 60% to  80% of all 
jobs  in cities  and  which  in most  cases compensated  for  the  loss  of  industrial  employment. 
Roughly  one  third  of  service jobs  is  situated  in  the  non-market  sector  of  services,  which 
includes  public  administration,  education,  health,  community  and  social  services,  as  seen 
for  example  in  cities  such  as  Brussels,  Rome,  Helsinki,  Stockholm  and  Copenhagen.  In 
many cities, however, the growth of non-market  services is limited by constraints on public 
expenditure.  As  far  as  the  other  2/3  of  service  jobs  are  concerned,  they  are  mainly  in 
financial  services,  insurance,  transport  and  communications,  retail  trade,  and  hotels  and 
restaurants. 

The  cities  which  have  had  the  greatest  difficulty  adjusting  to  changing  circumstances  are 
those  formerly  dependent  on  resource  based  industries  or  situated  in  regional  economies 
which  depend  on  a  traditional  agricultural  sector.  Cities  in  the  east  of  Germany  have 
specific  difficulties,  especially  as they  are undergoing  the  rapid  restructuring  which  lasted 
for decades in other EU cities. 

- 5-

It is clear that the future  development  of cities will be structured  by different  elements than 
in  the  past.  An  increased  importance  will  be  gained  by  service  activities,  such  as 
telecommunications  and  transport,  biotechnology,  high-tech  business,  international  trade 
and  retailing, and  by the development  of the  information  society1  as well  as education  and 
research.  Also,  the  environment  and  broader  quality  of  life  conditions  are  becoming 
increasingly  important  factors  which  influence  the  location  of  new  activities.  Cities 
therefore  face  the  challenge  of  adapting  themselves  continuously  to  rapid  changes  in 
economic  sectors and  in other  fields.  This new mode of development  implies the risk  of a 
further  dualisation of urban societies, and raises the challenge for retraining the labour  force 
on a continuous basis. 

1.2  Cities, unemployment and social exclusion 

While problems of  data  availability  are considerable,  estimates  tend  to  confirm  that  urban 
unemployment  is  above  the  EU  average.  The  densely  populated  zones  of  the  EU  had  an 
unemployment rate of  11,9% in  1995, compared  to  10,8% for the rural  areas, and  9,0%  for 
the  areas  which  have  semi-urbanised  characteristics,  and  which  are  often  situated  close  to 
highly  urbanised  centres2.  The  EU  average  in  1994  amounted  to  10,8%.  The  average 
numbers  hide different  realities.  Some  cities  have  relatively  low  unemployment  rates  (e.g. 
Milan, Frankfurt),  while others exceed the national and European averages by at least a fifth 
(e.g. Brussels, Birmingham, Kôln, Copenhagen, Naples, Palermo, etc.). 

The present  development  of new economic opportunities  in many  cities  is widening  social 
and  economic  disparities.  While  the  better  qualified  part  of  the  labour  force  is  able  to 
compete  in  an  open  economy,  a  more  vulnerable  group  has  emerged  which  lives  in 
permanent  or  semi-permanent  exclusion.  Educational  attainment  and  access  to  the  labour 
market  have become major  factors  dividing the urban population.  Important  in this  respect 
is that half of the EU unemployed are long term unemployed, whereas in densely  populated 
areas,  long-term  unemployment  amounts  to  56,1%  of  total  unemployment.  In  cities, 
multiple  deprivation  is  expressed  in  rising  poverty  and  homelessness,  by  social  isolation, 
bad housing conditions, drug abuse, and criminal  behaviour. 

In  many  European  cities,  exclusion  has  led  to  the  spatial  segregation  of  social  groups  in 
neighbourhoods  with  poor  facilities.  This  pattern  has  long  been  present  in  Northern 
European  cities,  and  it  is  growing  as  well  in  cities  of  Southern  Europe.  Some  urban 
neighbourhoods  within  bigger  cities  have  unemployment  rates  above  30%  (see  annex  I), 
and  very  low  educational  attainment  rates.  Also,  social  exclusion  in  many  cities  overlaps 
with  the  cultural  and  linguistic  diversity  of  many  neighbourhoods,  where  the  educational 
system faces specific  demands. It is by now increasingly  recognised that spatial  segregation 
is not only a social problem in terms of employment, education and low quality  of housing, 
but  that  the  socially  deviant  behaviour  which  results  from  segregation  harms  the  general 
economic attractiveness of the city. 

See also COM(96)607 of 27.11.96: 'Europe at the forefront  of the Global  Information  Society: Rolling 
Action  Plan'. 

2  Data from  the Labour Force Survey for  11 KU countries (not for Luxembourg, Austria, Sweden, 

Finland). Densely populated zones have more than 500 inhabitants per km2, and cover 50% of the LU 
population. Rural areas have less than  100 inhabitants per km2, and cover 22% of the population. 28% of 
the population  lives in intermediate zones, which have between  100 and 500 inhabitants per km2. 

1.3  Imbalances in the European urban system 

- 6-

Globalisation  and  the shift  from  industries  to  services  have  not  diminished  the  importance 
of  space  for  economic  development.  In  particular,  metropolitan  areas  located  at  strategic 
and  well  equipped  nodal  points are  likely  to  gain  considerable  influence  at the  expense  of 
more peripheral  and less well equipped towns and cities. The dominance  of such  areas can 
especially  be  seen  in  transport  connections.  In  1993, the  London-Paris  airline  link  carried 
twice  as  many  passengers  as any  other  route  in  Europe.  Crucial  for  the  spatial  balance  of 
urban  development  is  the  equipment  of  cities  with  services  which  allows  them  to  attract 
modern  market  activities.  Peripheral  gateway  cities  such  as  Athens,  Valencia,  Palermo, 
Thessaloniki, Belfast,  Lisbon and  Seville, and industrial  cities such as Turin, Glasgow, and 
Bilbao,  face  disadvantages  in  this  respect  compared  to  central  gateway  cities  such  as 
Antwerp,  Bremen,  Rotterdam,  and  cities  such  as  Hannover,  Lyon,  and  Vienna,  which  all 
have a more diversified  range of activities and good accessibility. 

The medium  cities which  are well connected  to highly  performant  economies  have  also an 
obvious  advantage  compared  to  others.  Medium  cities  in the  core  of  the  Union's  territory 
are  expected  to  profit  more  from  the  benefits  of  European  integration  than  cities  in  the 
periphery. 

1.4  Urban  Environment 

People  in  urban  areas are more and more  concerned  about the quality  of their  natural  and 
physical  environment.  Despite considerable  efforts,  many problems remain. A  1995 survey 
by the European Environment Agency  showed that 70 to 80% of European cities with more 
than 500,000 inhabitants do not meet the World Health Organisation's  quality  standards  for 
air. Also, the concentration of 'winter smog'  affects  around 70 million EU citizens in cities. 
In Milan, Turin, Stuttgart, Belfast,  Dublin and Berlin, for instance, 'winter  smog'  indicators 
are sometimes twice above the quality  standard ceiling. Finally, ozone concentrations  affect 
around 80% of the EU population at least once a year. 

Besides  industry  and  domestic  heating, urban transport  is a major  source of pollution.  The 
use  of  the  private  car  has  grown  more  rapidly  than  any  other  transport  means,  and  is 
predicted  to  rise  further  in  the  near  future.  The  rising  concentration  of  cars  in  the  city 
diminishes  the  positive  effects  on  the  environment  which  results  from  cleaner  car 
technologies.  The  urban  environment  also  faces  other  serious  problems  such  as  the 
treatment of solid waste and of urban wastewater. 

Apart  from  its  negative  effect  on  the  quality  of  the  urban  environment,  including  noise 
pollution, traffic  congestion reduces the mobility in and accessibility  of cities, and increases 
the  production  costs  of  the  urban  economy.  In  London  and  Paris,  the  average  speed  of 
transport by car or by truck has been reduced to the speed that was reached at the beginning 
of this century with more primitive means. 

Besides  the  very  important  aspects  above, the  physical  and  cultural  heritage  of  buildings, 
public  spaces  and  urban  design  are  also  important  elements  in  the  quality  of  life  for 
inhabitants of  urban areas. 

Environmental  issues  are  common  to  all  urban  areas  but  there  are,  of  course,  significant 
differences  in  the  experience  in  different  towns  and  cities.  For  example,  the  quality  and 
quantity  of  green  space that  is offered:  some  cities  such  as Hannover,  Evora  and  Brussels 

devote  more than  20% of their  surface  to  green  spaces, while  Rotterdam  and  Madrid  have 
5% or less. 

In  the  wider  environment,  urban  planning  in  the  past  has  not  always  contributed  to  the 
potential  of  cities  and  of  neighbourhoods  to  provide  various  functions  simultaneously. 
Monofunctional  areas  have  emerged,  related  to  specific  elements  of  human  life  (work, 
shopping, leisure, living). Such areas reduce the potential of cities to become a space where 
people can develop their  lives to the fullest.  Change  is needed  to  urban  planning  policy  to 
allow for greater sustainability, mix and diversity, to bring back the city as a lively  meeting 
place for all activities at all times of the day. 

1.5  Fragmentation of power and integration of urban society 

The principle  factors  of  integration  in  urban  society  go  beyond  those  of  the  economy  and 
the  labour  market.  Apart  from  offering  work,  prosperity  and  commerce,  cities  also  offer 
opportunities for leisure, learning, and cultural development. Cities should provide a "living 
space" and an identity to their inhabitants. 

There  is  a  weakening  sense  of  identity  in  cities,  which  is  often  demonstrated  by  the  low 
level of participation  in the local democratic process. Such participation  is particularly  poor 
in the most marginalised  areas within cities, where the problems can be exacerbated  by  the 
presence of established  immigrant communities which do not always exercise voting rights, 
Apart  from  the  problem  of  identity,  the  low  level  of  participation  in  elections  in  deprived 
urban areas diminishes the pressure on the administration to ensure the delivery  of  services 
in such areas. 

In terms of an institutional  response, cities are operating  in different  legal, institutional  and 
financial  systems in the various Member States. As local authorities react to challenges with 
the policy resources at their disposal, it is only natural that their efforts  in the field  of urban 
development  will  differ.  According  to  a  1996  study,  some  local  authorities,  for  instance, 
operate  within  a  greater  tradition  of  local  autonomy,  and  wield  a  larger  spending  power 
compared to other local authorities in the European Union (see Annex II). 

Many  local  authorities  face  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  their  responsibility  for  resolving 
urban problems with their  lack of institutional  and financial  capacity.  Urban  authorities are 
increasingly  financing  services  which  benefit  the  surrounding  area,  related  to the  fact  that 
administrative borders no longer coincide with the real space of the urban area. This  allows 
surrounding  localities  to  benefit  from  efforts  that  are  carried  out  by  the  often  less 
prosperous  population  of  the  central  city.  Also,  real  income  of  urban  authorities  has 
declined  over  the  last  decade  due  to  general  restraints  on  government  spending.  In  most 
cases,  and  especially  in  cases  where  social  welfare  spending  of  urban  authorities  has 
increased, this has led to a decrease in local  investment. 

City  management  is  further  complicated  by  a  multiplicity  of  public  authorities  with 
responsibilities at varying levels, from local, regional, national to European, which can both 
create difficulties  for the successful  implementation  of policy  on the ground  and  affect  the 
perception  of  citizens  as to  who  is really  responsible  for  their  city.  This  fragmentation  is., 
therefore, an obstacle to responsible citizenship. 

At the  same time, citizens are demanding  more control  over  decisions  affecting  their lives. 
It is therefore  becoming more important  to engage the participation  of local participants  to 

- 8-

ensure  their  needs  are  addressed  in  implementing  legislation  or  programmes.  Also,  the 
needs and views of women in urban development require greater attention. 

However,  these  are  only  partial  responses.  The  vital  question  to  be  answered  is  "Why  are 
people  no  longer  happy  to  live  all  their  lives  in  the  city?".  The  city  is,  in  many  parts  of 
Europe, no  longer  a desirable  place to bring  up  children,  to  spend  leisure  time, or  to  live. 
This erosion  of the role of the city  is perhaps  the  greatest  threat to the  European  model  of 
development and society and one which needs the widest debate. 

2.  CURRENT ACTIONS AT EU  LEVEL RELATED TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

All of the 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  highlights  the 
quantitative  and  qualitative  impact  of  some  key  actions  in  four  policy  areas  which  have  a 
particular bearing on the growth and development of Europe's cities: 

-  policies which promote economic competitiveness and employment; 
-  policy in favour  of economic and social cohesion; 
-  policies which help the insertion of cities into transEuropean networks; 
-  policies promoting sustainable development and the quality of life in cities. 

2.1  Promoting competitiveness and employment 

The European Union  faces the challenge of improving  its competitive position  in a context 
of  liberalisation  of  world  trade.  Part  of  the  reaction  to  this  global  challenge  has  been  to 
create  the  Single  Market,  which  was  designed  to  increase  the  Union's  competitiveness  by 
abolishing  obstacles  to  trade,  investments,  and  labour  mobility,  and  by  creating  an 
integrated  economy which offers  advantages of scale. In this respect, the Single Market has 
been  the  most  far-reaching  factor  for  change  in  recent  years,  and  it  has  given  a  major 
incentive to  economic performance.  Within the  same context  of  a global  liberalisation  and 
the  creation  of  the  Single  Market,  the  EU  has  also  decided  to  liberalise  markets  where 
national  monopolies  were  dominating  up  until  now,  as  in  the  case  of  telecommunications 
and transport. 

Cities find themselves mere directly exposed to global economic changes than before.  This 
evolution has reinforced  the potential of cities as autonomous creators of prosperity, and has 
made them  less dependent  on national  economic  developments.  Much  of both  the  external 
investment coming into the Union and the internal investment flews select the largest cities. 
This is especially  true for  specialist  services  such  as banking  (as  in London,  Frankfurt  and 
Amsterdam).  Meanwhile,  international  firms  have  generally  established  their  European 
head  offices  in a  few  selected  cities  such  as Brussels,  Paris,  London,  Amsterdam,  and  for 
Japanese  firms,  Dusseldorf.  The  area  around  Amsterdam  has  been  a  major  location  for 
European-wide  centres  of  distribution.  Spain,  Portugal  and  Ireland  have  received  a 
relatively  large  share  of  the  investment  flows  following  the  introduction  of  the  Single 
Market, which  is reflected  in the good economic  performance  of the Madrid  region  and  of 
the major  urban  areas of the  Spanish eastern coast,  and  in the  strong  growth  of the  Lisbon 
and Dublin regions. 

However,  only those  cities which  are capable  of delivering  top quality  services  and  which 
have  good  infrastructural  endowments  can  profit  from  the  autonomy  to  attract  activities 
which  have  a  viable  future  and  great  added  value.  Therefore,  the  Single  Market  and  the 

liberalisation of world trade has a highly  differentiated  spatial effect.  The negative result of 
this can already be seen in the widening of regional disparities within  some Member  States. 
For weaker cities, global liberalisation can imply  considerable adjustment  costs. 

The  capacity  of cities to  innovate  tends to  lie  at the heart  of  a region's  economic  success. 
Some  of  the  more  successful  regions  are  dominated  by  urban  areas  with  dusters  of  top 
quality  Research  and  Technological  Development  facilities  -  both  public  and  private  -
interlinked  to  an  enterprise  culture  wedded  to  innovation.  The  Cohesion  Report3  has 
established that there is a limited number of cities responsible for most of the RTD effort  in 
the European Union. 

The most fundamental  problem  facing  the Union today  is that of unemployment,  reflecting 
the failure to create sufficient jobs for Europe*s expanding work force. Despite efforts  in the 
field  of  human  resource  and  employment  policy,  the  Union  remains  at  present  relatively 
powerless  in the  face  of this major  challenge.  While  increasing  competitiveness  especially 
of  SMEs  in  internationally  traded  goods  and  services  including  tourism  is  important  in 
terms of expanding employment  opportunities,  it is equally  important  to note that cities can 
also  benefit  from  local employment  initiatives which  are not subject  to a global  logic.  The 
Commission's  Communication  "A  European  strategy  for  encouraging  local  development 
and  employment  initiatives"4  has  explored  new  opportunities  for  job  creation,  generally 
outside  the  activities  where  the  constraints  of  international  competition  are  the  most 
pressing, both in the public and private  sector  (e.g. home help services  and  social  sendees, 
environment, local public transport, security, housing, local commerce, tourism  and cultural 
heritage). 

2.2  Policy in favour of economic tmd social cohesion 

The  Structural  Funds and the Cohesion  Fund  are the main  financial  instruments  of the  EU 
in the  context  of  its  regional  and  cohesion  policy.  Together,  these  funds  amount  to  some 
170 bn ECU (1995 prices) for the period  1994-1999, or just under 0.5% of the annual Union 
GDP.  The  Union's  structural  policies  address  directly  the  problems  of  competitiveness, 
restructuring  and  under-development  affecting  the  regions  as  well  as  the  situation  of 
disadvantaged  social groups, especially with regard to unemployment. 

For  Objective  1 regions  -  regions  where  development  is  lagging  behind  -  the  success  of 
urban  areas  is  crucial  to  their  overall  growth  and  development.  Actions  relating  to  urban 
development  are  currently  estimated  to  absorb  around  30  to  40%  of  total  programme 
allocations  (see  annex  III).  Objective  2  addresses  the  restructuring  problems  of  industrial 
areas. These  generally  have  a highly  urban  character  and urban  development  projects  tend 
to occupy a large  share of structural policies support. In some cases, more than  80% of the 
total support is spent on urban development actions (see annex ill). 

COM(96)542 - First Report on Economic and Social Cohesion -  1996  This Report has highlighted the 
existence of the so-called  'Archipelago Europe': London, Amsterdam/Rotterdam, Paris, the Ruhr, 
Frankfurt.  Stuttgart, Munich, Lyon/Grenoble, Turin, Milan. Nearly half of all the resources under the 
Second and Third Framework  Programmes have gone to the regions containing these urban  areas which 
are the European centres of excellence. 

O.J.Ii.C. NoC265/3  -  12.10.1995 

- 1 0-

The  Structural  Funds  and  Cohesion  Fund  actions  also  help  to  improve  the  functioning  of 
conurbations  as  a  whole.  Investments  in  public  transport  schemes,  in  the  reclamation  of 
derelict  urban  land,  and  in the treatment  of  urban  waste  water  are  only  three  examples  of 
actions which contribute both to the growth of wider regional economies  and to  sustainable 
development in cities. 

In the  new  context  of  a global  economy,  the  educational  attainment  of  cities  is  becoming 
increasingly  important  as a factor  for  creating  economic prosperity.  In this respect,  actions 
of the European Social Fund under objectives  3 and 4, which are of a horizontal nature and 
therefore  concern  all  EU  cities,  can  complement  local  efforts  for  improving  human 
resources.  Apart  from  actions  which  focus  on  long-term  unemployed  and  young 
unemployed,  specific  operational  programmes  under  objective  3 often  aim  at  reintegrating 
disadvantaged  social groups into the labour market, which is particularly  relevant  for  urban 
areas. Also, the Commission has stressed the importance of the learning society and the role 
of multicultural education in preventing social exclusion. 

The  Social  Policy  Forum,  established  in  1994  under  the  Commission's  White  Paper  on 
social policy, brings together representatives  of non-governmental  organisations  and  social 
partners with the aim of offering  citizens in Europe a means of maintaining a dialogue with 
the  Commission.  The  convergence  between  the  social  dimension  and  citizenship  in  the 
European  model  of  society  is particularly  evident  in the report by the  "Comité  des  Sages" 
about basic social rights which are constrained by the living and employment  conditions in 
many urban areas. 

In this context mention should be made that  1997 has been declared "European Year against 
Racism" which is an important statement of support for actions in urban areas characterised 
by significant  numbers of immigrants. 

Over  recent  years,  increasing  attention  under  EU  structural  policies  has  been  paid  to  the 
socio-economic  effects  of  spatial  segregation  in  urban  areas.  In  a  first  stage,  Urban  Pilot 
Projects  (Article  10  of  the  ERDF  regulation)  have  been  used  at  the  initiative  of  the 
Commission  for  innovative  approaches  in  cities.  The  Antwerp  project,  for  instance, 
established  a strong neighbourhood-based  partnership  between  community  groups, various 
authorities  and  the  private  sector,  and  it  succeeded  in  levering  additional  resources  from 
various  origins  for  the  implementation  of  an  operational  plan  with  economic,  social  and 
environmental  actions.  The  Dublin  project  was  an  innovative  regeneration  project,  which 
demonstrated  how  the  development  of  arts  and  culture  can  form  the  foundation  for  the 
regeneration of a deprived inner city district. 

It was this experience which convinced the Commission  in  1994 to launch the  Community 
Initiative  URBAN  under 
is  aimed  at  establishing 
the  Structural  Funds.  URBAN 
neighbourhood-based  partnerships  in  deprived  urban  districts  to  tackle  development 
problems  through  integrated  programmes.  The  Commission  has  also  reinforced  the 
possibilities to  intervene  in deprived  urban  areas by allowing  additional  state aids to  small 
enterprises which operate at the local scale, so as to encourage investment and job creation5. 

See 'Guidelines  on state aid for  undertakings  in deprived  urban  areas', SEC(96)1706. Furthermore,  aid to 
such enterprises  can also be awarded  under the so-called  'de minimis'  rule, under the guidelines  for  aid to 
SMEs, and following  the rules related to aid to  employment. 

-11  -

Since  the  reform  of  the  Union's  structural  policies  in  1989,  there  has  been  a  change  in 
perceptions  reflected  in  a  growing  awareness  that  actions  to  tackle  social  segregation  in 
cities  should  also  be  integrated  within  the  mainstream  policy  for  regional  development. 
More and more, the actions under Objectives  1  and 2 of the Structural Funds have sought to 
address  the  problems  of  deprived  urban  neighbourhoods  and  to  ensure  that  new 
opportunities  created  in  the  wider  region  are  also  of  benefit  to  them.  In  Portugal,  for 
example, actions target the improvement  of living conditions for  residents  in the  'barracas' 
of  Lisbon  and  Porto.  The  Italian  programmes,  meanwhile,  include  actions  aimed  at 
improving  the  socio-economic  development  of  the  Pianura  district  of  Naples.  In  UK, 
'Community  Economic  Development'  has been identified  as a specific  programme  priority 
to  concentrate  resources  on  pockets  of  exceptional  urban  deprivation.  A  similar  priority 
exists within the Objective  1  programme for French Hainaut. 

Within the  sphere  of horizontal  actions for  human resource  development,  the  Commission 
launched  INTEGRA  as part of the Employment Community Initiative of the European  Social 
Fund.  INTEGRA  finances  actions  in  deprived  urban  neighbourhoods  combining  a  local 
approach to neighbourhood  regeneration  with employment  initiatives. These actions aim  at 
raising  the  awareness  of  the  beneficiaries  towards  an  integrated  approach,  which  should 
simultaneously  tackle  the  multiple  problems  that  face  people  who  are  excluded  from  the 
labour market, such as housing." health, social  protection, mobility,  access to justice  and  to 
public services. 

2.3  Transport and transEuropean  Networks 

TransEuropean Transport Networks and, more generally, the efficient  provision of transport 
services  are  crucial  for  urban  development  and  urban  policies.  In  particular,  a  good 
transport  system  is a determining  factor  in the competitiveness  of the urban  economy  and 
in the quality  of life  of city-dwellers. The notion  of  'sustainable  mobility'  has become  the 
central  goal  of  the  common  transport  policy  which  aims  at  reconciling  the  demand  for 
mobility  (by  both  business  and  people)  while  at  the  same  time  recognising  the  limits  on 
resources  and  impact  of  transport  operations  on  the  environment.  The  common  transport 
policy  also  addresses  issues  such  as  the  integration  of  spatial  planning  priorities  into 
transport infrastructure  planning and the promotion of intermodal transport. 

Given existing imbalances in the urban system and in urban areas, transport policy must be 
designed  to  contribute  to  solving  congestion  and  environmental  problems.  Moreover, 
transport  policy  aims  to  alleviate  the problems  of  peripheral  areas  by  linking  them  to  the 
core  of  the  Community  as  well  as  linking  these  areas  together  through  improved 
infrastructure  and  with  the  establishment  of  a  regulatory  framework  that  ensures  the 
provision  of  effective  high  quality  transport  services;  either  through  the  market  or,  where 
required, through the provision of public services. 

Public  Transport  has an  important  contribution  to make to  local  transport  networks  and  to 
social cohesion, notably in urban areas where people without cars, in particular low  income 
groups or younger or elderly people, need to have access to economic  and social activities. 
Traffic  patterns  in  medium  sized  and  large  cities  are  usually  well  suited  to  reinforcing 
public  transport.  To  benefit  all  urban  dwellers,  these  transport  services  should  ideally  be 
accessible  in terms  of  coverage  of  services,  physical  accessibility  (notably  to  older  people 
and  people  with  reduced  mobility)  and  affordability.  Urban  transport  policies  should  also 
promote  other  alternatives  to  the  use  of  the  private  car,  such  as  cycling  and  walking. 
Therefore,  a well targeted urban transport policy brings clear benefits  to cities, It ensures  a 

- 1 2-

more efficient  transport  system which should reduce congestion and therefore  costs, reduce 
the  number  of  accidents  and  impact  less  on  the  environment.  The  Commission's  Green 
paper  'the  Citizen's Network'6  sets out the benefits  of public transport  and the main  action 
areas  at  a Community  level  to  encourage  and  promote  an  integrated,  intermodal  transport 
system which fully  exploits the potential of public transport. 

Such policies have to be complemented by appropriate pricing policies which ensure a more 
rational allocation of resources in the urban transport system. Cities should benefit  from  the 
implementation  of  this  approach  (described  in the  Commission's  Green  Paper  on  fair  and 
efficient  pricing  in transport)  with the  reduction  of congestion,  environmental  damage  and 
accidents and the final result of a more effective  and efficient  transport  system. 

TransEuropean  Transport  Networks  (TETNs)  are  also  instrumental  in  terms  of  improving 
access to cities, generating employment and allowing exchanges between cities and regions. 
More  generally  the  TETNs  have  the  potential  to  open  up  the  Community  territory, 
generating  new  opportunities  for  cities  connected  to  the  network.  A continuing  challenge 
for transport  and  structural  policies will be to  ensure that  investments  in TETNs  are  fully 
integrated  with  local  networks  so  as  to  enable  peripheral  areas  and  local  populations  to 
benefit  fully  from  the  long  distance  links.  Cities  themselves  form  the  nodal  point  which 
connects  modal  networks  and  are  therefore  essential  elements  of  the  TETNs,  notably  in 
transport 
allowing  the  development  of  seamless  passenger  and  freight  intermodal 
operations. 

The progressive integration of European transport markets has brought major  benefits to the 
consumers in terms of greater choice  and lower prices. Cities are obviously  well  placed  to 
benefit  from  this  liberalisation  process.  In  cases  where  there  is  insufficient  demand  for 
market  forces  to  provide  regular  and  affordable  services,  Community  legislation  makes 
provision for public service obligation requirements to be applied by public authorities. 

service  obligation 

requirements  are  also  essential 

Public 
the  context  of 
telecommunication  networks,  in  order  to  avoid  an  opportunity  gap  between  cities  in  the 
emerging  liberalised  environment.  Specific  less  favoured  urban  areas  or  user  groups  may 
require  accompanying  measures  to  help  accelerating  the  development  of  networks.  The 
expansion  of  an  efficient  telecommunications  network  should  also  help  to  overcome 
mobility  and urban congestion problems by widening locational  choices for  companies  and 
allowing for a more flexible organisation of work. 

in 

2.4  Promoting sustainable development and the quality of life in cities 

Sustainable development has increasingly gained legitimacy with the citizens in Europe as a 
determinant  aspect  of the  quality  of  life  for  the  present  and  future  generations.  The  Green 
Paper  on  the  urban  environment  of  1990  and  the  Sustainable  Cities  Report  of  1996  both 
promote  an  integrated  approach  to  urban  problems  encompassing  social,  economic,  and 
environmental  factors.  The  Sustainable  Cities project,  started  in  1993, aims at  encouraging 
and  assisting  cities  and  towns  to  establish  and  implement  local  agenda  21  or  similar 
sustainability  plans  through  policy  reports,  exchange  of  experience,  networking  and 
dissemination of good practices cases. 

European Commission, The Citizens'network. Fulfilling the potential of public passenger transport in 
Europe. Green Paper, Brussels- Luxembourg,  1996. 

- 1 3-

In the  specific  context  of environmental  policy,  a more bottom-up  approach  is now  being 
adopted  by  the  Union.  Better  implementation  in. a  partnership  approach  and  the  use  of 
alternative  instruments  in  environmental  policy,  are  priorities  where  the  urban  dimension 
plays  an  important  role. The  'greening  of  the  Structural  Funds'  has  also  become  a  central 
concern, as explained in the Communication on 'Cohesion and Environment'. 

In the  field  of  RTD, the  Commission  has been  investigating  ways  of  easing  urban  traffic 
congestion, through  measures to control traffic  and promote public transport,  including  the 
use  of  new  technologies  for  road  pricing,  integrated  payment,  travel  information,  etc. 
Important  research  in  the  treatment  of  urban  wastewater  and  solid  waste,  noise,  the 
protection  of cultural  heritage, urban  air quality  and  its effects  on human health  as well  as 
other  environmental  issues  and  socio-economic  research  related  to  urban  issues  is  in 
progress.  Other  issues  related  to  urban  management  that  receive  attention  in  the  RTD 
programmes  concern  telematics,  information  society,  energy,  transport  as  well  as  new 
technologies  for  the  building/construction  industry,  architecture,  urban  design  ancl urban 
planning.  A  number  of  projects  within  the  Telematics  Application  Programme  focus  on 
socially  excluded  communities  within  cities,  such  as  unemployed  and  immigrants. 
Furthermore, the  SAVE II programme  supports the setting up of local  agencies to help  local 
authorities to formulate their energy policies. 

Within the context of sustainable development, the role of urban  tourism  for  the growth  of 
the local economy also deserves attention. 

3.  DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE 

The starting point for future urban development must be to recognise the role of the cities as 
motors for regional, national and European economic progress. At the same time, it also has 
to be taken into account that urban areas, especially the depressed districts of medium-sized 
and larger cities, have borne many of the social costs of past changes in terms of  industrial 
adjustment  and dereliction, inadequate housing, long-term unemployment, crime, and social 
exclusion. 

The twin challenge facing European urban policy is therefore  one of maintaining its cities at 
the  forefront  of  an  increasingly  globalised  and  competitive  economy  while  addressing  the 
two  aspects  of  urban  policy  are 
cumulative  legacy  of  urban  deprivation.  These 
complementary.  Economic  progress  which  undermines  the  cohesiveness  of  urban  areas  is 
unlikely to be sustainable over the longer-term: 

•  urban  society  will  pay  a  heavy  price  in  terms  of  crime  and  anti-social  behaviour  if 
development  is  accompanied  by  major  inequalities  of  access  to  the  rewards  of  economic 
progress; 

•  Europe as a whole will pay through disaffection  of its citizens and the loss of support  for 
the European model of society; 

•  finally,  the  European  economy  will  suffer  because  adjustment  to  rapid  change,  to 
maintain  the  competitiveness  of  Europe's  cities,  is  only  likely  to  succeed  where  it 
commands the widest consensus. 

Member  States  have  primary  responsibility  in  developing  the  urban  policy  for  the  next 
century.  Issues  related  to  the  reinforcement  of  local  democracy,  citizenship,  migration, 

- 1 4-

employment,  cultural  development,  education,  social  exclusion,  urban  crime,  which  have 
been  discussed  in  part  1 of  this  document,  need  the  involvement  of  policy  instruments 
which are in the hands of national administrations. 

Nevertheless, as has been discussed  in  1.5  above, there is a multiplicity  of bodies  involved 
in urban management., It will be essential to engage all levels - which start from  the district 
level  to  the  conurbation  level  up  to  the  European  urban  system -  within  a  framework  of 
interlinking relationships and shared responsibility  and achieve better policy  integration. 

The various actions at the EU level should be assessed from  the viewpoint of a coherent and 
sustainable  development  of cities.  The  Commission  therefore  invites  comments  in  relation 
to an improved  integration  of Community  policies relevant to urban  development,  in  order 
to ensure that they  fully  correspond  to actions  at other  levels and in particular  to the needs 
of cities and  towns. In the  light  of the  outcome  of the  debate  on  this  Communication,  the 
Commission  will examine how it can adapt its interna! co-ordination  to contribute to urban 
development. Special attention should be given to at least the following directions. 

3.1  The need for an urban perspective in European Union policies 

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. Among the areas 
for further  reflection  are : 

• 
the  development  of  clear  targets  for  improvement  of  the  urban  environment  with 
specified  timescales,  and  the  improvement  of  EU  sectoral  policies  from  the  viewpoint  of 
sustainability.  This  may  involve  the  development  of  voluntary  tools  for  urban  planning 
aimed at sustainable  development; 

• 
the  development  of  the  TETNs  in  particular  to  ensure  efficient  access  to  the  networks 
from  regional  and  local  systems,  and  to  ensure  that  resources  are  used  to  produce  the 
maximum benefit  in terms of environmental, employment and industrial  objectives; 

the  reinforcement  of  intermodal  freight  and  passenger  transport,  both  for  facilitating 
• 
access  to  the  city  and  mobility  within  the  city.  Special  emphasis  should  be  placed  on 
promoting public passenger transport; 

the  targeting  of  RTD  activities  on  the  main  problems  facing  the  cities  of  tomorrow, 
• 
namely  integrated  transport,  energy,  sustainable  construction  technology,  information 
networks, technology for the protection of cultural heritage, urban sustainable  development, 
environmental  technologies  and  new  urban  vehicles,  as  presented  in  the  key  action  "The 
city  of  tomorrow"  in  the  Commission's  formal  proposal  for  the  Vth  Framework-
Programme7; 

COM(97)142 of 09.04.1997 

- 1 5-

telecommunications  policies,  including  Universal  Service  obligations,  to  ensure  the 
involving  depressed  urban 

• 
earliest  provision  of  links  to  the  information  highway 
neighbourhoods and smaller urban areas; 

the strengthening  of the commercial  function  of citiesg  and neighbourhoods  and of their 

• 
role in the development of tourism; 

the issues of migration, police and judicial  co-operation,  and crime which are dealt with 

• 
under Title VI of the Treaty of the European Union; 

• 
the  fight  against  social  and  economic  exclusion,  which  is  an  explicit  goal  of  the 
European employment  strategy, as well as the fight against  racism  in the framework  of the 
1997  European  Year  against  Racism.  The  actions  of  the  European  Year  should  help  to 
mobilise  public  opinion  on  the  danger  that  racism  constitutes  for  urban  democracies  in 
particular.  Also, the  reflections  of  the  Social  Policy  Forum9  on  fundamental  social  rights 
could pay increasing attention to social aspects of urban development problems; 

•  public  health  policy  and  in  particular  health  concerns  related  to  urban  deprivation  and 
poverty (drug abuse, bad housing conditions, etc.); 

the need for creating trust based relationships between various actors at the local level, in 
• 
order  to  promote  local  empowerment,  responsibility  and  initiative,  and  to  reinforce 
employment  policies,  which  is  the  Commission's  aim  with  the  Territorial  Employment 
Pacts; 

Some  of  these  issues  are  explored  in  the  European  Spatial  Development  Perspective10 
which should play an important role in organising the debate at the European level on areas 
of common interest and which have a spatial effect  beyond the scope of single urban areas, 
regions or countries. 

3.2  Services of public interest and urban development 

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  highlighted 
in  a  recent 
communication  that  services of general  interest  are part of  shared  values  in Europe.  These 
services  are at the heart  of the European  model  of  society,  since they  further  fundamental 
objectives  of the European  societies  such as solidarity  and  equal treatment  within  an  open 
and  dynamic  market.  These  shared  values  translate  into  different  ways  of  organising  such 
services, from one region to another and from one sector to another. For economic  services 
such as telecommunications, post, transport, energy  or broadcasting,  adjustments  have  had 
to be made in response to technological change, the globalization of the economy and user's 
expectations and needs. The Commission  has underlined  that, although  Member  States  are 

8  COM(96)530 of 20.11.1996 - Commission  Green Paper on Commerce 

9 

See § 2.2 

10  The ESDP, launched in the Ministerial Meeting for  Regional  Policy and Spatial  Planning (Liège, 

November  1993), is an exercise of the  15 Member States with the support of the Commission  which aims 
at developing a strategic view on the spatial development of the Union's territory. 

-  16-

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. 

In non market  services,  such  as education,  training,  and  health  care, public  authorities  are 
still  the  most  important  providers.  Also  here,  serving  society  as  a  whole  becomes 
increasingly important in the context of the dualisation of societies which is expressed most 
clearly  in urban  areas.  The  Commission's  White  Paper  'Teaching  and  Learning:  Towards 
the  Learning  Society'  emphasised  this.  Actions  such  as  the  'second  chance  schools'  in 
deprived  urban  areas  and  European  networks  have  aimed  at  promoting  cities  which  are 
capable of overcoming unequal access to educational resources. 

3.3  Contribution of the Structural Funds 

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 
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. 

local  authorities  participate  closely 

important 

that 

in 

is 

For the present programming period, the following  actions could already be undertaken: 

• 
the  focusing  of  Structural  Fund  activities  including  labour market  measures  on  pockets 
of high unemployment  in the inner cities, or on the densely populated urban periphery, and 
a targeting of the special needs of immigrant groups; 

• 
the  mainstreaming  of  experiences  under  the  URBAN  and  INTEGRA  programmes  and  the 
reinforcement  of urban  community  development  as a priority  axis,  including  the notion  of 
sustainable local communities with the active participation of the local population; 

•  greater  emphasis  on  transport  issues  to  improve  infrastructure  and  public  transport 
systems rendering the peripheral  regions more accessible  and contributing to the resolution 
of congestion and environmental problems in urban areas; 

• 

the transfer of accumulated experience and best-practices on urban development. 

These actions will contribute towards focusing  further  attention on : 

• 

the role of cities as growth poles for regional development; 

•  social inclusion and the alleviation of urban deprivation; 

integrated  and  sustainable urban development  that combines multisectoral  solutions and 

• 
involves investment  in human as well as physical capital. 

3.4  Raising knowledge and promoting exchange of experience between cities 

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. 

- 1 7-

In the short term, an "Urban  Audit" to assess strengths  and weaknesses  of European  cities 
will be launched. This Urban Audit will measure the quality  of life  in our towns  and  cities 
through the use of a simple set of urban indicators and a common methodology. 

The  Commission  will  seek  to  establish  a  set  of  indicators  which  are  simple  to  use  and 
update to encourage the participation of local authorities both in the compilation and  future 
use of the information  in developing their urban policies. 

This tool could also, as a second stage, enable a better assessment  of the impact of various 
national as well as European policies, on the development of urban areas. 

Building on the experience gained with the "Urban Audit", the Commission  is  considering 
setting up tools for measuring and monitoring  sustainability. 

In  parallel  to  this  bottom-up  action,  the  Statistical  Office  of  the  European  Communities 
- Eurostat -  will  process  the  local  level  information  already  available  in  its  databases  to 
produce  basic  statistical  information  on  cities  and  urban  agglomerations.  In  the  medium 
term,  efforts  already  undertaken  by  Eurostat,  in  co-operation  with  the  national  statistical 
institutes to develop a harmonised information  system, including standardised  definitions  of 
cities, have to be continued. 

to  particular 

topics  such  as  economic  development,  SMEs. 

Within  the  EU,  numerous  fora  and  networks  exist  where  cities  exchange  experiences  and 
co-operate  on  specific  topics.  The  Sustainable  Cities  Campaign  gathers  local  authorities 
with  a specific  concern  to  implement  Local  Agenda  21. In the  context  of  article  10 of  the 
ERDF  regulation,  the  Commission  proposed  recently  to  support  a  number  of  networks 
related 
technology, 
environmental  improvement,  and  equal  opportunities  for  women  in  the  economy7/.  Other 
topics  around  which  co-operation  is  actively  promoted  concern  telematics,  energy, 
transport,  education,  culture and research.  Incentives  are also given to EU  local  authorities 
to engage in decentralised  co-operation  with cities in other continents of the world  in order 
to assist these  cities  in their development,  strengthen the EU relations  with third  countries, 
and support the participation of local actors from the EU in the process of global  integration 
(e.g. Med-Urbs, Asia-Urbs, URB-AL). 

During  the  coming  years,  the  Commission  will  intensify  its  efforts  for  the  transnational 
exchange  of experience  between  cities, with  the objectives  of  collecting  and  compiling  all 
relevant experience in urban regeneration  and sustainable urban development,  including the 
results of research in the socio-economic field. 

4.  FOLLOW UP OF THE COMMUNICATION 

In  conclusion,  it  is  clear  that  the  number  and  scale  of  challenges  facing  cities  and  towns 
today  and  in the  years  to  come  do  not  lend  themselves  to  easy  solutions.  It  is  recognised 
that many of the external pressures for change, including demographic and global  economic 
trends, are not  only  out of reach of regional  and national  policies, but  are also  beyond  the 
scope of European actions. 

1 '  Call for  Proposals  for  internal  interregional  co-operation  (O.J.E.C. C 386, 31.10.96), 

and  Ecos-Ouverture  11  (O.J.E.C. C  125,  22.04.97)) 

- 1 8-

The  European  Union,  however,  can  react  more  effectively  to  urban  needs  and  in  many 
instances could set a more positive agenda which would go toward meeting at least some of 
these  challenges.  Leading  factors  should  be  greater  cohesion  within  the  Union  and 
sustainable  development  leading to a lasting  improvement  in the quality  of  life  of  citizens. 
This  agenda  will  require  active  participation  at  all  levels  of  public  authorities  and  should 
also seek to engage key  actors from other sectors who have  a contribution to make toward 
making  European  cities  better  places  to  be,  which  would  contribute  to  realising  the 
fundamental  goals of the European Union as laid down in article 2 of the Treaty. 

The  Commission  does  not  underestimate  the  difficulties  of  this  task.  The  participation  of 
European  citizens  in  the  future  development  of  their  towns  and  cities  may  need  new 
mechanisms which can offer  better access and feedback  to decision making. This will take 
time and considerable effort  from  all those involved. 

As a starting point the Commission seeks to engage in a wider debate on urban issues on the 
basis of this Communication. A dialogue will be sought between the Commission  and other 
institutions,  including  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament,  the  Economic  and  Social 
Committee,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  local  authority  organisations  and  other 
interested parties. 

The  outcome  of  this  dialogue  will  be  brought  to  an  Urban  Forum  which  the  Commission 
intends to convene in 1998. 

- 1 9-

LlST OF REFERENCES 

European Commission, Green Paper on the Urban  Environment, 
Brussels-Luxembourg,  1990, 
Réf. CD-NA-12902-EN-C. 

European Commission, Europe 2000. Outlook for the development 
of the Community's territory, Brussels-Luxembourg,  1991, 
CX-71-91-518-EN-C. 

Eurostat, The statistical concept of the town in Europe, 
Luxembourg, 1992, 
CA-70-91-758-EN-C. 

European Commission, Urbanisation  and the Functions of Cities in 
the European Community, Brussels-Luxembourg,  1992, 
CX-75-92-259-EN-C. 

European Commission, Europe 2000+. 
Co-operation  for European territorial development,  Brussels-
Luxembourg,  1994, 
CX-86-94-117-EN-C. 

European Commission, First Report on Economic and Social 
Cohesion  1996, Brussels-Luxembourg,  1996, 
CM-97-96-928-EN-C. 

European Commission, Green Paper Citizens network.  Fulfilling 
the potential of public passenger transport in Europe, Brussels-
Luxembourg,  1996, 
C3-93-95-564-EN-C. 

European Commission, Social and  Economic Inclusion  through 
Regional  Development. The Community  Economic  Development 
priority  in European  Structural  Funds programmes  in Great  Britain, 
Brussels-Luxembourg,  1996; 
CX-98-96-421-EN-C. 

European Commission, European  Sustainable Cities. Report by the 
Expert Group on Urban Environment, Brussels,  1996, 
CR-97-96-055-EN-C. 

Communication from the Commission, "Services of general interest 
in Europe",  1996, 
CM-98-96-897-EN-C. 

European Commission, Europe of cities. Community Actions in 
urban areas,  1997, forthcoming. 

European Environment Agency, Europe's Environment: the Dobris 
Assessment, Brussels-Luxembourg,  1995, 
CR-80-93-339-EN-C. 

ANNEXES 

g:\stef\urban\comm1 Oae.doc 

Oo 

Annex I: 
Urban areas in difficulty : 
characteristics of the populations involved 

Disadvantaged  urban  areas  suffer  from  a  combination  of  economic,  social  and  urban 
problems. 

In order to define  more accurately the populations affected,  we have selected 29 URBAN 
Community  Initiative  programmes  and  have  developed  the  following  table.  It  shows 
similarities and differences among the 29 areas by indicating : 
•  the unemployment rate among the active population; 
•  the widespread  breakdown  of  family  structures  (single  parent families)  increased  by 

poverty and lack of opportunity; 

•  the foreign population when this leads to dysfunctions. 

The following  table allows us to assess the seriousness  of the situation  in each of these 
cities of the Community. 

?' 

COUNTRY 

City/town  -  Area 

Populatio 
n covered 
by  URBAN 

Unempl 
oyment 
rate 
(%) 

Household 
s  receiving 
state 
benefits 

Single 
parent 
families 

Foreign 
population 

3 4% 
3 0% 

16.5% 
foreigners 

9 % of 
children 

36 % of 
inhabitants 

Austria 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Finland 

France 

France 
France 

Germany 
Germany 

Greece 
Greece 
Ireland 

Ireland 

Italy 
Italy 

Italy 
Luxembourg 

Netherlands 

Portugal 

Portugal 

Spain 

Spain 

Spain 

Sweden 

Wien-Gurtel 
Antwerp-North-East 
Aalborg-North Jutland 
Joensuu-Rantakyla-
Utra 
Amiens-North and 
Etouvie 
Marseille-Centre 
Roubaix-Tourcoing 

Rostock 
Saarbrtlcken-Unteres 
Malstatt, Leipziger 
Str., Jenneweg, 
Hochstr., Ottstr., 
Fullengarten 
Patras 
Peristeri 
Cork 

Dublin-Ballymun-
Finglas-Darndale 
Cagliari-Pirri 
Cosenza-Core of the 
historic centre 
Siracuse-Ortigia 
Dudelange-
DifTerdange 
Amsterdam-
Bijlmermeer 
Lisbonne-Casal 
Ventoso 
Porto-Vale de 
Campanha 
Badajoz-Estramadure-
Historic centre, plaza 
Alta 
Badaiona-Serra d'en 
Mena 
Malaga-Historic 
centre 
MalmO 

United  Kingdom 
United Kingdom 

Glasgow 
London-Park Royal 

United  Kingdom 

United  Kingdom 

Manchester-Moss 
Side, Hulme 
Nottingham 

United Kingdom 
North.  Irl. 

Belfast-
Subprogramme I 

130,000 
66,324 
4,000 
12,500 

11.30 
18.40 
11.90 
40 

33,000 

28 

31,306 
50,000 

19,000 
34,656 

26.5 
34 

>19 
23 

28 

12 

77,000 
-34,300 
55,624 

15  à  17 
>14 
39 

84,000 

40 

30,000 
22,500 

5,500 
2,154 

>43 
>33 

>31 
>2.14 

51,585 

32.3 

4,200 

23,000 

Very 
high 
20 

12,114 

25.18 

76,168 

22 

46,889 

35.8 

22,000 

18 

19,198 
25,665 

28,000 

38.8 
22.2 

23.9 

21,000 

40 

37,134 

<46 

150 
nationalities 

34% ethnic 
minorities 

11.25% of 
families 
46 % of 
children 

30 

55 

44 

70% of 
families 

Data on benefits', single parent families and foreign population are not available for all neighbourhoods. 

Total 
cost  of 
the 
program 
me  in 
MECU 
31.926 
15.234 
3.042 
5.279 

20.478 

17.583 
17.613 

16.016 
22.572 

European 
Communi 
ty 
contributi 
on  in 
MECU 
9.770 
4.574 
1.521 
3.958 

7 

7 
7 

12 
8 

12.417 
6.651 

8.613 
4.988 

6.651 

4.988 

19.323 
18.555 

22 510 
1.033 

9.188 
9.188 

9.188 
0.507 

19.683 

4.65 

24.387 

18.290 

18.261 

12.793 

14.286 

10 

6.582 

3.291 

14.285 

10 

11.92 

4.97 

16.235 
16.326 

8.036 
7.653 

17.743 

8.036 

14.890 

6.786 

16.580 

11.3 

^^ 

Annex II: 
Local expenditure in the EU Member States1 

Public  expenditure  by  level of government  (%of  GDP)2) 

Countries 

Public 
expenditures 

Central 
government 

Intermediate 
and  local 
government 

Social  security 
funds 

Austria 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Finland 

France 
Germany3 

.  Greece 

Ireland 

I My 

Luxembourg 

Netherlands 

Portugal 

Spain 

';'.;'.• :Swe^eii>;::-;:;;:;::;::
:-^:-mB 

:;: 

48.4 

55.2 

61.1 

59.0 

50.9 

45.5 

51.2 

38.7 

52.9 

40.7 

55.9 

34.7 

40.7 

67.3 

42.7 

17.9 

25.3 

18.8 

15.7 

16.4 

10.8 

27.0 

19.6 

23.2 

16.1 

15.6 

21.7 

10.6 

26.2 

21.2 

13.8 

8.3 

33.3 

20.1 

9.5 

15.2 

6.4 

14.5 

15.3 

4.5 

20.5 

3.8 

10.6 

28.1 

16.0 

16.7 

21.6 

9.0 

23.3 

25.1 

19.5 

17.9 

4.6 

Î4.4 

20. Ï 

19.7 

9.3 

19.4 

13.0 

5.6 

1 

2 

3 

Source of the data : European Commission - DG XXI - Studies on European local government 
finance. The outcome of the Comparative study of the  15 countries - December  1996 

Source : OECD National Accounts, 1995 

Include only West Germany 

Local government spending as a share of national income 
and total government spending4 

4 

Source : OECD National Accounts,  1995 

7k 

-6 

Annex  III: 
Estimate of the financial  impact of the European  Regional 
Development  Fund  and the Cohesion Fund  on  Cities 

The  ERDF  and  the  Cohesion  Fund  support  various  measures  that  are  important  for  the 
economic  development  of  backward  areas.  The  measures  are  traditionally  presented  in 
regional  or  national  programmes,  which  tend  to  make  the  significant  impact  on  urban 
development  less  visible.  Strategy-building  for  regional  development  is  also  a  process 
that  mostly  takes  place  at  national  or  regional  level,  which  runs  the  danger  of 
underestimating the contribution that cities make to regional and national growth. 

In order to  contribute  to a debate  on the  importance  of  cities  for  regional  development, 
the Commission  has attempted  to estimate the magnitude  of the present  financial  impact 
of  ERDF  and  Cohesion  Fund  actions  on  urban  areas.  The  exercise  under  consideration 
concerns the ERDF part of the objective  1  and 2 programmes (excluding the  Community 
Initiatives),  and  the  Cohesion  Fund.  Cities  are  defined  as  urban  areas  with  at  least 
100,000 inhabitants5. 

1.  ERDF 

The global ERDF budget under consideration  for this exercise amounts to  approximately 
60  bn  ECU6.  Around  21  bn  ECU  of  this  has  been  identified  as  being  spent  in  cities. 
Therefore,  it  is  estimated  that  approximately  40 %  of  the  total  ERDF  budget  for 
objectives  1  and  2  is  spent  on  urban  development.  As  could  be  expected,  a  clear 
distinction in urban impact appears between the programmes in objectives  1  and 2, which 
are therefore treated separately. 

1.1 

Objective 1 

Figures  on the urban  impact  in Greece,  Spain, Portugal,  and Ireland  are of a  comparable 
magnitude,  and  amount  to  approximately  40%.  Other  objective  1  regions  are  of  a 
somewhat different  nature, and the Operational Programmes  show also a different  impact 
on  urban  development.  Merseyside  and  the  former  East-Berlin,  for  instance,  are 
extremely  urbanised  areas,  where  programmes  show  a  high  impact  in  terms  of  urban 
development actions. 

This exercise has no scientific  pretensions. The financial  impact on urban development has been 
reconstructed  mainly through the privileged knowledge of the Commission's  desk officers  on their 
regions. The aim was to arrive at a general idea on the importance of regional and cohesion policy  for 
bigger cities in each Member State. The decision \o limit the cities under consideration  to  00,000 
inhabitants is somewhat arbitrary, and has been treated flexibly  where this seemed necessary. The 
actions that have been included for consideration  relate to urban development  in a narrow sense. For 
instance, transport  infrastructure  to connect cities has an obvious impact on urban development,  but it 
has not been included in this exercise, due to the fact that  its impact goes also far  beyond cities. 

The figure concerns almost all of the ERDF part for objective  1 1994-1999 and objective 2  1994-
1996. 

- 7-

The  total  ERDF  support  to  the  CSF-Portugal  amounts  to  8.724  MECU.  47 %  of  this 
(4,082  MECU)  has  been  identified  as  "urban".  Around  1,200  MECU  of  the  OP 
"modernisation  of the economic  structure" is allocated  to support  for  industries  in  urban 
areas.  Other  measures  that  are  financially  important  for  cities  concern  the  improvement 
of  transport  infrastructure  (estimation  of  836  MECU)  and  education  (estimation  of  500 
MECU). Apart  from  these measures  which  are  sectoral  in nature, there  is  also  a  special 
OP  for  "environment  and  urban  renovation".  The  subprogramme  for  urban  renovation 
(ERDF support of 299 MECU) aims at improving the living conditions  in the "barracas" 
of Lisbon and Porto (see 3.1 of this annex). 

In  Greece,  34 % has  been  identified  as  being  urban,  i.e.  3,207  MECU  out  of  a total  of 
9,489  MECU.  Around  70% of  this  is  situated  in  Athens  (approx.  a  quarter  of  the  total 
ERDF  allocation  for  Greece  goes  to  Athens,  which  corresponds  to  approx.  2,200 
MECU). The investment  in the Athens metro  (ERDF contribution  of  783 MECU)  is the 
most  important  project  in financial terms  for  all  EU urban  areas. Amongst  other  things, 
important  benefits  for  Greek  cities  concern  the  measures  for  research  and  technology 
(approx.  250  MECU),  of  which  more  than  50 %  is  situated  in  Athens,  and  urban 
environmental  improvement (approx.  150 MECU). 

In Ireland, around  35 % (i.e. around 900 MECU  out of a total of 2,562  MECU) has been 
identified  as "urban". Important individual  projects  in Ireland concern  the  redevelopment 
of Temple Bar area in Dublin (20 MECU), and the investment in the Light Rail Transport 
System  in  Dublin  (154  MECU).  Also,  a  specific  "urban  and  rural  development  OP" 
promotes  local  enterprise  support  measures,  employment,  investment  in  the  physical 
renewal  and  economic  regeneration  of  urban  areas.  Particular  attention  is  paid  to  the 
assistance  of enterprise  and employment in disadvantaged  areas of the country. The total 
ERDF support for this OP amounts to 180 MECU. 

The  total  ERDF  support  for  Northern-Ireland  amounts  to  almost  677  MECU,  of  which 
approx.  19 %  (126 MECU) has been identified  as urban.  Important  projects  concern  the 
physical  redevelopment  of  the  Belfast  Docks  in  the  city  centre  (16,5  MECU)  and  a 
sewage treatment plant for Belfast (20 MECU). 

In  Eastern  Germany,  the  situation  is  obviously  exceptional  for  East-Berlin,  where  the 
Structural Funds are heavily involved in the redevelopment of numerous sites, both  in the 
heart of the city as well as in some more industrial  zones. The construction  of the eastern 
part of the new German capital happens with the support of 530 MECU of ERDF money 
(100%  of  ERDF  support).  For  the  other  Lander,  figures  amount  to  20  and  25 %.  The 
combined  figure  for  ERDF  support  to  urban  redevelopment  in  Eastern  Germany  is 
approx.  1,670  MECU, or 24% of the total ERDF support. 

In  Spain,  15,944  MECU  has  been  foreseen  for  the  period  1994-1999,  of  which  5,984 
MECU is estimated to benefit  urban development. The actions that are supported relate to 
the  extension  of high  quality  digital  telecommunications  networks  in all  urban  areas, to 
the  equipment  of  industrial  land  in  cities  in  order  to  centralise  economic  activities  in 
certain  zones,  to  the  improvement  of  the  urban  environment  by  investments  in  green 
areas  and  parks,  to  research  and  development,  and  to  urban  transport.  Examples  of 
important  urban  transport  projects  concern  roads,  railroad  transport  in  the  metropolitan 
area of Valencia, and the renovation of the areas around train stations in various cities. 

In  Italy,  important  contributions  to  urban  development  concern  especially  Naples, Bari, 
and  Palermo.  An  estimation  of  the  financial  impact  on  urban  areas  for  most  regions 

i* 

- 8-

(Abruzzo, Calabria, Campania, Puglia, Sardegna, Sicilia) shows that around  30% is spent 
in urban areas, which corresponds to approx.  1,000 MECU. 

For  France,  objective  1 concerns  Corsica,  French  Hainaut,  and  the  DOMs.  Of  the  total 
ERDF  budget  which  amounts  to  1,335  MECU,  approx.  750  MECU  (56%)  is  spent  on 
urban development. 

The case in French Hainaut is particular, as it concerns one of the objective  1  areas which 
are characterised  by  industrial  decline.  Actions  in  such  areas  relate  very  much to  urban 
regeneration.  In  French  Hainaut,  for  instance,  one  of  the  quantified  objectives  of  the 
programme is to reach 35,000 people in depressed urban areas, which is around  1/3 of the 
total  population  that  lives  in  distressed  urban  areas  in  the  region.  At  the  level  of  the 
whole region, the programme foresees  important measures to stimulate economic activity 
and employment opportunities in the urban centres of the region. 

In Merseyside, approximately  90 % of  ERDF support  goes to urban  redevelopment.  The 
equipment  of  sites  and  premises  for  business  development,  and  incentives  for  local 
businesses  are  important  measures  herein.  As  in  the  case  of  French  Hainaut,  special 
measures  are  taken  for  reaching  particularly  vulnerable  groups  through  what  is  called 
'Community  Economic  Development'  (see  point  3.2  of  this  annex).  Part  of  the 
programme targets the most depressed urban areas, where the ERDF allows more socially 
oriented  measures  in  order  to  reintegrate  difficult  categories  of  unemployed  into  the 
labour market. 

Another objective  1 region characterised  by industrial  decline is the province  of  Hainaut 
in  Belgium,  which  receives  515,92  MECU  of  ERDF  support.  Important  actions  take 
place in Charleroi, Mons, La Louvière and in some other medium-sized cities. 

Finally, in Flevoland (the Netherlands), an estimated 37% out of a budget of 80 MECU is 
spent on urban development, mainly in Lelystad and Almere. 

1.2 

Objective 2 

The estimations on the financial impact of objective  2 programmes on larger urban  areas 
show very high figures for  Britain and Germany, and also for the region  around  Liège in 
Belgium.  In  some  of  these  cases,  figures  go  beyond  80%.  For  Britain,  there  is 
considerable  differentiation  amongst  the  objective  2  areas.  In  less  densely  populated 
zones  (Eastern  Scotland,  Western  Scotland,  and  Industrial  South  Wales),  the  financial 
impact on greater urban areas of the ERDF is less outspoken (approx. 40 to 50 %) than in 
the  English  objective  2  zones.  The  situation  in  English  objective  2  zones,  where 
percentages  tend  to  be  around  80  to  90 %.  is  comparable  to  the  one  in  Merseyside 
described  above. A high proportion of the total  Structural  Fund  expenditure  in Britain  is 
accounted  for  by the densely  populated  industrial  belts  from  Merseyside  to  the  Humber 
across central Scotland through Glasgow. The area around Birmingham, the UK's  second 
city, is also eligible. 

Compared  to  Britain,  there  are  less  variations  between  German  objective  2  regions. 
Percentages concerning the financial impact on urban areas range from  80 to  100 %. 

In the  Netherlands,  France, and  Spain,  objective  2  programmes  have  also  an  outspoken 
effect  on urban development. The financial  impact of the ERDF on bigger cities is mostly 
situated  around  50 to  60 % of the  total  ERDF  support.  In  French  regions,  values  range 

\ 

_ 9-

from  approximately  30 %  in  some  cases  (Centre,  Auvergne,  Languedoc-Roussillon)  to 
75 % in others (Basse-Normandie, Champagne-Ardennes, Franche-Comté, Pays de Loire, 
Poitou-Charentes).  In  the  Netherlands,  especially  Arnhem-Nijmegen  stands  out  as  the 
whole area is "urban" in character. In Spain, examples of important  projects  in  objective 
2  areas  related  to  urban  development  are  the  public  transport  system  in  Bilbao  and 
Barcelona, and the recuperation  of historic  buildings  for  social, educational  or  economic 
purposes.  In  Italy,  the  estimations  on  the  financial  impact  on  cities  vary  from  15% 
(Lazio) to 70% (Liguria). 

A different  picture  emerges  for  the  objective  2 programmes  in the Nordic  countries  and 
in  Austria.  Objective  2  areas  in  these  countries  have  no  cities  with  more  than  100,000 
inhabitants, the criterion that was used  for  this exercise. In this sense, an exercise  which 
only focuses  on larger cities does not do justice to the situation in these countries, where 
the  economic  development  policy  is  concentrated  on  smaller  towns,  which  serve  as 
economic growth poles for bigger geographical areas. 

The  considerable  variation  between  the  Member  States  seems  to  correspond  partly  to  a 
industrialisation  and 
different  structural  reality,  related 
urbanisation.  One  important  structural  indicator  to  interpret  the  given  figures  on  the 
financial  impact  on  cities  concerns  the  population  density  in the  objective  2  areas.  The 
following  table gives the national  average density (population per km2) of the objective  2 
areas for each country: 

to  different  patterns  of 

•• 

Country 

Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany7 
Spain 
Italy 
France 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Finland 
Sweden 
UK 
Total EU 

Average  inhabitants/km2 
in objective 2 areas 
484 
88 
911 
349 
256 
167 
389 
472 
73 
46 
26 
650 
245 

" 

The densities (population per km2) in objective  2 areas are remarkably  lower  in  Austria, 
Denmark, Finland and Sweden , compared to the European average of 245 (the previous 
EUR  12 average  population  density  in  objective  2  areas  was  313  inhabitants  per  km2). 
This  shows that these  areas had  a different  industrialisation  pattern than other  countries, 
and  that  industrial  decline  is  more  expressed  in  "semi-countryside  areas".  For  the 
Scandinavian countries, the importance of the wood and forest  industry, which  developed 
in a process of "countryside industrialisation", could partially account for this. 

There is a small underestimation  of the density figures for Germany. 

ii 

- 1 0-

For  UK,  Germany  and  Wallonia  in Belgium,  the  figures  show that  industrial  decline  is 
mainly  a phenomenon  of highly urbanised  areas, and that therefore,  objective  2 policies 
in these countries are mainly concerned with urban redevelopment. In Germany, densities 
are  extremely  high,  related  to  the  small  surface  of  some  zones  with  high  population 
figures  (e.g. Berlin West, Bremen and Bremerhaven, P.uhrgebiet). The projects  supported 
in  these  countries  are  on  the  one  hand  mostly  typical  economic  regeneration  projects 
directly related to productive activities (physical investment, enterprise support measures, 
technology), and on the other hand measures which are more of a facilitating  nature (e.g. 
urban transport in some cities, intermodal transport  facilities). 

2. 

COHESION  FUND 

For  the  Cohesion  Fund,  there  is  a  50/50  division  between  transport  and  environment 
projects.  Transport  concerns  mainly  roads  and  rail  (respectively  71 %  and  21 %  of  all 
transport  projects). These projects  are always connected  to the Transeuropean  Networks 
(TENs), or they should feed the TENs. Therefore, there is an important indirect impact on 
urban  areas.  The  reduction  of  travel  time  between  cities,  and  the  connection  of  the 
periphery  of the  EU  with the  core, should  decrease  production  and  distribution  costs  of 
enterprises in peripheral cities. Nevertheless, a quantification  of the financial benefits  that 
these transport projects bring to cities is  difficult. 

As  far  as  the  environment  is  concerned,  72 %  of  the  Cohesion  Fund  projects  concern 
water  (water  supply, or wastewater treatment), and 4 % concerns waste treatment.  Most 
of these projects aim at improving the functioning  of urban areas. 

3. 

STRUCTURAL FUNDS MEASURES FOR DEPRIVED URBAN  AREAS 

On  the  demand  of  the  European  Parliament,  the  Commission  decided  to  launch  the 
Community  Initiative  URBAN  in  1994, hereby  calling  specific  attention  for  the  problem 
of  spatial  segregation  in  cities.  Indeed,  the  concentration  of  unemployed  and  other 
socially  vulnerable  groups  in  specific  neighbourhoods  has  been  rising  to  worrying 
proportions over the recent years in many EU cities. 

The CI  URBAN has a budget of around  850 MECU for the period  1994-1999, with which 
programmes  will  be  implemented  in  approximately  115  cities.  Besides  of  a  positive 
contribution  in  socio-economic  terms,  URBAN  wants to act  as a catalyst  in attracting  the 
attention  to  the  problem  of  social  exclusion  and  segregation  in  cities,  and  it  wants  to 
enable the understanding of the best methods of intervention. 

Apart  from  the  Community  Initiative  URBAN  that  was  launched  by  the  Commission, 
more  and  more  actions  in  the  Community  Support  Frameworks/Single  Programming 
Documents  of  the  Structural  Funds,  which  are  proposed  by  the  Member  States 
that  generate  sustainable  economic  development, 
themselves,  relate 
employment  opportunities,  and  good  general  living  conditions  in  deprived  urban  areas. 
The following  are some illustrations. 

to  actions 

-11  -

3.1 

The  Operational  Programme  for  Environment  and  Urban  Renovation  in 
Portugal 

On  the  proposal  of  the  Portuguese  authorities,  the  Commission  adopted  an  Operational 
Programme  for  "Environment  and  Urban  Renovation".  This  subprogramme  on  Urban 
Renovation contains three measures: 
• 
• 
• 

the renovation of neighbourhoods characterised by bad housing conditions; 
the rehabilitation of these zones with new activities; 
the renovation of the area for the Expo '98 in Lisbon. 

The  programme  wants  to  improve  the  living  conditions  of  the  Portuguese  urban 
"underclass",  and  contributes  to  the  social  cohesion  in  the  two  metropolitan  areas  of 
Lisbon  and  Porto. Both  cities contain  neighbourhoods  with  "barracas", which  lack  basic 
amenities and which are characterised  by an increasing marginalisation  of the population. 
In  quantitative  terms,  the  programme  aims  at  eliminating  200  neighbourhoods  that  are 
composed  of  barracas  over  the  course  of  the  programming  period.  This  operation 
involves  around  25,000  families.  The  ERDF  does not  co-finance  the  housing  aspects  of 
the  programme,  but  it  supports  other  investments  in  the  area  that  contribute  to  better 
living  conditions  and  to  the  creation  of  employment  opportunities  (establishment  of 
services, commerce, small industries, social equipment,  infrastructure). 

The  subprogramme  on  Urban  Renovation  contains  also  a  measure  that  aims  at  the 
rehabilitation  of  the  derelict  land  in  Lisbon  where  the  Expo  '98  will  take  place.  The 
reconversion  of  an  area  of  310  hectares  and  the  equipment  of  the  area  with  modern 
infrastructure  will be a major  contribution  to the development  of the whole Lisbon  area, 
and to the conditions  in this specific  part  of the city, which  is situated  in the  communes 
of Lisbon and Loures. 

The  total  cost  of  this  subprogramme  on  Urban  Renovation  amounts  to  487  MECU,  to 
which the ERDF contributes  299 MECU. 234 MECU  of the total  cost  is allocated  to the 
renovation of the poor neighbourhoods, while 245 MECU goes to the reconversion  of the 
area for the Expo  '98'8. 

3.2 

Community Economic Development in Great Britain 

An  important  innovation  is  occurring  in  the  British  programmes  under  the  label  of 
"Community  Economic  Development"  (CED).  Within  Merseyside  and  the  objective  2 
areas,  the  CED  priority  concentrates  resources  on  pockets  of  exceptional  deprivation 
(which  is called  "spatial  targeting"). The disadvantages  in terms  of  social  exclusion  and 
long-term unemployment  in these areas are so considerable that they face the prospect  of 
exclusion  from  the  mainstream  actions.  CED  seeks  to  involve  local  communities  and 
businesses  in  the  process  of  regeneration.  An  essential  aspect  of  the  priority  concerns 
capacity  building  measures,  which  attempt 
local 
organisations  to  implement  local  development  actions.  Efforts  are  also  done  to  create 
linkages between the deprived communities. 

individuals  and 

to  strengthen 

It is important to note that CED allows to focus  resources  in accordance with desires and 
needs  of  the  communities  themselves.  Therefore,  actions  related  to  CED  can  be  more 

8 

The remaining 8 Mecu is allocated to technical assistance. 

3 O 

- 1 2-

social in nature, the reason being that such  measures are an indispensable  intermediate to 
bring  individuals  in deprived  communities  back  into productive  activities.  In  attempting 
to  reintroduce  the  most  vulnerable  groups  into  the  regular  economy,  CED  can  make  a 
positive contribution to the wider aims of improving regional economic  development. 

The total ERDF support to the CED priority amounts to 271 MECU  for the period  1994-
1996 (objective 2) and  1994-1999 (objective  1). 

3.3 

The  socio-economic  development  of  the  Pianura  neighbourhood  in  Naples 
(objective 1) 

In the framework  of the CSF objective  1 for  Italy, the  Commission  included  a  reference 
to  the  importance  of  local  development  actions  in  urban  areas  in  order  to  improve  the 
urban environment and to combat  social exclusion.  Following this, the Italian  authorities 
recently proposed  a programme to the Commission  which  aims at  stimulating  the  socio 
economic  development  and  improving  the  environment  of  Pianura,  a  neighbourhood  of 
approximately  54,000  inhabitants  in  Naples.  The  neighbourhood  of  Pianura  has  been 
characterised  by a rapid urbanisation.  It grew from  around  10,000  inhabitants  in  1951  to 
approximately  54,000  in  1991.  A  third  of  the  active  population  is  employed  in  the 
agricultural sector compared to 4% for the whole city of Naples. 

The proposed programme amounts to 55 MECU  (27 MECU  ERDF, 24  MECU  from  the 
Commune  of  Naples,  and  the  remaining  part  from  the  national  government  and  the 
private  sector).  The  ambition  of  the  programme  is  to  create  910  jobs  in  the  Pianura 
neighbourhood.  Apart  from  actions  which  are  classically  supported  by  the  ERDF 
(creation  of  new  enterprises,  business  support  measures,  ...),  the  measures  that  are 
proposed  relate also to the creation of an active associational  life,  and the  establishment 
of the identity  of the Pianura neighbourhood.  Through the  CSF  for  Objective  1 in  Italy, 
the Commission has also expressed  its intention to launch  similar actions in Catania  and 
Palermo, which should be made operational by the Member State in the near  future. 

3.4 

Distressed urban areas in the CSF for French Hainaut (objective 1) 

Within  the  framework  of  the  objective  1  programme  for  French  Hainaut,  the  Single 
Programming  Document  foresees  almost  40%  of  the  resources  for 
'local 
regeneration'  measure.  The  Structural  Fund  support  to  this  measure  amounts  to  165 
MECU  out  of  a  total  support  of  440  MECU.  Important  submeasures  concerning  local 
regeneration  are  the  reconversion  of  disused 
industrial  and  urban  areas,  urban 
development  and  restructuring,  support  measures  for  depressed  areas,  and  measures  to 
combat exclusion through occupational integration. Together, these submeasures  account 
for around 75 MECU of Structural Fund support. 

the 

it 

13-

Annex IV: 
Some relevant forthcoming  events 

The debate on urban development at European level will benefit  from various events such 
as : 

• 
the  Summit  of  Regions  and  Cities,  organised  in  Amsterdam  by  the  Committee  of 
Regions  in  May  1997.  This  Summit  will  especially  focus  on  the  Intergovernmental 
Conference; 

the Informal  Meeting of Ministers on Regional  Policy  and Spatial  Planning under the 

• 
Dutch Presidency (Noordwijk, 9-10 June 1997); 

the  second  Social  Policy  Forum  at the end  of  1997, which will  concentrate  on  issues 

• 
related to exclusion; 

•  a  Third  Sustainable  Cities  Conference  prepared  by  several  regional  conferences, 
envisaged for 2000. 

-bi 

ISSN  0254-1475 

COM(97) 197  final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

14  07  05  13 

Catalogue  number  :  CB-CO-97-208-EN-C 

ISBN  92-78-19641-X 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg