Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Commission Communication: Towards an urban agenda in the European Union'
Date: 1998-01-28
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU policy, European Regional Development Fund, urban area, urban population, urbanisation

30.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 95/89

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Commission Communication:
Towards an urban agenda in the European Union’

(98/C 95/19)

On 13 May 1997 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
communication.

The Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning, which was
responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on
20 January 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Vinay and the co-rapporteur was Mr Muller.

At its 351st plenary session (meeting of 28 January 1998), the Economic and Social Committee
unanimously adopted the following opinion.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
Europe is the most urbanized continent in the
world, and has been for at least three thousand years.
The city paradigm is thus deeply ingrained in the
culture, society and economy of Europe’s peoples.
Notwithstanding the specific problems which at certain
periods — and especially today — have influenced
city life, economic and cultural development is still
determined primarily in cities. It is thus particularly
pleasing to note that the EU institutions have adopted a
number of initiatives which bear witness to their concern
for all aspects of both the present and future situation
of urban areas.

The Commission communication is the latest and
particularly worthwhile demonstration of the EU insti-
tutions’ growing interest in an issue of considerable
economic and social importance.

The communication is divided into four main parts.

1.2.
The first chapter looks at the challenges facing
Europe’s cities. The per capita economic contribution
of the urban population to regional and national GDP
is disproportionately high. But this is not reflected in
employment rates.

The decline in the quality of the urban environ-
1.2.1.
ment makes it necessary to overhaul urban planning
policies in order to ensure that they support sustainable
socio-economic development.

1.2.2. On the socio-political front, city dwellers’
weakening sense of a shared identity is leading them to
take less part in the local democratic process. City
management is further complicated by the fragmentation
of decision-making powers, which are spread over
different tiers of authority — not only local, but also
regional, national and EU.

and employment, economic and social cohesion, the
integration of cities into the trans-European networks,
and sustainable development and quality of urban life.

1.3.1.
As recipients of much of internal and external
investment in the EU, cities must equip themselves to
become ‘capable of delivering top quality services’ and
to have ‘good infrastructure endowments’ (point 2.1).
Cities’ capacity to innovate is generally central to the
economic success of their local region.

1.3.2.
In recent years, much attention has been paid
to the socio-economic problems of urban areas. The
the urban pilot projects
Commission mentions
(Article 10 of the ERDF), the success of which spurred
it to launch the Urban initiative in 1994. This initiative,
financed by the Structural Funds, involves establishing
partnership-based integrated development programmes
in deprived urban districts. The Integra scheme, launched
more recently,
the ESF’s ‘Employment’
Community initiative.

is part of

Trans-European networks and metropolitan
1.3.3.
and urban transport links are closely connected, and are
essential for remedying the imbalances in the general
urban system and in individual urban areas.

1.3.4.
All this has also to be viewed from the angle of
sustainable development, which is recognized as ‘a
determinant aspect of the quality of life for the present
and future generations’. The communication mentions
important developments in the last few years, such as
the 1990 green paper on the urban environment, and the
sustainable cities project which was launched in 1993.
Environment policy — with the ‘greening’ of
the
Structural Funds — and R&D policy are specifically
targeted to sustainable development.

1.3.
The second chapter of the communication looks
at current EU actions related to urban development. It
thus examines policies for promoting competitiveness

The third chapter of the communication looks
1.4.
at the way ahead. The Commission stresses that ‘the

C 95/90

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.3.98

starting point for future urban development must be to
recognize the role of the cities as motors for regional,
national and European economic progress’ (point 3).

1.4.1.
The Commission argues that from now on,
‘the various actions at the EU level should be assessed
from the viewpoint of a coherent and sustainable
development of cities’. It thus affirms the need for EU
policies to have an urban perspective.

The Commission recognizes the crucial role
1.4.2.
played by the Structural Funds, and recommends that
local authorities participate in the preparation and
implementation of regional development programmes.

1.5.
Lastly, the communication attaches particular
importance to the transfer and dissemination of good
practice. An ‘urban audit’ of the strengths and weak-
nesses of European cities is to be launched by the
Commission.

In the fourth part of the communication, the
1.6.
Commission proposes that a debate on urban issues be
engaged with the Council, the European Parliament, the
Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the
Regions, local authorities and other interested parties.
This debate will culminate with an Urban Forum which
the Commission intends to convene in 1998.

2. General comments

Various Committee opinions have recommended
2.1.
that more attention be devoted to the urban effects of
EU policies, on the grounds that the socio-economic
development of cities should be one of the main
objectives pursued by Community funds.

In its opinion on the Europe 2000 + report the
2.1.1.
Committee, while recognizing that ‘there is still no EU
strategy for improving urban balance’ (1), argued that
‘the EU’s high level of urbanization obliges it to devote
special attention to problems and trends in urban areas’.
This should be a priority concern of the EU debate on
urban matters.

2.1.1.1. With this in mind, the Committee suggested
that the European Spatial Development Perspective
(ESDP) should offer ‘pointers for possible measures of
to decentralize over-congested
Community interest

areas, diversify urban economies according to regional
needs, enhance urban growth points in disadvantaged
areas, stimulate and develop multi-centred urban net-
works, control urban sprawl and promote a new
partnership between town and country’ (2).

2.1.1.2.
These recommendations added up to a com-
plex and significant programme which was to come
together in an EU urban policy.

2.1.2.
The Committee has also drawn up an own-
initiative opinion on the role of the EU in urban
matters. This opinion stressed that urban policies have
a ‘European dimension’ because they ‘concern principles,
factors and conditions which are of strategic importance
for the development prospects of the EU and for the
quality of life of the European public’ (3).

2.1.2.1.
The opinion put forward a number of practi-
cal proposals, such as increasing the EU’s commitment
to urban pilot projects (innovative measures under
ERDF Article 10), gearing the Structural Funds more to
urban development, examining the spatial and urban
impact of all schemes that concern cities, encouraging
forward-looking urban partnership schemes, and estab-
lishing a forum of EU, national, regional and local
the socio-economic partners and other
authorities,
interested parties to prepare EU strategies for urban
areas.

2.1.2.2.
A precondition for this policy of increased
EU attention for urban issues is that the Commission
‘give a stronger lead (...). In particular, it would be
helpful for the Commission to draw up a set of guidelines
for the EU urban system’ (4).

The Committee’s thinking on this is that the
2.1.2.3.
urban environment should ‘reflect the new perception
of cities as a key element in making development
policy fully consistent with policies designed to achieve
economic excellence and social equity’ (5).

2.1.2.4.
The opinion concluded that ‘the issues raised
in this consideration of the EU’s role in urban matters
are so important for EU development and quality of life
that they exceed the confines of an opinion. They require
constant and careful attention.’

(1) Opinion on Europe 2000 + — Cooperation for European
territorial development (additional opinion), OJ C 301,
13.11.1995, point 2.2.6.

(2) OJ C 301, 13.11.1995, point 2.6.6.4.
(3) Opinion on the role of the EU in urban matters, OJ C 30,

30.1.1997, point 3.3.1.

(4) OJ C 30, 30.1.1997, point 5.3 (ii).
(5) OJ C 30, 30.1.1997, point 6.3.5.

30.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 95/91

2.2.
The Commission communication is wide-
ranging and represents a quantum jump in the approach
to urban issues, which are now recognized as a central
consideration in the planning of future Community
policies.

highlighting the attention paid to the promotion of
sustainable development ‘as a determinant aspect of the
quality of life for the present and future generations’
(point 2.4). This fits in well with the objective of
improving social cohesion in cities.

2.2.1.
It is also pleasing to note that the Dutch
Presidency’s conclusions at the informal council of
regional policy and spatial planning ministers, held in
Noordwijk in June 1997, include the statement that
‘cities are at the heart of the European model of society
as places of solidarity and social integration. Cities are
the motors of economic growth, competitiveness and
employment creation. They need to be places where
jobs and economic growth are created for a wider
economy and labour market. They should contribute to
a balanced development of the urban system in Europe,
and thereby reduce the opportunity gap between the
various localities of the Union’.

2.2.2.
The mainstreaming of urban issues is also
extremely timely in wider policy terms, because it shows
the public the practical ways in which EU decisions can
improve the quality of life. This is especially important
at the present stage of the EU integration process, which
is as delicate and demanding as it has ever been. The
first merit of the communication is thus that it places
urban issues among the priorities of the Community
agenda.

The Committee appreciates the close link
2.2.3.
which the communication makes from the outset
between cities and socio-economic/cultural trends. This
line of thought, which underpins the whole communi-
cation, offers a practical and highly effective approach
to the issues under discussion.

2.2.4.
The first three paragraphs are a case in point.
Their highlighting of the imbalances caused by economic
and technological change — which has brought great
opportunities but has also created large pockets of
unemployment and alienation — bears witness to the
social sensitivity which informs the whole communi-
cation.

2.2.7.
In its earlier opinion, the Committee stressed
the need for an integrated, focused approach and called
for ‘urban development schemes that establish the
practical, economic, administrative and technical pre-
requisites for an improvement in social cohesion’ (1).

2.2.8.
The second European conference on sustaina-
ble cities, held in Lisbon in October 1996, assessed the
impact of the ‘Aalborg charter’ signed in May 1994, in
which over 300 European cities undertook to adopt
concerted measures in support of sustainable develop-
ment. The Commission initiative thus confirms the
choice made with the launch of the sustainable cities
project in 1993. This project sought to fuel discussions
on the sustainability of Europe’s urban areas, promote
pooling of experience, and disseminate best practice on
sustainable local development. The major UN confer-
ence on human settlements (Habitat II) also deserves
mention here.

The Commission proposals are neatly encapsu-
2.2.9.
lated in the statement that ‘the various actions at the EU
level should be assessed from the viewpoint of a coherent
and sustainable development of cities’. This gives the
gist of the communication in a nutshell. If its recommen-
dations are heeded, Community policy decisions can
take on a practical and immediately tangible nature
calculated to make the European public more receptive
to, and more involved in, the work of the Union.

2.2.10.
The Committee endorses the view that the
starting point for the future is ‘to recognize the role of
the cities as motors for regional, national and European
economic progress’.

The communication asks for comments on
2.2.11.
four points of key importance for the future of the EU’s
cities:

The Committee also endorses the description
2.2.5.
(point 1.5) of city dwellers’ weakening sense of identity
and identification — ‘often demonstrated by the low
level of participation in the local democratic process’.

— the need for an urban perspective in EU policies;

— services of public interest and urban development;

2.2.6.
The detailed description of current EU action
related to urban development (chapter 2 of the communi-
cation) gives an effective portrayal of the Community
policies which, in different ways and to varying degrees,
have an impact on urban issues. Here it is worth

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.1997, point 4.6.2.

— the contribution of the Structural Funds;

C 95/92

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.3.98

— information on and promotion of experience-pooling

between cities.

appropriate funding, but the prime responsibility rests
with the Member States and the local authorities.

3. A Europe of the cities: EU policies and urban

development

3.1. While the Community’s interest in urban issues
is relatively recent, considerable progress was made
between the first informal council of spatial planning
ministers — held in Nantes in 1989 — and the June
1997 meeting in Noordwijk. Similar headway has been
made since the first studies on Europe 2000, culminating
in the publication of the first official draft of the
European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) and
the present communication.

cohesion,

A number of Commission papers and studies
3.2.
have pressed for appropriate policies. They range over
spatial planning, regional development, economic and
sustainable urban development,
social
research and development, conservation,
transport,
communications and the information society, employ-
ment and vocational training, the role of small busi-
nesses, the fight against crime, social exclusion, and
other issues. They also demonstrate the urgent need for
an urban policy that is coordinated both horizontally
(as regards ways and means) and vertically (as regards
remits and subsidiarity).

It is against this background that the Committee
3.3.
has assessed the communication, which undoubtedly
fills a gap and represents the first practical attempt to
put forward a systematic EU policy for urban matters.

3.4.
To facilitate discussions, it would be helpful to
define some priorities which are valid for the EU urban
system in general and for the cities of certain regions in
particular. These priorities will be especially relevant to
the forum on urban issues which the Commission plans
to hold in 1998.

3.7.1.
The communication rightly states that ‘Mem-
ber States have primary responsibility in developing the
urban policy for the next century’, adding that ‘it will
be essential to engage all levels (...) within a framework
of interlinking relationships and shared responsibility
and achieve better policy integration’.

3.8.
The EU’s main role here is to provide encourage-
ment and set out broad guidelines which can be used by
the Member States.

3.9.
The Commission must thus take further steps to
prepare itself to meet these new needs and responsibili-
ties. The Committee therefore welcomes the Com-
mission’s decision to ‘examine how it can adapt its
internal coordination to contribute to urban develop-
ment’ in the light of the response to the communication.

3.10.
Assessing the impact on urban areas must be a
constant concern when coordinating EU policies on
economic development and employment, infrastructure,
energy and networks, the environment, social exclusion
and crime. This approach will focus the policies in
question and ensure that they meet the real needs of
local residents more closely.

Such coordination has hitherto been sporadic
3.11.
rather than strategic. Future action should combine an
EU strategic approach with the ‘bottom-up’ approach
which is vital for a policy that impacts on daily life and
local government. Here it is worth pointing out that the
subsidiarity principle should also apply to relations
between the national and local authorities.

3.5.
A scale of priorities would help to guide decisions
and clarify objectives. In financial terms too, pinpointing
the most urgent needs would make it easier to plan
efficiently and assess the subsequent results.

3.6.
The Commission has done much useful work in
the last few years, but its work needs to be taken a step
further. This will also involve the Member States.

3.12. Within this framework, the individual EU poli-
cies (networks, environment, employment, the fight
against exclusion, etc.) must — as the Commission
rightly notes — have ‘clear targets for improvement of
the urban environment with specified time scales’ and
must be ‘aimed at sustainable development’, because
each of them has a direct influence on urban development
and quality of life.

3.7.
There is no doubt that action on urban issues
must be based on subsidiarity. The role of the EU is to
inter alia by providing
strengthen and develop,

3.12.1.
These targets and time scales could provide a
full-scale ‘EU urban agenda’ that sets out in detail the
overall strategy, priority measures, resources, antici-
pated results, and assessment criteria.

30.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 95/93

3.12.2. Here the Committee thinks that it would be
useful to upgrade, redeploy, revamp and/or strengthen
such instruments as:

— the spatial planning observatory;

4.3.1.
The Committee would recall its statement, in
the opinion on the role of the EU in urban matters, that
‘refurbishment of buildings and urban renovation are
clearly not enough (...). The aim must be to alter the
social, economic, employment and cultural causes of
social and urban marginalization’ (2).

— the EU project-centres for the spatial planning of
major internal and border regions, both urban and
rural, in the Member States;

— the adoption of appropriate practices for experience-

swapping and assessment of results.

3.13.
The Committee also thinks it appropriate that
the fifth R&D framework programme (1998-2002)
should include among its basic objectives the solution
of urban development problems; the actions regarding
the ‘city of tomorrow’ and ‘Europe’s cultural and
architectural heritage’ are particularly relevant. These
measures must be closely linked with those of the
Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund (1).

4. A city designed for city dwellers: services, quality of

life and participation

4.1.
Because of its special features, the EU urban
system can effectively combine economic development
with environmental sustainability and social solidarity.
European cities have always been firmly anchored in
their particular region and marked by a strong sense of
local identity, concern for social cohesion and a balance
between city and countryside. The rich economic, social
and cultural urban heritage offers enormous potential
for enhancing economic, social and environmental
balance across the Union.

4.2. However, the process of change brings serious
dangers. The physical face of cities is constantly chang-
ing, whether as a result of continual growth or because
of deteriorations which produce slow but steady changes.

4.2.1.
Global competition drives economic changes
which have a major spatial, social and environmental
impact. Innovation and technologies have boosted cities’
cultural assets, further enriching them and offering new
job opportunities.

4.3.
There have been many studies of urban decay
and of the resultant social problems, and an equally
large number of diagnoses and proposed remedies.

(1) OJ C 355, 21.11.1997.

4.4.
The Committee argued that it was necessary to
shift attention from the symptoms (run-down buildings
and neighbourhoods, unemployment,
social mar-
ginalization) to the causes (lack of job opportunities,
weak cultural models, low incomes, etc.). This would
mean ‘reshaping urban development mechanisms and
mechanisms for distributing the benefits of services,
infrastructure, transport and so on’ (3).

4.5.
Such an approach requires an assessment of the
urban implications of EU sectoral policies; it also raises
the question of the type of services offered to city
dwellers by the public and private sector.

The Committee stresses the vital role which
4.5.1.
public services play in urban development, for instance
for the production of socially useful products and
services and in strengthening social cohesion (4).

4.6.
It is the city which forms the interface with the
citizen, as the quality of life and sustainability of
development are determined by the services provided
there: transport, energy distribution, telematics net-
works, parks and gardens, childcare, services for the
disabled, leisure facilities (cinemas, theatres, concert
halls, sports centres).

4.7.
A major change is needed in the planning,
implementation and management of infrastructure and
services, whether they be the responsibility of the
local authority or of other public or private bodies.
Infrastructure, for example, cannot be viewed simply as
a service or as a generator of employment. It should also
be used as an instrument for reorganizing the urban
neighbourhood, in order to boost opportunities for local
residents, and provide a better economic framework for
local business.

4.8.
To this end, more attention should be paid to
the contribution which the public and the organizations

(2) Opinion on the role of the EU in urban matters, OJ C 30,

30.1.1997, point 6.3.2.

(3) Opinion on the role of the EU in urban matters, OJ C 30,

30.1.1997, point 6.3.3.
(4) OJ C 287, 22.9.1997.

C 95/94

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.3.98

of civil society can make to urban planning. This will
mean abandoning the entrenched practices which have
restricted management functions to central and local
authorities and a few experts chosen by them.

worthwhile schemes are also now being undertaken for
the renovation of inner cities and outer suburbs.

4.9.
It is important that local democracy should work
synergically with the various strands of civil society
(universities, associations and cultural centres, social
groupings, and so on).

4.10.
Encouragement should be provided for for-
ward-looking partnerships which bring together the
various public authorities — with the support of
socio-economic organizations, groups set up by the
communities directly concerned, and private financial,
organizational and professional resources — in schemes
designed to meet the needs of local residents.

Such partnerships can do much to promote social
cohesion, and can also help to make the procedures of
the local administrative authorities more efficient and
more transparent.

4.11. Deciding on priorities for infrastructure and
services is an important aspect of urban and spatial
administration, as disagreement is likely between differ-
ent interest groups.

4.11.1. When deciding priorities, the prime aim must
be to further the public interest. In tandem with this, it
will be necessary to established precise ‘rules of the
game’ and to make arrangements for hearings, consul-
tations and decision-making, so as to reconcile the
various interests as efficiently and transparently as
possible.

It must also be ensured that services are access-
4.12.
ible to all. The role of the EU can be crucial here. As the
Commission states, ‘although Member States are free to
define their own policies in this matter and (although
the Commission) has no interest in who specifically
provides the services, it is clear that the services must
serve society as a whole, ensuring continuity, equality
of access, universality and transparency’ (point 3.2 of
the communication).

4.13.

Improvement of urban balance

4.13.2.
Urban regeneration, involving the economic
and functional improvement of rundown public and
private buildings in city centres, provides a major
opportunity to create new jobs and boost local develop-
ment.

4.13.3.
Regeneration schemes should focus on the
restoration, maintenance, protection and safeguarding
of heritage sites, beauty spots and the housing stock in
general. Such schemes should be included in integrated
urban regeneration programmes.

4.13.4.
At the very least, steps must be taken to
safeguard the social and cultural fabric and historical
identity of areas that have a long-established residential
population and a mix of small businesses and shops.
Above all, this means maintaining a vital balance, with
its profound socio-cultural implications that determine
the very identity of the city, so as to ensure that
regeneration does not drive out current residents. Such
a balance will also serve to strengthen city dwellers’
sense of belonging.

4.14. Outer suburbs pose a different problem. They
are often neglected or treated merely as dormitories. In
some particularly rundown neighbourhoods, disparities
are so blatant that they are a constant threat to
basic citizens’ rights. This can deeply wound urban
communities.

4.15.
It is therefore important that urban policy-
makers make the renewal of rundown areas a key
objective, and that they allocate human and financial
resources to this.

4.15.1.
Intervention should address not only the
physical aspects of urban decay (architectural, urban
planning, environmental) but also the key social prob-
lems of unemployment and exclusion. Neighbourhoods
and suburbs must be viewed as parts of a single and
distinctive whole, and these parts must be interlinked
using appropriate instruments and criteria.

Another complex problem for urban areas is how to
improve the balance between city centre and suburbs.

Countless analyses have been made, and a
4.13.1.
variety of approaches adopted. A large number of

4.15.2. When revitalizing inner cities and upgrading
suburbs, a ‘bottom-up’ approach should be adopted,
with close involvement of local residents, the organ-
izations of civil society, the social partners and cultural
entities.

30.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 95/95

4.15.3.
Local centres — scattered across the metro-
politan area but linked by an efficient transport and
communications network — can provide a location for
prestigious activities relocated from the inner cities, at
the same time helping to upgrade outer suburbs and
easing congestion in city centres.

5.2.3.
The Community has undoubtedly done much
in recent years to help cities tackle their most serious
problems. However, the results have not always lived
up to expectations, chiefly because the lack of an overall
strategy has meant piecemeal assistance and a ‘top-down’
approach to the selection of objectives.

4.15.4.
The ultimate aim should be for each neigh-
bourhood to become ‘a miniature city’ with dis-
tinguishing features which give its residents a sense of
belonging, a clear social identity, and a generalized
feeling of solidarity (1). To this end, encouragement
should be given to neighbourhood regeneration schemes
which, although self-sufficient, also intrinsically support
urban development in general.

5. Cities as an instrument for cohesion: the role of the

Structural Funds

5.2.4.
The Committee thinks that the reform of the
Structural Funds provides an ideal opportunity for a
radical change of direction.

5.3.
Some 80 % of the population lives and works in
urban areas. Hence measures to tackle urban problems
have a wide validity which entitles them to preferential
allocation of funds. Urban considerations should also
be a key plank of structural policies in general.

The Structural Funds can play an important role

5.1.
in a policy for urban areas.

5.3.1.
Selection of objectives should be ‘bottom-up’,
directly involving the communities concerned and the
relevant local government officials.

5.1.1. With a view to ensuring that funds are used
more effectively to help urban areas, it is necessary to
adopt ‘an integrated strategy between actions in urban
areas and in their wider regions, as well as in terms of
economic and human resource development’.

5.2.
Socio-economic cohesion — the fundamental
objective of the funds — is a particular problem in
urban areas, given the scale of the difficulties and their
immediate social impact.

5.2.1.
Significant economic assistance is needed to
address a number of pressing problems, such as youth
unemployment, the exclusion which threatens certain
social groups and entire neighbourhoods, the new
poverty, the needs of the elderly and the disabled, the
rise in crime, and environmental decay.

The Commission (2) estimates that 40 % of
5.2.2.
ERDF financing (objectives 1 and 2) and between 50 %
and 80 % of Cohesion Fund financing are currently used
in urban areas. This adds up to a considerable proportion
of structural support.

5.3.2.
The Commission is moving in this direction
when it states that ‘it is important that local authorities
participate closely in the preparation and implemen-
tation of regional development programmes’. However,
this assumes that the local authorities have the requisite
powers.

5.4.
target
The reformed Structural Funds must
resources directly at urban areas, coordinate and inte-
grate this support with funding for the regions, and
closely involve local residents, the social partners and
the local authorities.

5.4.1.
The Committee appreciates the Commission’s
new approach to urban areas, as apparent in the reform
of the Structural Funds.

5.4.2.
In chapter II.2 of Agenda 2000, the Commission
states that the new objective 2 will also fund measures
for ‘areas undergoing economic change’, and that the
programmes to support new objective 2 areas will also
support ‘urban areas in difficulty’.

(1) For a more detailed illustration of this thesis, see R.
Camagni, European cities and global competition: the
economic challenge — report presented at the 2nd biennial
conference of cities and urban planners in Europe, held in
Rome on 8 to 13 September 1997, pages 10 to 13.

(2) See Annex III: Estimate of the financial impact of the
European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion
Fund on cities, in communication COM(97) 197 final.

5.4.2.1.
The Commission goes on to mention ‘urban
areas in difficulties’ with reference to social exclusion,
concluding that ‘the development of rural areas should
build better links between the countryside and local
towns. This should facilitate the diversification of
industrial, craft, cultural and service activities’.

C 95/96

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.3.98

5.4.2.2.
The Committee nevertheless considers, for
the reasons mentioned above, and in view of the scale
and urgency of the problems facing urban areas, that
more details should be given on the political weight and
role which towns and cities should assume in project
planning, and of expenditure priorities ensuing from the
reform of the Structural Funds envisaged in Agenda 2000.
it would be appropriate to build on the
Similarly,
fundamental role of the partnership at all stages of
Structural Fund procedures, from planning to final
evaluation (1). It would be expedient to show how the
urban dimension can be integrated into Objective 1
regional programmes, bearing in mind that an EU urban
policy cannot ignore lagging regions beset by serious
deficiencies in terms of income, production structures
and employment.

5.4.3.
cation’s intention to:

The Committee also supports the communi-

— concentrate Structural Fund expenditure on pockets

of high unemployment in inner cities;

— mainstream the experience gained in the Urban and

Integra initiatives;

— transfer urban development experience and best

practices.

Aside from the outlook presented in Agenda 2000,
however, the Committee thinks that the approach
adopted in Urban should be continued, as it has already
yielded positive results and been politically important,
and has addressed the problems facing the less prosper-
ous urban areas in an integrated manner.

Furthermore, it is in both the general interest and that
of the socio-economic partners to call for a substantial
upgrading of the programmes coming under ERDF
Article 10, so as to develop flexible operational instru-
ments that can be tailored to differing local circum-
stances and changing conditions.

The Committee also asks the Commission to consider
the possibility of inserting EIB and EIF assistance more
specifically in coordinated national and EU schemes.

5.4.4. When allocating resources, it must be borne in
mind that cities are increasingly becoming centres of
development and are crucial for a region’s competi-
tiveness, but that they also face the greatest concentration
of economic and social problems.

5.4.5. Hence, making urban areas a priority target
for the Structural Funds will help to directly address

(1) See the Opinion on the involvement of the economic and
social partners in Community regional policy (OJ C 127,
7.5.1994).

some particularly pressing social and economic prob-
lems, such as youth and long-term unemployment,
new forms of poverty, and new social exclusion of
immigrants.

5.5.
The Structural Funds must be used to finance
integrated measures; to set up businesses; to improve
infrastructure and the environment; to provide training
and social services; and to promote equal opportunities
and employment.

5.5.1.
Cities can become nodal points for local devel-
opment. Here mention should be made of the welcome
decision to monitor the progress of the territorial
employment pacts, as these can be an instrument for
relaunching and enhancing local development. Such
instruments often focus on the city and its unemployment
and exclusion problems. Moreover, this is the type of
measures which the public feels to be closest to their
needs.

6. The city network: information, exchange and trans-

fer of innovation

Exchange and replication of successful experi-
6.1.
ence, good practices and innovation should be stepped
up.

The Committee takes this opportunity to note
6.2.
that several points of the first official draft of the ESDP
mention the desirability of giving the document a wide
airing at European level before taking any operational
decisions.

The Committee hopes that the debate will be as wide
and thorough as possible, involving not only the national
and EU institutions but also the social partners, and
non-governmental organizations and associations.

An ‘urban audit to assess strengths and weak-
6.3.
nesses of European cities’ has been proposed by the
Commission. Such an audit will greatly assist the
formulation of a new EU policy approach to urban
issues. The audit should extend beyond the EU to cover
a few carefully chosen cities in non-member countries,
so that a comparative analysis can be made of urban
trends within and outside the EU.

6.4.
The audit will be ‘bottom-up’ with direct involve-
ment of the local authorities. It will provide a broad
and detailed picture of the ‘sustainability’ of urban
development, and the resultant instruments and infor-
mation will be extremely useful for guiding EU policies
in the years ahead.

30.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 95/97

6.5.
These decisions go in the direction already
advocated by the Committee when it spoke of ‘the case
the
for systematic EU monitoring of the state of
EU’s cities and of the integrated urban development
programmes and their results’ (1) and called for these
results to be made available. The Committee therefore
welcomes the proposed audit.

6.6.
Alongside this important instrument for infor-
mation-gathering and discussion at EU level, networks
and experience-swapping and cooperation between
Europe’s cities should also be reinforced. Civil society,
universities and researchers, town planners and socio-
economic development specialists should take part in
these exercises alongside the local authorities.

their democratic support which gives the Union the
strength and authority to ensure the success of its policies
and to achieve its fundamental objectives.

7.1.2.
The Committee therefore considers it desir-
able, inter alia with an eye to the important discussions
soon to be held on urban policy, that a redoubled
commitment be made to cooperation with the European
Parliament, which is already working very seriously in
this sphere and may well decide to set up a specific body
on the subject.

7.2. Conclusions

6.6.1. Mention may be made of the biennial confer-
ence of cities and urban planners, which brings together
large numbers of academics and experts from all over
Europe and has produced extremely fruitful discussions.
The conference was launched in Lyon in 1995, and met
again in Rome in September 1997.

Firstly, the Committee feels that some priorities
7.2.1.
for the urban agenda — relating to competitiveness
and employment, economic and social cohesion and
sustainable development — should be spelt out in
more explicit terms than is done in the Commission
communication.

6.7.
It is therefore important to step up transnational
exchanges of experience between cities, with the objec-
tive of amassing all useful and relevant experience in
urban regeneration and sustainable development.

The Commission should also draw on the work and
experience of organizations and networks such as the
sustainable cities campaign.

6.7.1. More opportunities should be created for city
mayors and administrators from different countries to
meet and debate together, focusing on various shared
problems, the solutions to be adopted, and the results
achieved.

The Committee supports the Commission’s
6.8.
thoughts on the co-financing of programmes for net-
works related to economic development, SMEs, tech-
nology, environmental improvement and equal oppor-
tunities.

Such networking must be established and strengthened,
as it brings people closer together and enables them to
compare their experience and establish a practice of
cooperation and experience-pooling functioning as a
key pillar of a Europe of cities and citizens.

7. Final considerations

7.1. Preliminary remark

The Committee would stress the political
7.1.1.
importance of cities. As has already been pointed out,
80 % of the EU population lives in urban areas, and it is

7.2.2.
Conservation and management of the urban
cultural heritage should be paramount. This is the first
‘policy option’ highlighted by the Noordwijk draft of
the ESDP, and it is also of great symbolic importance.
The historic and artistic heritage of Europe’s cities is
part of our global heritage, as well as being an important
economic resource which needs to be safeguarded and
properly exploited.

7.2.3.
It follows that there must be a serious commit-
ment to the regeneration, restoration and conservation
of the centres of major historic cities and of smaller
towns with a strong cultural identity that must be
preserved and strengthened.

7.2.4.
Secondly, sustainable and integrated develop-
ment also presupposes a commitment to improving
outer suburbs.
In the large metropolitan areas in
particular, this could provide an opportunity for multi-
centred development. This would help to relieve pressure
on inner cities, and would give a precise role and
socio-economic identity to neighbourhoods which are
currently in decline.

7.2.5.
The problem of how to enhance the quality
of city life should also be tackled by boosting new
telecommunication and transport technologies to link
cities with the rest of their metropolitan area.

7.2.5.1.
The Committee stresses the need to pay
careful attention to the problems faced by cities in
remote regions, which are at a disadvantage in terms
of overall competitiveness. This problem should be
recognized, and redistribution policies adopted to
encourage cohesion and regional integration.

(1) Opinion on the role of the EU in urban matters, OJ C 30,

30.1.1997, point 6.3.6.

The role which cities are able to play in the
7.2.6.
new global economy will depend partly on the ability of

C 95/98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.3.98

the individual administrations to organize strategies for
development and competitive — in the positive sense —
provision of infrastructure and services.

At all events, coordination policies will be needed in
order to ensure that the pursuit of economic excellence
does not prejudice the objectives of social equity and
quality of life. Competitiveness should help to find
practical solutions to a number of pressing social
problems such as youth unemployment and the inte-
gration of immigrants and the socially excluded.

Special attention should be paid to the structural problem
posed by the situation and role of the elderly, whose
numbers are set to grow in the next few years throughout
the EU.

In conclusion, a new ‘sense of citizenship’ must be
forged, based on participation and social solidarity.

7.2.7.
All possible steps must be taken to encourage
the dissemination of good practices. The urban audit
planned by the Commission can be an excellent exercise
and should be repeated periodically.

7.2.8.
The Committee reiterates how important it is
to take account of the urban dimension when framing
Community policies, in particular as regards competi-
tiveness, employment, social cohesion and sustainable
development.

7.2.9.
The Committee also thinks that the local
authorities should be given the powers needed to devise
and implement development programmes.

7.2.10.
The Commission communication undoubt-
edly represents a quantum jump in the approach to
urban issues, as it views them as a key yardstick for
future Community policies. This commitment would be
strengthened if, following the success of the Noordwijk
meeting, Council meetings on urban policies could be
formally included in the annual schedule, so that the

Brussels, 28 January 1998.

work becomes a fully structured part of the Council
programme.

Urban policy — with due respect for the
7.2.11.
subsidiarity principle — can provide an important
interface for Community strategies on economic devel-
opment and employment, infrastructure and networks,
environment protection, exclusion and crime.

7.2.12.
The Committee would again stress the urgent
need to tackle the social and economic roots of the most
acute problems in urban areas by reshaping urban
development mechanisms and the machinery for gaining
access to the opportunities offered by the system as a
whole.

7.2.13.
The Committee draws attention to the need to
use integrated, finely targeted methods when conducting
urban development schemes. It also stresses the need to
involve local communities in the choice of objectives,
and to use partnership arrangements when pursuing
these objectives.

7.2.14.
Conserving the specific cultural features of
each city is also important. This heritage must be
respected and upgraded in order to reaffirm city identity
and its residents’ sense of belonging, as well as to
strengthen their involvement in city life.

7.2.15.
Turning to the resources to be allocated to
cities, the Committee emphasizes the important role of
the Structural Funds and appreciates the Commission’s
intention to use them for urban problems. It would
however urge the Commission to target the funds more
precisely to urban development goals, and not to neglect
the experience gained during the Urban initiative.

Lastly, the Committee hopes that the measures
7.2.16.
envisaged in the Commission communication and the
decisions taken at the forum to be held in 1998 will
effectively strengthen the locomotive role that cities play
in the EU’s economic, social and cultural development.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS