Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Draft Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning economic and social regeneration of cities and of neighbourhoods in crisis in order to promote sustainable urban development - Urban'
Date: 1999-12-09
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU initiative, aid system, social situation, sustainable development, urbanisation

23.2.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 51/89

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Draft Communication from the
Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning
economic and social regeneration of cities and of neighbourhoods in crisis in order to promote
sustainable urban development — Urban’

(2000/C 51/19)

On 19 October 1999 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Committee decided to appoint Mr Vinay as rapporteur-general for its opinion.

At its 368th plenary session (meeting of 9 December 1999), the Economic and Social Committee
unanimously adopted the following opinion.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The Commission communication sets out guidelines
for a Community initiative, entitled Urban, for the economic
and social regeneration of cities and deprived urban neighbour-
hoods, with a view to promoting sustainable urban develop-
ment, as defined in Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No
1260/1999. The Committee has had to draw up its opinion
quickly because the Commission intends to adopt the relevant
guidelines as soon as possible.

The initiative follows the launch of the Commission’s
1.2.
highly innovative communication on Sustainable urban devel-
opment in the European Union: A framework for action. The
earlier communication set out four guidelines for addressing
urban problems, building on the reform of the Structural
Funds. The Committee recently issued a favourable opinion on
this. (1)

2. The Commission proposal

2.1.
The Commission notes that the current Urban pro-
grammes have delivered visible improvements in the quality
of life in their target areas. It explains how this experience
prompted it to use the framework for action in order to
mainstream the urban dimension into Community policies
and, in particular, to assistance from the Structural Funds.

The Commission outlines the key points of the
2.1.1.
framework for action and stresses the need to ensure that the
new Urban offers distinct added value and is complementary
to the other main programmes. Urban can provide a bridge
between smallscale innovative schemes (piloted under Urban
Pilot Projects and Life) and the adoption of an integrated
approach in the main Structural Fund programmes.

(1) OJ C 368, 20.12.1999 on Sustainable urban development in the

European Union: A framework for action.

2.1.2.
Urban’s chief aim is thus to promote the formulation
and implementation of particularly innovative strategies for
small and medium-sized towns and cities and for distressed
neighbourhoods in larger cities.

Urban regeneration strategies must adhere to certain
2.2.
principles. First and foremost, there must be a sufficient critical
mass of population and support structures. A strong local
partnership is also needed,
in order to define challenges,
strategies, priorities, resource allocation, and so on. The
partnership should include economic and social players,
NGOs, and residents’ groupings, including those active in the
environmental field, as well as other interested bodies.

2.2.1.
assistance under the Structural Funds.

The strategies must complement the main forms of

2.3.
Some 50 urban areas may be covered under the new
initiative, each with a population of at least 10 000. Each must
present a single problem to be tackled within a coherent
geographical area and must demonstrate, using national
indicators, that it is in need of economic and social regener-
ation or faces a crisis situation. The eligible areas, which must
also meet at least three of the criteria listed in the Commission
document, may be located either within or outside objective 1
and 2 areas.

2.4.
Schemes must also respect certain priorities, such as
redevelopment of brownfield sites, improvement of security
and prevention of delinquency, and reduction of urban sprawl.
Employment pacts are a further priority, as are education and
training pathways for excluded persons,
integrated public
transport systems, and measures to reduce private car use.
Waste treatment is also prioritised, alongside water and energy
management. A detailed list of eligible measures is appended
to the Commission document.

C 51/90

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.2.2000

2.5.
The communication goes on to explain in detail
the procedures for preparing, presenting and approving the
individual programmes, and the arrangements for monitoring,
implementing and evaluating assistance.

3.1.4.
Thanks to its special features, Urban proved to be a
worthwhile experience not just for its practical achievements
but also in the more political task of bringing the EU closer to
the public. The decision to continue it is thus a significant one.

2.5.1.
Urban is to be allocated EUR 700 million for
the period 2000-2006. The breakdown of funding between
Member States has been decided on the basis of such criteria
as urban population density and unemployment
figures,
including those for long-term unemployment. A total of 56
measures are listed in the Annex, with average funding of
around EUR 12 million. Measures may cover individual
neighbourhoods or,
if consistent with the conditions laid
down, towns of 30 000/40 000 inhabitants, grouping together
several areas. 2 % of the overall allocation will be managed
directly by the Commission and used for coordination, experi-
ence swapping, assessment and formulation of indicators.

3. General comments

3.1.
The Committee welcomes the Commission proposal.
During the discussions on the reform of the Structural Funds,
the Committee — like the European Parliament and the
Committee of the Regions — had argued that the Urban
programme had been extremely worthwhile and should be
retained. The Commission appreciated the wisdom of this and
broadly agreed, and it is particularly gratifying that Urban is
one of the first acts of the new Commission.

3.1.1.
The request to renew the programme was made
because Urban was viewed particularly favourably. In both
its design and implementation, Urban (launched in 1994)
presented certain special features. Firstly, it targeted particularly
rundown urban areas and took an integrated socio-economic
and infrastructural approach. Secondly, it sought to closely
involve local authorities and public and private associations,
and the local community.

3.1.2.
In short, the distinguishing feature of Urban was to
place the focus on local residents, and not just on structures
(although it obviously affected these too).

3.1.3.
Some 116 schemes were funded under the last Urban
programme, for a total of EUR 900 million. Overall, these
were highly successful as regards both quality and lasting
effectiveness.

3.2.
The new programme contains several improvements.
Firstly, priority (albeit not exclusive priority) is given to small
and medium-sized towns which were marginalised in the
preceding programme
an
important part of the EU’s urban landscape.

and which are nevertheless

3.2.1.
Also noteworthy is the emphasis on exchange of
good practice, and the decision to provide financial instru-
ments for activities run by the Commission in such areas as
assessment, classification and classification methods. Lack of
resources meant
the previous programme laid little
emphasis on these activities.

that

The Commission’s explanation of

3.2.2.
the status of
measures to improve housing is worth highlighting. In Annex
I, it explains that the ERDF (which is the funding source for
Urban) is unable to finance such measures but that when these
are inseparable from other development measures for the area
concerned, the programmes must give evidence of appropriate
financial allocations from the relevant national and/or local
authorities, additional to the total amount eligible under the
particular Urban project. This averts the risk that programmes
which are appropriate and necessary might prove ineffective
because they are not buttressed by other essential projects.

3.2.3.
The fact that the list of measures eligible under Urban
has been considerably extended could be seen as a positive
development, particularly as the list is not exhaustive and
includes measures adopted under the last Urban programme
and the Urban Pilot Projects.

3.3.
However, the Committee feels it useful to make a few
specific comments on the methodology and content of the
new Urban.

The Committee has on several occasions stressed the
3.3.1.
need to mainstream the consultation and partnership principle
into all Structural Fund action (1). The European Parliament (2)
has made similar calls. Yet this element, which provided the
‘added value’ of Urban, seems to have been downgraded in the
new proposal.

(1) See OJ C 407, 28.12.1998 — Opinion on the Proposal for a
Council Regulation (EC) laying down general provisions on the
Structural Funds — cf. also OJ C 368, 20.12.1999 on Sustainable
urban development in the European Union: A framework for
action.

(2) Resolution on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) laying
down general provisions on the Structural Funds — COM (1998)
131 — C4-0285/98/0090(AVC)).

23.2.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 51/91

3.3.2.
The priority aims of Urban also seem to have been
watered down in the long list of possible measures and chosen
objectives. The new Urban no longer includes the previous
programme’s modest but crucial goal of ‘acting as a catalyst in
a broad-based approach, by undertaking key schemes to help
deprived urban areas or cities with serious problems to achieve
a lasting improvement in living standards for their inhabitants’.

authorities and local operators, etc.).’ It should also be pointed
out that the active participation of citizens’ associations and
other social groupings in the planning and management of the
socio-economic regeneration of their area has done much to
ensure the success of both the current Urban initiative and the
Community’s Leader initiative.

3.3.3.
The new proposal appears to favour a whole host of
activities relating to the action framework for sustainable
urban development. These have their merits, but they form
part of a wider and more comprehensive plan than is
appropriate for Urban. The scope of the new Urban is also
clearly laid down in the criteria for eligible areas.

3.3.4.
Urban must not be allowed to become a ‘miniature’
the action framework, with an all-embracing
version of
approach. Instead, it should continue to be a targeted and
effective instrument for crisis situations, promoting initial
socio-economic rehabilitation which then allows the areas
concerned to benefit from wider initiatives such as those
mentioned under the four objectives of the action framework.

3.3.5.
It seems unlikely that innovative schemes for waste
disposal or the building of pedestrian paths can provide an
instant panacea for urban areas which in non-bureaucratic
language may be termed socially and economically desolate.
Such schemes should be pursued as a matter of course in all
urban areas.

3.3.6.
The Committee therefore thinks that the objectives
and measures of the new Urban should be geared more closely
to those conditions which the current text (point 11) considers
crucial for the approval of assistance.

4. Specific comments

The Committee attaches particular importance to
4.1.
initiatives which encourage direct social
involvement and
participation in the various Community schemes, inter alia in
the form of partnerships between social interest groups. The
Committee therefore calls for the reinsertion in the indicative
list of eligible measures of an item from the previous Urban
programme, worded as follows: ‘support in improving local
decision-making
committees,
exchange schemes, the creation of partnerships between local

(neighbourhood

capacity

4.1.1.
Also on the subject of participation arrangements,
the Committee would stress the valuable role played by the
social partners in the areas covered by the projects, and
particularly in the socio-economic context of the areas which
Urban is to assist. Such areas face serious employment
problems, and have difficulty regenerating their economic
fabric.

4.1.2.
The role of SMEs and craft businesses should also
receive greater emphasis, as these are often the mainstay of the
urban economy. These businesses are the main creators of jobs
and prosperity in the smaller towns and cities which are the
priority targets of the new Urban.

The Committee is pleased to see that the eligible
4.2.
measures include advice on security and crime prevention.
Here mention should also be made of schemes involving
commercial businesses and private areas that are used by the
public.

4.3.
The instructions regarding procedures are extremely
extensive and detailed. This may be beneficial but it may also
create red tape. Except for a few essential specific points, it
might be enough simply to refer the reader to the new
regulation on the Structural Funds, as this covers virtually all
the provisions mentioned.

4.4.
The reduction in the overall financial allocation for
Urban may be a logical consequence of the changes made in
the use of the Structural Funds. However, the Commission
should do all it can to increase the allocation, not least because
the 56 new measures proposed in the new initiative are to
cover a programming period that runs from 2000 to 2006.
Such a watered-down initiative runs counter to the Com-
mission’s intention that Urban should have a strong visible
impact both locally and at EU level. The Committee therefore
thinks that the number of scheduled schemes should be
increased.

4.5.
Lastly, and to underscore the comments made in this
opinion and in its recent opinion (1) on the framework for
action, the Committee would draw attention to the conclusions
of the recent first convention of civil society organisations. In
the topics discussed at the convention are
several ways,

(1) Cf. OJ C 368, 20.12.1999 on Sustainable urban development in

the European Union: A framework for action.

C 51/92

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.2.2000

relevant to the Urban initiative and to urban policies in general.
Ultimately, the key to the success of any initiative will lie in
the EU’s ability to develop an interactive relationship with its

citizens and with the environments in which they live and
operate, where decisions are taken that will affect the lives of
future generations.

Brussels, 9 December 1999.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Draft Communication from the
Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning
trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of
the European territory (Interreg)’

(2000/C 51/20)

On 19 October 1999 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned draft
communication.

The Committee decided to appoint Mr Barros Vale as rapporteur-general for its opinion.

At its 368th plenary session (meeting of 9 December 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 78 votes to one, with five abstentions.

1.

Introduction

2. General assessment

1.1.
The present opinion has been drawn up subject to the
constraints imposed by the fact that the Committee is being
consulted, as a matter of urgency, at an early stage in
the institutional procedure. The tight deadline obliges the
Committee to be systematic and home in on the key issues if
it is to offer its opinion in good time. The Committee may
issue a more detailed opinion on the Interreg III programme at
a later date, using the traditional format. This later opinion
will be able to consider the experience and lessons drawn from
the operational measures which preceded the programme, and
assess its future prospects.

In any event, the Committee welcomes Commissioner
1.2.
Barnier’s move to consult it at this stage, and hopes that this
will become standard practice in such situations.

The Committee welcomes the proposal, which follows
2.1.
its past recommendations to reduce the number of Community
initiatives and extend their scope and capabilities. However,
the Committee regrets that the Commission’s proposals are
not backed by information on the results of activities during
the previous period.

2.2.
The Committee welcomes the plan to involve the
economic and social partners more closely in the various
stages of the programme.

2.3.
The proposal to oblige the regional authorities to
involve local organisations right from the design stage of
each programme is also a welcome step. The fact that the
programmes will not depend solely on the central authority,
but also on local players and operators, should make it easier
to adapt them to the situation on the ground in each group of
regions concerned, and should also make for more decentrali-
sed and effective action.