Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Community Framework for cooperation to promote sustainable urban development'
Date: 2000-05-24
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU action, cooperation policy, environmental protection, public awareness campaign, sustainable development, urban area

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/35

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

(2000/C 204/08)

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

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

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

1.

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. The Commission proposal

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

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

C 204/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. General comments

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

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

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

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

is, as stated in Article 1,

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

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

(1) Own-initiative Opinion on the role of the EU in urban matters,

OJ C 30, 30.1.1997.

(2) Opinion on the Commission Communication: towards an urban

agenda in the European Union, OJ C 95, 30.3.1998.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/37

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

social sustainability. The March 1996 report of the Expert
Group on Urban Development explained how the sustainable
urban management process combined environmental, social
and economic aspects. In its recent communication on its
work programme for 2000 (2), the Commission itself empha-
sised that the 6th Environmental Action Programme would
constitute the environmental pillar of a more comprehensive
sustainable development programme, stating that the key
challenge remained reconciling sustainable environmental
development with social progress and sustainable economic
development.

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

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

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

3.3.1.
In the opinion on sustainable urban development: a
framework for action (1), the Committee fully endorsed the
creation of a ‘positive’ information network for good practice,
and stressed the importance of information, findings and
results as a whole being geared to the coherent development
of all four of the objectives set out, and defined as interde-
pendent, in the framework for action.

The concept of sustainable development, and more
3.3.2.
specifically for cities,
is not — and indeed cannot be —
restricted to the environmental aspect alone, but also rests
upon economic and human resources and the achievement of

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

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

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

3.3.6.
The Commission’s initiatives in this area are, how-
ever, welcomed. These include the setting up in 1998 of a
database of good urban management and sustainable develop-
ment practice, and the recent introduction of common Euro-
pean indicators, through a series of 10 local sustainability
indicators. Such initiatives are necessary, and should be
consolidated.

(1) OJ C 368, 20.12.1999.

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

C 204/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

4. Specific comments

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

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

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

it

that

is crucial

From this point of view,

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

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

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

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

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

4.2.1.
The Committee has repeatedly emphasised the cru-
cial importance of a fruitful combination of the twin priorities
of environmental protection and job creation (1), as something
which is not only possible and necessary in practice, but which
would also be helpful in refuting the widespread preconception
that there is a fundamental incompatibility between the two
elements. The ESC therefore feels that spin-offs of
this
kind should also be sought, analysed and publicised when
disseminating good practice, and that this aspect should be
clearly spelled out in the decision.

The potential

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

In general,

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

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

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

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/39

Agenda 2000 had already emphasised how the
4.3.1.
environment was one of
the key issues in enlargement.
The Commission subsequently drew up a communication (1)
specifically on accession strategies for the environment, in
which it argued that the convergence of the applicant countries
in environmental terms merited special attention. The Com-
mittee agrees with the support for local authorities mentioned
in the proposal, which the above-mentioned communication

(1) COM(1998) 294 final.

Brussels, 24 May 2000.

had already signalled as necessary, and is convinced that
involvement of CEEC cities in European urban networks is of
the greatest importance, as part of a strategic approach to
environmental sustainability.

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

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI