Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - The programming of the Structural Funds 2000-2006 : an initial assessment of the Urban Initiative
Date: 2002-06-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU initiative, Structural Funds, action programme, decentralisation, economic and social cohesion, marginalisation, social integration, urban area, urbanisation

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 14.6.2002
COM(2002) 308 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

The programming of the Structural Funds 2000-2006 :

an initial assessment of the Urban Initiative

This  Communication  forms  part  of  the  Commission's  work  programme  for  2002.  It
discusses  the  main  features  of  the  URBAN  Community  Initiative  Programmes  for
2000-2006,  with  a  particular  focus  on  the  characteristics  of  eligible  areas,  the
negotiations with the Member States and the value added by the European Union.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................3

1.

The URBAN initiative in the structural funds ....................................................................6

1.1.

1.2.

1.3.

1.4.

Urban issues and Cohesion Policy................................................................................6

Origins of the URBAN initiative: Urban Pilot Projects and URBAN I .......................7

The scope of URBAN II ...............................................................................................8

Financing ....................................................................................................................10

2.

Selection of sites ...............................................................................................................11

2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

2.4.

The framework for selection.......................................................................................11

Selection process within the Member States ..............................................................12

Location of URBAN II programmes ..........................................................................12

Socio-economic characteristics of the sites selected ..................................................13

3. Overview of the programmes............................................................................................15

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

Content of the programmes.........................................................................................16

Examples of projects by spending priority .................................................................16

Management and Partnership......................................................................................18

4. Added value of URBAN II ...............................................................................................18

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

4.4.

Achievement of Community objectives .....................................................................18

Leverage effect ...........................................................................................................20

Implementation ...........................................................................................................21

Co-operation and networking .....................................................................................21

5. Conclusions.......................................................................................................................22

Annex I: Further reading...........................................................................................................25

Annex II: Glossary of terms......................................................................................................26

Annex III: Tables ......................................................................................................................29

Annex IV: Map of URBAN II programmes .............................................................................39

2

Executive Summary

Urban areas face significant challenges and opportunities. On the one hand, cities are
key locations for the growth and competitiveness of the European Union. On the other
hand,  they  contain  blackspots  with  high  rates  of  unemployment,  crime,  poverty  and
dereliction.  These  "neighbourhoods  in  crisis"  face  problems  of  economic  and  social
integration, often linked to a concentration of ethnic minorities.

The URBAN Community Initiative aims to assist urban areas in crisis, particularly in
terms  of  its  three  main  axes  of  spending:  physical  and  environmental  regeneration;
social  inclusion;  entrepreneurship  and  employment.  It  does  this  in  a  way  with
significant  added  value  vis-à-vis  national  policies  and  other  EU  policies,  notably  in
terms of:

(cid:1)  Targeting on small areas of severe deprivation. This enables the integrated and co-

ordinated approach necessary to tackle the various problems facing the area.

(cid:1)  A focus on issues of community interest in urban areas, notably social inclusion,
the integration  of  minorities  (who  are  especially  concentrated  in  URBAN  areas)
and  the  natural  and  physical  environment.  By  removing  these  barriers  to
investment, URBAN contributes to economic cohesion and the sustainable growth
of the city as a whole.

(cid:1)  Local  partnership.  In  roughly  one  third  of  cases  local  authorities  constitute  the
managing  authority  and  in  a  further  third,  they  de  facto  perform  many  of  these
functions. Similarly, in over 80% of cases, local community groups participated in
the formulation of the programme.

(cid:1)  A network programme for the exchange of experience and best practice, which

builds in a systematic learning cycle.

URBAN  cannot  by  itself  resolve  all  the  problems  in  this  field,  but  it  can  act  as  a
model for national policy and as a means of diffusing best practice.

URBAN: key characteristics

(cid:1)  URBAN is one of four Community Initiatives within the EU Structural Funds. The
others  are  Interreg  (cross-border,  transnational  and  interregional  cooperation),
Leader+  (piloting  sustainable  development  in  rural  areas)  and  Equal  (tackling
inequalities  and  discrimination  in  the  labour  market).  The  Community  Initiatives
share many common features, such as finance by just one Structural Fund, a strong
focus on partnership and networks for exchange of experience.

(cid:1)  URBAN  was  launched  in  1994,  following  a  successful  first  wave  of  Urban  Pilot
Projects.  URBAN  I  (1994-99)  aimed  to  tackle  social  exclusion  in  118  European
cities and gave rise to active local participation and many successful projects.

3

(cid:1)  URBAN  II  (2001-2006)  builds  on  this  success,  with  several  improvements
(streamlined administration, the inclusion of small and medium sized cities in the
programme,  more  transparent  criteria  for  the  selection  of  sites,  a  network
programme for the exchange of experience).

(cid:1)  The 70 URBAN II programmes cover a population of some 2.2 million inhabitants,
with  an  ERDF  contribution  of  €  730  million  and  total  investment  of  €  1600
million.  Programmes  deliver  high  concentration  both  in  financial  terms  (aid  per
inhabitant) and territorial terms (aid per square kilometre) - aid per inhabitant per
year is some 30% higher than for Objective 2.

(cid:1)  URBAN II  sites were selected by Member States on the basis of objective socio-
economic indicators reflecting criteria laid down in the guidelines as well as other
factors, such as the quality of the programme proposed, a balanced distribution of
programmes within the Member State and coherence with national and EU actions.

(cid:1)  The  sites  selected  under  URBAN  II  face  many  severe  social  and  economic
challenges. For example, unemployment and crime rates are both around twice the
EU average. In addition, the proportion of immigrants is more than twice the figure
for  the  cities  participating  in  the  Urban  Audit.  A  final  example  is  that  the
proportion of green spaces - an indicator of environment and amenity - is only half
the average for urban areas in the EU.

(cid:1)  The programmes  proposed under URBAN  II  give the highest priority to  physical
and environmental regeneration, which accounts for 40% of planned spending. The
next two axes - social inclusion and entrepreneurship/employment - between them
account for  a  further 42%.  Other  priorities, notably transport and  the  information
society,  share  the  rest,  although  they  account  for  higher  proportions  in  certain
cases.

(cid:1)  Of the 70 programmes there  are 31 inner city areas, 27 peripheral areas, 4 mixed
areas  and  8  entire  cities.  There  seems  to  be  no  direct  link  between  this  typology
and the priority given to different types of measure.

(cid:1)  The adoption of a short list of common indicators inspired by the Urban Audit for
the monitoring and evaluation of programmes is an important condition for a more
effective implementation.

(cid:1)  The  setting  up  of  programmes  was  relatively  quick,  especially  compared  to  the
mainstream of the Structural Funds. The simplification of procedures in URBAN II
could serve as a model elsewhere.

4

Conclusions

The urban question is an increasing political priority  in the European Union. On the
one  hand  are  the  traditional  challenges  faced  by  European  cities  -  two  speed
development within one city, the need to develop the urban economy in a sustainable
way.  Factors  such  as  globalisation  may  well  intensify  these  pressures.  On  the  other
in  economic  growth,  employment  and
hand,  cities  have  a  decisive  role 
competitiveness.

The approaches developed under URBAN and the other Community Initiatives have
many potential lessons for the future of European Policy, including:

(cid:1)  The  integrated  approach,  whereby  social,  environmental  and  economic  measures
are  combined  in  a  limited  area  to  form  a  coherent  response  to  the  multi-facetted
problems of the area.

(cid:1)  A  focus  on  relatively  small  areas,  which  maximises  impact,  as  well  as  value  for

money.

(cid:1)  The  flexibility  to  select  areas  according  to  national  needs  and  priorities,  while  at
the  same  time  resulting  in  areas  which  fit  community  criteria  and  have  been
selected in a transparent manner.

(cid:1)  Administrative simplification and flexibility, particularly the rationalisation of the
Community  contribution  into  one  Fund  with  one  set  of  procedures,  while  still
covering the full range of measures.

(cid:1)  The  strong  focus  on  a  local  partnership,  including  local  community  groups.  This
builds local capacity, making the programmes more effective. It also promotes new
European models of governance, bringing Europe closer to its citizens.

The added value of the URBAN Community Initiative will be further examined in the
context of the evaluation of URBAN I (reporting in 2003). This information will be
particularly useful in preparation of the Third Cohesion Report and the Commission's
proposals for Cohesion Policy after 2006.

5

1.

THE URBAN INITIATIVE IN THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS

1.1.

Urban issues and Cohesion Policy

The  urban  question  is  fundamental  to  economic  and  social  cohesion  in
Europe. In launching the debate on future priorities for economic and social
cohesion, the European Commission (Second Cohesion Report, 2001)1 stated
that:

"The  urban  question…  is  at  the  heart  of  economic,  social  and  territorial
change.  Cities  are  a  key  location  for  the  pursuit  of  a  strategy  for  cohesion
and sustainable development"

Four key urban issues were identified in the Second Cohesion Report:

– 

– 

– 

– 

disparities  within  individual  cities  (which  are  often  greater  than
disparities between the regions of the EU)

environmental pressures (particularly acute in cities)

the role of cities as motors of growth for the region as a whole

the potential role  of  small  and  medium-sized  cities  in  achieving
more balanced and polycentric development in Europe.

Similarly, the European Parliament in its resolution on URBAN II2 "stresses
the need for an integrated approach to urban policy as currently this looks to
be the only way to address economic, social and environmental problems in
urban zones". A particular concern of the Parliament was that "immigrants,
refugees  and  ethnic  minorities  are  often  particularly  affected  by  social
exclusion".

Furthermore,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  in  an  opinion  on  the  urban
action  framework3,  underlined  "the  decisive  role  of  cities 
the
implementation of the EU's main objectives - economic and social cohesion,
employment,  competitiveness  and  environmental  sustainability".  This
"demonstrates  the  need  for  close  involvement  of  local  and  regional
authorities  in  all  future  policy  formulation,  and  recognises  that  cities…
should be true partners in the process".

in 

Many of the Structural Funds programmes can be said to contribute in some
way to at least one of the above issues. Although it is difficult to generalise,
the following broad observations can be made:

1

2

3

Reference in annex.
Official Journal C 339 29.11.2000 pp.44-47.
Opinion of 3 June 1999, CdR 115/99 fin.

6

                                                
(cid:1)  Much  of  Objective  1  spending  takes  place  de  facto  in  urban  areas.
Typically  the  urban  approach  within  Objective  1  focuses  on  improving
competitiveness, seeking to promote the role of towns and cities as motors
of  growth  for  a  less  developed  region  as  a  whole.  However,  some
Objective  1  regions  (eg  Merseyside  in  the  UK)  have  as  their  main
characteristic urban deprivation.

(cid:1)  Objective  2  has  a  dedicated  urban  strand,  covering  a  population  of  just
over  7  million.  In  addition,  many  urban  areas  are  covered  under  the
industrial strand of Objective 2.  Measures under Objective  2  concentrate
particularly on economic restructuring.

(cid:1)  Finally,  training  measures  under  Objective  3  and  EQUAL  may  impact
deprived  urban  areas,  especially  where  such  measures  concern  social
inclusion.

The  URBAN  Community  Initiative  is  designed  to  make  an  additional
contribution  within  this  framework,  focussing  on  the  economic  and  social
regeneration  of  cities  and  neighbourhoods  in  crisis  (see  also  section  5  on
added value):

(cid:1)  The  areas  selected  are  small  pockets  of  (often  severe)  deprivation.  The
multi-facetted  nature  of  urban  deprivation  necessitates  an  integrated
approach, tackling each of the facets simultaneously, and this is facilitated
by the small size of the areas.

(cid:1)  The  measures  have  a  particular  focus  on  social  inclusion  and  on
regenerating  the  natural  and  physical  environment.  The  nature  of
problems in urban areas  means that such  measures are  often an  essential
precondition for the success of measures to promote entrepreneurship and
employment.

(cid:1)  The  implementation  of  URBAN  is  distinctive,  building  on  a  strong

partnership at the local level.

1.2.

Origins of the URBAN initiative: Urban Pilot Projects and URBAN I

The European Union has a longstanding commitment to tackling problems in
urban  areas.  33  Urban  Pilot  Projects  -  with  an  EU  contribution  of
€101 million  -  were  approved  in  the  period  1989-1993.  This  was  the  first
case where the ERDF explicitly supported innovative urban regeneration and
planning activities.  Innovation  was  also  the key-word  for a second  wave  of
26 Urban Pilot Projects launched in 1997 with an ERDF contribution of €63
million.  These  actions  were  conceived  as  a  laboratory  to  test  original  ideas
and innovative approaches to urban problems.

A  specific  URBAN  Community  Initiative  was  introduced  for  the  period
1994-1999.  This  covered  118  sites  in  all  15  Member  States  and  had  a
community  contribution  of  some  €950  million  in  1999  prices  (see  Table  1
"URBAN I and URBAN II: key facts" in annex). Its objective was to tackle
the  problem  of  urban  deprivation  in  a  holistic  way.  In  this  way  URBAN

7

consolidated  the  lessons  learnt  from  innovations  tested  in  the  Urban  Pilot
Projects,  paving  the  way  for  a  more  tailored  approach  to  urban  disparities
within the mainstream of Structural Funds.

The final evaluation of URBAN  I is currently underway  and the results are
expected  in  2003.  Some  examples  of  measures  and  projects  are  set  out  in
Box 1.

Box 1: URBAN I and the Urban Pilot Projects - examples of measures

(cid:1)  Physical and environmental regeneration. This included restoration of the
historic  town  centre  in  Bari  (Italy)  dramatically  improving  safety  in  the
town  centre.  Another  example  is  the  renovation  of  the  Lasipalatsi,  a
rundown functionalist building in Helsinki, to provide a centre for media-
related  activities  (such  as  internet  access  for  immigrants,  young  people
and the unemployed).

(cid:1)  Innovative ways of promoting entrepreneurship and employment, such as
an  employment  bus  disseminating  employment  and  training  information
in Porto.

(cid:1)  Measures to promote social inclusion, such as the revitalisation of a local

market and support to immigrant businesses in Vienna.

(cid:1)  Measures  to  promote  the  social  inclusion  of  young  people,  such  as  a
project  to  reduce  school  drop-outs  and  absenteeism  in  Barcelona  and  a
sports facility run by local community groups in Marseille.

1.3.

The scope of URBAN II

The second generation of programmes - URBAN II - runs from 2001-2006.
With  an  ERDF  allocation  of  €700  million  in  1999  prices,  it  is  broadly
comparable  in  size  and  scope  to  URBAN  I  (see  table  1  in  annex).  In  fact,
although  the  overall  allocation  is  a  little  smaller,  concentration  on  fewer
programmes means that URBAN  II has  a  higher ERDF intensity  - both  per
inhabitant  and  per  programme  -  than  the  first  round.The  key  goals  of
URBAN  II  -  urban regeneration  with  a  particular focus on social  inclusion,
employment  and  entrepreneurship  -  are  similar  to  those  of  URBAN  I  (see
box on the priorities laid down in the  Guidelines), although there  have also
been some new developments (see below).

A  distinctive  feature  shared  by  URBAN  I  and  II  is  a  strong  emphasis  on
genuine partnership with local authorities and with the local community.
The  significant  role  played  by  local  authorities  in  day  to  day  management
(see  below)  is  unique  within  the  Structural  Funds  programmes.  Similarly,
over 80% of programmes were prepared in collaboration with local partners,
including community groups.

8

Box 2: Priorities for action, as laid down in the URBAN II Guidelines4

(cid:1)  Mixed-use and environmentally friendly brownfield redevelopment5. This
should be designed in such a way as to create employment, integrate local
communities (including ethnic minorities), improve security and generally
improve urban life.

(cid:1)  Support for entrepreneurship and employment.

(cid:1)  Integration of excluded persons and affordable access to public services.

(cid:1)  Developing more environmentally friendly and integrated public transport

systems.

(cid:1)  Waste  minimising  and  treatment,  noise  reduction  and  encouraging  more

efficient energy use.

(cid:1)  Developing  the  potential  created  by  information  society  technologies  in

the economic, social and environmental sectors.

In selecting from these priorities, URBAN programmes must demonstrate  a
commitment to organisation change, participatory governance, empowerment
and capacity building transferable into mainstream practice.

Although there is a high degree of continuity between URBAN I and II, there
have been several developments. These changes reflect lessons learnt, as well
as recommendations by the European Parliament and the Court of Auditors6:

(cid:1)  Inclusion of small and medium size cities. The URBAN I population limit
of 100,000 for  the  city as a whole has been  abolished. The  only  limit  in
URBAN  II  is  at  the  level  of  the  programme  (the  programme  area  must
include  at  least  20,000  inhabitants  -  10,000  in  duly  justified  exceptional
cases).

(cid:1)  Explicit criteria for the selection of sites (see section 3.1), laid down in the
URBAN  II  Guidelines.  This  has  resulted  in  a  more  transparent  selection
process (see section 3.2).

(cid:1)  The  use  of  a  single  Fund 

to  achieve  significant  administrative
simplification.  Previously,  both  the  European  Regional  Development
Fund (ERDF) and Social Fund intervened in URBAN areas, resulting in a
duplication  of  procedures.  URBAN  II  is  only  funded  by  the  ERDF,
halving  the  administrative  effort  involved  in  certain  aspects,  eg  pay
claims.  However,  this  does  not  mean  that  Social  Fund  type  measures  -
including  training  and  other  measures  to  tackle  social  exclusion  -  are
excluded:  URBAN  II  retains  flexibility  by  allowing  ERDF  money  to  be

4

5

6

These  priorities  can  be  found  for  example  in  §12  and  Annex  I  of  the  URBAN  Guidelines,
referenced in Annex I.
However, the renovation of housing is specifically excluded.
See Annex I for references.

9

                                                
spent on ESF type  measures (and  more rarely on measures  which would
be covered by the other Structural Funds).

(cid:1)  The  use  and  development  of  the  Urban  Audit  as  a  systematic  source  of
information.7  In  addition,  there  have  been  improvements  in  terms  of
consistent, quality monitoring, in that a common set of indicators has now
been established (see section 5.3).

(cid:1)  Strengthening of the ex ante appraisals.

(cid:1)  A networking programme to promote the exchange of best practice in the

urban environment.

1.4.

Financing

Financial  assistance  may  be  granted  for  up  to  75%  of  the  total  cost  in
Objective  1  regions  and  up  to  50%  in  other  regions.  For  the  period
2001-2006, the Commission drew up a financial allocation by Member State
(see table 2 in annex) in proportion to three objective indicators8:

(cid:1)  Urban population in the Member State

(cid:1)  Unemployment in urban areas

(cid:1)  Long-term unemployment in urban areas

After negotiations with the Member States, the number of  programmes  was
set  at  70.  This  took  account  of  national  contributions  and  the  need  for
financial  concentration.  This  total  was  divided  between  Member  States  in
proportion to the total money available in each.

The  relatively  small  areas  and  population  covered  by  URBAN  II  enable  a
high  aid  intensity  -  30%  higher  than  Objective  2  in  terms  of  aid  per
inhabitant  per  year9.  The  figures  are  more  striking  when  one  considers  the
relatively  small  geographical  areas  covered  by  URBAN  II,  with  the  result
that  aid  per  km²  is  broadly  speaking  3  times  that  of  the  urban  strand  of
Objective  2.  This  last  point  has  an  interesting  implication:  although  the
Community  contribution  per  inhabitant  is  the  single  most  useful  way  of
measuring  aid  intensity,  a  high  level  of  funding  per  km²  has  important

7

8

9

The Urban Audit, edited by the Commission in the year 2000, takes stock of quality of life in
58  European  cities.  A  broad  range  of  socio-economic  indicators  were  collected  -  including
themes  such  as  participation  in  civic  life,  teaching  and  training,  environment,  culture  and
leisure.
Since  the  resultant  allocation  for  Luxembourg  was  relatively  small,  the  national  authorities
asked  for  the  money  to  be  transferred  to  the  Luxembourg  INTERREG  programme.  The
Commission agreed to this request.
However,  this  figure  needs  to  be  seen  in  the  context  of  the  greater  scale  and  coverage  of
Objective  2,  of  which  the  urban  strand  alone  is  spending  €2193  million  in  the  period
2000-2006  and  concerns  some  7  million  inhabitants,  ie  it  is  broadly  3  times  the  scale  of
URBAN II.

10

                                                
consequences  in  terms  of  the  impact  on  local  planning  and  regeneration  of
urban land.

The programmes are therefore characterised by medium to high aid intensity
per capita, rendered much more effective and visible by the smallness of the
areas. Both the small size and high aid intensity enable an integrated and co-
ordinated  approach  to  the  many  different  facets  of  deprivation  which
combine in urban blackspots. This integrated approach is an important aim of
the URBAN initiative.

2.

SELECTION OF SITES

2.1.

The framework for selection

(cid:1)  Decentralised  decision  making.  Each  Member  State  selected  its  own
sites  from  the  quota  set  by  the  Commission.  In  addition,  Member  States
made the financial allocation between sites. This was in keeping with the
principle of subsidiarity and to allow for the fact that the nature of urban
problems varies considerably between countries.

(cid:1)  A  common  Community  framework.  However,  to  maintain  coherence
and effectiveness, the Commission established guidelines for selection and
for  allocation  of  funding.  To  ensure  viability  each  area  had  to  have  a
minimum of 20,000 inhabitants (although in duly justified cases this could
be  reduced  to  10,000).  In  addition,  the  financial  allocation  had  to  be
sufficient to ensure for each programme a minimum aid intensity of €500
per head over the period of the programme.

(cid:1)  Objective Criteria. To be eligible, urban areas had to fulfil at least three
of nine criteria, thus ensuring that the URBAN area selected were those in
most need, facing multiple deprivation rather than having a bad score on
one indicator only. The nine criteria were:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

High long-term unemployment

Low rate of economic activity

High level of poverty and exclusion

The  need  for  structural  adjustment  due  to  economic  and  social
difficulties

High proportion of immigrants, ethnic minorities or refugees

Low level of education, major gaps in terms of qualifications and
a high rate of pupil failure

High level of criminality and delinquency

Unstable demographic development

Particularly poor environmental conditions

11

The rationale of this decentralised approach was twofold. On the one hand, it
respected  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  and  recognised  that  urban  problems
can  vary  considerably  from  one  country  to  another.  On  the  other  hand,  it
maintained coherence at the EU level, including the use of an agreed set of
objective criteria.

2.2.

Selection process within the Member States

The  selection  processes  adopted  by  the  national  authorities  varied  from
Member State to Member State, but one of the most positive features was the
transparency  of  the  process.  Typically,  the  selection  started  with  either  a
competition/call for submissions, (eg France, Italy and Greece) or a statistical
analysis based on the indicators laid down in the guidelines (eg Netherlands,
Denmark, Portugal).

In selecting URBAN II sites, four recurrent criteria can be identified:

(cid:1)  Transparent  socio-economic  indicators.  All  the  Member  States  relied
heavily on socio-economic indicators reflecting some or all of the criteria
laid  down  the  Guidelines.  In  most  cases,  this  took  the  form  of  a  formal
statistical  analysis  to  select  areas  scoring  highest  using  these  criteria.  In
some  cases,  an  independent  body  or  expert  checked  that  areas  proposed
met a minimum level of consistency with the criteria from the Guidelines.
Member  States  often  combined  this  analysis  with  other  socio-economic
indicators, reflecting national priorities.

(cid:1)  Assessments of the quality of programmes  proposed and the  financial
capacity  of 
the  managing  authority  were  quite  common.  These
assessments  included  features  such  as  perceived  capacity  to  generate
innovative projects.

(cid:1)  Territorial  balance  was  also  a  common  consideration.  For  example
Belgium  assigned  one  programme  each  to  Brussels,  Flanders  and
Wallonia  and  each  region  then  managed  a  selection  process.  Germany
organised  a  national  competition,  but  effectively  set  a  maximum  of  one
programme per Land.

(cid:1)  Coherence with national or EU actions. Some countries (notably France
and  Sweden)  selected  areas  already  covered  by  national  regeneration
programmes.  In  Brussels,  the  programme  fills  a  need  in  part  of  the
Objective 2 area and therefore complements the Objective 2 programme.
Conversely,  Finland  restricted  choices  to  areas  not  already  covered  by
mainstream Structural Funds programmes.

2.3.

Location of URBAN II programmes

Most of the URBAN II sites are new and were not proposed under URBAN I
(see map in annex). However, there are some exceptions to this rule:

12

(cid:1)  Clichy-sous-Bois/Montfermeil, Bastia and Val de Seine in France as well
as  Lisbon  in  Portugal.  In  each  case  the  URBAN  II  area  completely
includes the old URBAN I area.

(cid:1)  Helsinki-Vantaa  in  Finland  and  Kiel  in  Germany,  where  there  is  a

significant overlap between the current and previous sites.

(cid:1)  Graz in Austria, where there is a very small overlap between the two sites.

In all of these cases except Bastia, the managing authority remains the same.
They have therefore had an opportunity to learn the lessons from URBAN I
and apply them in URBAN II. A similar opportunity exists where there is no
overlap, but where the same city has had both URBAN I and II. Examples of
this are numerous, but include Brussels, Porto and Genova (in all three cases,
URBAN  I  and  II  are  in  adjacent  areas),  Bordeaux  (where  URBAN  II  takes
over from an Urban Pilot Project), Bristol, Rotterdam and Vienna.

An interesting observation is the overlap with Objectives 1 and 2 (see table
below and table 3  in annex).  Broadly speaking, URBAN  II sites  are  evenly
split  between  Objective  1  areas,  Objective  2  areas  and  areas  outside  the
mainstream Objectives.  This  is  in  sharp  contrast  with URBAN  I, where  the
majority of the programmes were covered by Objective 1 and only one sixth
of  the  programmes  did  not  coincide  with  the  mainstream.  One  explanation
for  the  difference  is  that  URBAN  I  had  a  prefixed  quota  for  Objective  1
areas, whereas URBAN II had no such constraint.

Overlap with the mainstream Structural Funds: number and proportion
of programmes covered by different Objectives

URBAN I

URBAN II

Objective 1 (or 6)

56% (66 programmes)

39% (27 programmes)

Objective 2 (or 5b)

28% (33)

Outside 
Objectives

the  mainstream

17% (20)

27% (19)

34% (24)

2.4.

Socio-economic characteristics of the sites selected

URBAN II covers a population of some 2,156,000. The programme areas can
be divided into three broad categories (see table 3):

(cid:1)  Inner  city,  ie  falling  within  the  city  centre  or  the  inner  ring  of  dense
housing, often dating from the 19th century. Inner city areas are the most
common type within URBAN II - 31 out of the 70 programme areas can
be classified in this way and just under a million people (so nearly half the
URBAN population) live there.

13

(cid:1)  Peripheral  and  suburban  neighbourhoods.  This  category  is  also  very
common  within  URBAN  II,  concerning  27  areas  and  around  800,000
people.

(cid:1)  Small cities, where URBAN covers all or most of the city and it does not
make sense to divide the inner city from the periphery. This is the smallest
category, concerning 8 programmes and 240,000 people.

In  addition,  four  programmes  were  a  deliberate  mix  of  inner  city  and
peripheral neighbourhoods, in an attempt to improve linkages between these
two types of area.

URBAN  sites  are  relatively  small  in  Structural  Funds  terms.  The  largest
programme (Hetton and Merton in the UK) covers an area of 60km² and the
smallest  (Orense  in  Spain)  is  0.5  km².  The  most  populous  programme  (in
Amsterdam) contains 62,000 inhabitants, while the least populous (Amadora
in Portugal) just  over 10,000. However,  as noted  elsewhere, aid intensity is
relatively  high  -  aid  per  inhabitant  per  year  is  30%  higher  than  for
Objective 2.

The  first  notable  observation  is  the  scale  of  unemployment  in  URBAN
areas.  On  average  some  17%  of  the  population  in  URBAN  II  areas  is
unemployed,  compared  to  around  8%  for  the  EU  as  a  whole  in  the  same
period. Out of 66 URBAN programmes reporting unemployment rates, only
8 (mainly from the UK) fall below the EU average. And, of these eight, five
are  above the relevant national  average,  so  have  high  unemployment  in  the
national  context.  At  the  other  extreme,  Mola  di  Bari  in  Italy  reports  an
unemployment  rate  of  50%  and  16  out  of  66  areas  report  a  rate  of  25%  or
more.

Ethnic minorities, immigrants and refugees account for nearly 14% of the
population of URBAN areas. This is around four times the figure for the EU
as a whole (where only 3.5% of the population is from outside the EU) and
more than double the figure for cities covered by the Urban Audit (6%).

Reported  crime  is  a  significant  problem  in  URBAN  areas,  running  on
average at nearly twice the rate for the EU as a whole (over 100 offences per
year per 1,000 inhabitants, as opposed to 55 for the EU as a whole). The true
picture in URBAN areas is probably worse, since areas with high exclusion
are  those  where  confidence  in  the  police  is  lowest  (and  therefore  under-
reporting of crime most common). Crime is not just distressing to its victims,
but can also contribute to the  spiral of  decline  in  an  area  as  businesses  and
individuals (particularly the more affluent and entrepreneurial) leave.

The age structure of URBAN areas in terms of old people over 60 (18% of
the  population)  and  young  people  under  16  (18%  again)  is  very  similar  to
that for the EU as a whole. However the age structure is slightly different to
what one would  expect  in  town - the figures  from  the  cities  sampled  in the
Urban Audit are 16.4% for over 60s and 17.1% for young people.

14

Finally,  there  are  fewer  green  spaces  in  URBAN  areas.  These  account  for
some  10.5%  of  total  surface  area,  only  half  the  figure  of  20.5%  for  cities
participating in the Urban Audit. This lack of amenity is just one example of
the broader environmental problems which URBAN areas face.

These  results  are  confirmed  by  the  SWOT  analyses  provided  in  the
programmes.  Unemployment  and  poverty  were  considered  the  two  most
widespread  challenges,  being  rated  as  a  significant  weakness  or  threat  in
almost  all  cases.  In  fact,  most  of  the  SWOT  analyses  gave  the  highest
prominence to one or both of these factors. However, several other factors -
including economic change, low education levels, a run  down  environment,
high  crime  and  a  high  presence  of  ethnic  minorities  -  were  also  cited  as
challenges in most cases.

3.

OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAMMES

From the  URBAN  Guidelines  date  of  28  April  2000,  Member  States  had  6
months  to  prepare  and  submit  programmes.  In  the  event,  for  a  number  of
reasons,  including  delays  arising  from  arranging  competitions  for  selection
and  extensive  consultation  of  local  partners,  although  some  programmes
arrived on time, many did not. Some arrived as late as June 2001 (notably the
UK and Portuguese programmes).

However,  all  the  URBAN  II  programmes  were  adopted  before  the  end  of
2001.  This  necessitated  a  considerable  effort  and  adoption  times  were
noticeably more rapid than for other Structural Funds programmes (see table
4). For example, only 5 URBAN programmes (7% of the total) took longer
than  a  year.  This  compares  favourably  with  the  24%  of  Objective  1
programmes and 24% of Objective 2 programmes which exceeded this time.

One  explanation  for  this  positive  result  may  be  the  relative  simplicity  of
URBAN programmes and procedures. Another possible factor is the creation
of a single dedicated unit for URBAN  II  within the  European  Commission.
This  promoted  knowledge  specific  to  urban  regeneration  issues  within  the
Commission.  It  also  responded  to  criticisms  levelled  at  URBAN  I  by  the
Court  of  Auditors  -  an  excessive  number  of  officers  dealing  with
programmes and a high level of staff turnover.

The  period  between  the  receipt  of  the  programmes  and  their  eventual
adoption by the Commission was used by the Commission to seek a number
of  improvements.  Among  the  more  common  changes  made  were  the
following:

(cid:1)  Amendments to bring the priorities more closely into line with community
the

including  competition  policy,  policies 

policies, 
environment, equal opportunities, the information society.

relating 

to 

(cid:1)  Changes to achieve greater co-ordination with mainstream structural funds
programmes on the same area and to comply with the eligibility rules.

15

(cid:1)  The  introduction  of  common  socio-economic  area  indicators  and  of

common programme performance indicators.

3.1.

Content of the programmes

Of  the  priorities  laid  down  in  the  Guidelines,  a  clear  division  emerges
between  the  top  three  spending  priorities  of  physical  and  environmental
regeneration,  social  inclusion  and  entrepreneurship/employment,  which
between them account for 80% of planned spending, and the other axes (see
table 8):

(cid:1)  Physical  and  environmental  regeneration  ("environmentally  friendly
brownfield redevelopment")  accounts  for  40%  of  planned  spending.  It  is
at  its  highest  as  a  proportion  of  the  total  in  Austria  (59%),  lowest  in
Finland and Sweden (0%).

(cid:1)  Social  inclusion  accounts  for  21%  of  planned  spending.  It  is  highest  in

Finland (47%), lowest in Austria (3%).

(cid:1)  Entrepreneurship and employment accounts for 21% of planned spending.

It is highest in Sweden (71%), lowest in Ireland (7%).

(cid:1)  Transport  accounts  for  8%  of  planned  spending.  Highest  in  the
Netherlands  (18%)  and  lowest  in  Ireland,  Portugal,  Finland  and  Sweden
(0%).

(cid:1)  Information and Communication Technology accounts for 4% of planned
spending. Highest in Finland (16%), lowest in Portugal and Sweden (0%).

There is no significant variation in proposed spending patterns between inner
city  and  peripheral  areas.  However,  where  the  whole  city  is  covered  by
URBAN,  there  is  a  slight  tendency  to  reduce  spending  on  physical
regeneration (down to 34% as against 40% for URBAN II in general) and to
increase spending in other areas proportionately.

Similarly,  there  are  few  systematic  differences  between  small,  medium  and
large cities. The notable exception is that large cities are proposing to spend
7% of total funds on ICT, while small cities propose only 2% (and medium
sized cities only 3%).

3.2.

Examples of projects by spending priority

Pescara  in  Italy  provides  an  example  of  a  physical  and  environmental
regeneration project. There is a large zone of derelict land around a railway.
This  will  be  regenerated  into  parkland,  with  the  planting  of  trees,  and  a
tunnel  will  be  dug  under  the  railway.  Another  example  is  in  Mola  di  Bari,
where  sewage  has  polluted  the  shoreline.  A  treatment  plant  will  be  created
and the shoreline renovated, thus promoting both tourism and the quality of
the natural environment.

16

Many programmes provide for the construction or renovation of buildings10
and public spaces  (roads,  squares).  These  actions aim to promote economic
activities  (commerce,  services,  tourism)  and  improve  the  quality  of  life  for
locals.  Many  of  the  French  programmes  are  an  example  of  this,  putting  a
strong emphasis on the quality of architecture and the built environment.

An example of social inclusion is Bristol in the UK, where the programme
focuses  on  measures  to  get  young  people  off  drugs,  out  of  crime  and  into
jobs. An innovative feature is the integration of young people in planning and
implementing the programme. With appropriate mentoring, they have helped
prepare  project  appraisal  mechanisms,  and  they  are  involved  in  the  project
selection process.

A major project in Berlin is the refurbishment of a school auditorium to serve
both as a centre for  cultural events, as well as a meeting point  for  the local
inhabitants.  Other  examples  of  projects  include:  Val  de  Seine,  where  there
are  projects  to  improve  the  training  of  immigrant  women;  Dublin,  where
much of the programme revolves around a youth centre.

industry  on  which 

this  area  depended  has 

The Clyde Urban Waterfront Programme in the UK furnishes an example of
actions to promote entrepreneurship and employment. The collapse of the
shipbuilding 
left  high
unemployment. In many families, several generations are unemployed. This
means  that  in  many  cases  young  people  do  not  just  lack  formal  skills,  but
also lack role models for how to cope in the world of work. The programme
therefore  has  a  two-pronged  approach,  seeking  to  improve  both  skills  and
participation.  This  blending  of  measures,  so  that  even  employment  and
entrepreneurship  has  a  social  inclusion  aspect,  is  a  common  feature  in
URBAN II.

Heerlen in the Netherlands provides an example of a significant project in the
field of transport. The station is considered a crime hotspot, unattractive and
badly linked to other  forms of transport.  Links  are  being improved to other
modes  -  bus,  tram,  car  and  bicycle  -  to  make  the  station  a  multi-modal
transport node. For safety, the physical layout is being changed and lighting
improved. In addition, the increase in people and services present will reduce
the potential for crime.

Despite  relatively  modest  spending,  Information  and  Communication
Technology  is  often  an  essential  component  of  training  programmes.
Brussels is an example of a programme with a strong ICT focus, since over a
quarter  of  spending  is  consecrated  to  ICT  training  and  the  development  of
multimedia poles.

10

With the exception of housing, which is excluded by the URBAN Guidelines.

17

                                                
3.3.

Management and Partnership

As noted above, one of the distinguishing features of URBAN II vis-à-vis the
other Structural Funds is the degree to which management is decentralised to
the  local  authorities.  Of  the  70  programmes,  fully  one  third  of  them  -  23
cases -  have a  city  council  as the  managing authority.  Examples  of  this  are
the Italian, Dutch,  Austrian,  Finnish and  Irish  programmes,  as well as  most
of the  French  programmes.  For  France  and  Italy,  this  is  more  decentralised
than URBAN I, where the national authorities (or their local representatives)
used to be responsible for programming in all cases.

Moreover,  for  something  like  a  further  third  of  the  programmes,  the  local
authority  is  the  key  player  in  partnership  with  central  government.  For
example, in the English regions, although the managing authority is a central
government  department,  day  to  day  responsibility  has  been  devolved  to  its
regional  offices;  furthermore,  local  councils  have  accepted  the  role  of
"accountable body" and are responsible for financial management and project
appraisal within broad parameters laid down by central government. In Spain
and  Greece  similar  relationships  exist  between  the  Ministry  of  Finance  and
the municipalities.

Finally,  in  most  of  the  remaining  programmes,  the  city  council  plays  a  full
role in the monitoring committee. This is the case for example in Germany,
where the managing authorities are the Länder, as well as in Portugal, where
the national authorities take the lead. In many cases, not only is the relevant
local  authority  represented,  but  also  the  national  association  of  local
authorities.

For  partnership,  57  out  of  the  70  programmes  (so  over  80%)  extensively
consulted  local  partners  in  the  drafting  of  the  programme  document.
However this effort must be maintained and deepened over the coming years
(see also point 5.2).

4.

ADDED VALUE OF URBAN II

Since  the  programmes  are  only  just  starting,  it  is  too  early  to  pronounce
definitively on most issues. The subject of added value will be examined in
greater depth later in the evaluations. Nevertheless, the following points are
emerging and will be monitored as the programmes develop.

4.1.

Achievement of Community objectives

Although  relatively  modest  in  terms  of  overall  spending,  URBAN  II
contributes to several community priorities. There are two sides to this. First,
URBAN spending covers some of the most needy neighbourhoods in the EU.
Secondly,  URBAN  has  a  distinctive  profile  vis-à-vis  the  other  Structural
Funds  (see  table  5)  with  a  considerably  higher  proportion  of  spending
devoted to physical and environmental regeneration and to social inclusion:

18

(cid:1)  Social  cohesion.  URBAN  areas  perform  poorly  on  many  economic  and
social  indicators,  reflecting  the  observation  in  the  Urban  Audit  that
disparities within a single city are often greater than the worst disparities
between  cities  across  the  EU.  Training  is  essential,  but  must  be
accompanied  by  URBAN's  strong  focus  on  social  inclusion  measures,
such  as  language  training  or  building  the  capacity  of  local  community
groups to enable them to deliver training.

(cid:1)  Competitiveness  and  economic  cohesion.  There  are  many  barriers  to
economic  regeneration  and  development  in  URBAN  areas,  including  a
lack of entrepreneurship and high crime. URBAN's integrated approach is
specifically  designed  to  tackle  these  barriers,  reversing  the  cycle  of
decline and helping the area towards competing on an equal footing with
other areas.

(cid:1)  Environmental regeneration. As noted above, environmental conditions in
URBAN II areas are often significantly worse than elsewhere, with green
areas  accounting  for  around  half  the  average  for  EU  urban  areas  more
generally. 40% of planned spending will go to physical and environmental
regeneration.  This  includes  measures  to  improve  the  quality  of  the  built
environment  and  the  architectural  heritage.  In  addition,  a  significant
proportion  of  the  8%  of  the  spending  planned  for  transport  is  going  on
cycle paths and other environmentally friendly forms of urban transport.

(cid:1)  Information  and  Communication  Technologies.  Low  education  and
employment levels mean that URBAN areas start at a disadvantage in this
field. URBAN II is providing basic ICT training with local and small scale
delivery,  often  through  libraries  or  local  and  community  groups,  to
minimise "barriers to entry".

Finally, one of the  goals of URBAN II is to  encourage  local  partners  to  try
innovations  in  urban  regeneration,  as  well  as  transferring  interesting
experiences from elsewhere. All of the programmes report at least one such
measure,  the  five  most  common  fields  being:  the  environment;  urban
governance; renovation; ICT and research; citizen participation.

19

Box 3: Examples of projects of Community interest

Komotini in Northern Greece has a high proportion of minorities, including
Muslims,  Pontus  Greeks  (ie  returning  from  countries  such  as  the  former
Soviet  Union),  Pomaks  and  Gypsies.  As  a  precondition  for  boosting
employability,  the  programme  has  a  strong  emphasis  on  social  inclusion
measures, including basic Greek literacy.

Århus  in  Denmark  also  has  high  levels  of  ethnic  minorities  and  exclusion.
The  programme  is  building  on  a  strong  local  sense  of  community  by
promoting a citizen's forum, enabling locals to deal with local problems on a
self-help basis, as well as promoting their social and political inclusion in the
wider community.

The  Pamplona  programme  in  Northern  Spain  is  promoting  the  small
restaurant  and  bed  &  breakfast  businesses  specifically  for  unemployed
women,  enabling  them  to  reconcile  private  and  professional  life.  Similarly,
unemployed people are being trained in the environmental and social fields.

The  URBAN  programme  of  Bastia  in  Corsica  includes  the  historic  centre.
The  programme  includes  training  in  the  repair  and  renovation  of  old
buildings, thus at a stroke restoring lost expertise, creating jobs and restoring
historic monuments.

The Luckenwalde programme in Eastern Germany has a strong emphasis on
environmental  measures,  including  biotechnology  training,  in  co-operation
with  a  local  biotechnology  park,  a  "1000  trees"  project  and  a  network  to
combine train, bicycle and skating/rollerblading "Rail-ride-roll".

An  interesting  example  of  innovation  in  the  environmental  field  is  in
Antwerp, where derelict industrial sites are being renovated into green spaces
and a business park for ICT and environmental firms. The innovative feature
is  that  the  land  is  being  reclaimed  in  a  biological  way,  with  specific  plants
being used to clear the soil of heavy metals.

4.2.

Leverage effect

By  concentration  on  relatively  small  areas,  URBAN  achieves  a  high  aid
intensity in terms of both spending per inhabitant and per km². By focussing
the programmes, a sufficient intensity of financing is achieved to tackle the
most severe of the different facets of deprivation which URBAN areas face.

Public  sector  leverage.  URBAN  II  has  mobilised  total  investments  -  from
national, regional, local and private sources - representing more than double
ERDF  resources  (see  tables  2  and  8).  This  result  is  even  more  interesting
when  one  considers  that  these  areas  are  characterised  by  a  greater
concentration of problems than normally found in Objective 1 and 2 areas.

Private sector leverage. For the 35 programmes reporting the private sector
contribution, it amounts to some 8% of programme funding. Although this is
lower  than  for  Objectives  1  and  2,  it  is  still  substantial,  since  by  their  very

20

nature  URBAN  II  areas  find  it  difficult  to  attract  private  investment.  In
addition,  some  20%  of  planned  spending  concerns  assistance 
to
entrepreneurship and employment, which is also likely to have a substantial
leverage effect in the longer term.

4.3.

Implementation

As  with  the  other  Community  Initiatives,  some  of  the  most  interesting
aspects of URBAN are found in the implementation system:

(cid:1)  Strong  local  partnership  is  arguably  one  of  the  best  sources  of  added
value. Not only does this make the programmes more effective and better
targeted on local needs, it also contributes to the long term development of
URBAN areas: once in place a local partnership has the potential to play
other  roles in  promoting  local development,  eg  improving  local  strategic
planning,  finding  new  ways  to  deliver  local  spending,  promoting  private
sector  investment.  Finally,  the  strong  partnership  with  the  local  level
promotes the European model of governance and the involvement of civil
society.

(cid:1)  Selection of sites by Member States, on the basis of Commission financial
allocations  and  guidelines,  strikes  a  good  balance  between  the  need  to
preserve the spirit of the Community Initiatives and the flexibility to adapt
to a wide range of different socio-economic circumstances.

(cid:1)  The  adoption  of  a  short  list  of  common  indicators  to  underpin  the
monitoring and evaluation of programmes represents another step towards
simplification  and  efficiency.  These  indicators  give  a  more  quantified
picture of the state of play in each of the 70 programmes. Updates over the
lifetime of the programme will allow an overview of changes in different
sectors and progress achieved.

(cid:1)  Administrative  simplicity,  including  the  monofund  approach,  avoiding

parallel payment procedures.

4.4.

Co-operation and networking

98%  of  URBAN  II  money  goes  on  urban  regeneration  in  the  70  sites
selected. Nevertheless 2% of spending is reserved for horizontal measures:

(cid:1)  Promotion,  via  the  launch  of  a  new  phase  of  the  Urban  Audit,  deeper
knowledge of the situation in European cities. This lays the foundation for
a  culture  of  urban  indicators  and  statistics  which  should  progressively
inform  Structural  Funds  actions  in  cities.  Furthermore,  monitoring  and
evaluation of all URBAN II programmes will be based on a common list
of socio-economic indicators inspired by the Urban Audit.

(cid:1)  Exchange  of  experience  between  cities  benefiting  from  URBAN,
structured  for  the  first  time  as  a  community  programme.  National
authorities and other bodies playing a role in urban development will have

21

various  responsibilities  in  the  conception  and  management  of  the
programme.

5.

CONCLUSIONS

the  most  deprived  neighbourhoods 

According to the socio-economic data presented above, URBAN II areas are
among 
the  European  Union.
Challenges  such  as  unemployment,  poverty,  crime  and  immigration  have
combined  to  produce  problems  which  cannot  be  resolved  without  a  co-
ordinated approach, tackling each of them. For  example,  attracting business
requires action to reduce high rates of crime and dereliction, while promoting
entrepreneurship  and  employment  necessitates  measures  to  tackle  social
exclusion.

in 

URBAN makes a unique and valuable contribution to these issues, promoting
both  social  and  economic  cohesion  in  parallel  and  removing  barriers  to
employability and investment. This integrated approach is made possible by
concentrating on the very worst areas and selecting small sites. However, the
severity of the problems faced by URBAN areas and the links between them
mean that removing these barriers is a long term project.

The decentralised method of implementation is in itself one of the strongest
features of URBAN:

(cid:1)  Indirect zoning has been a success. On the one hand, Member States have
had the flexibility to select areas according to national and local needs and
priorities. On the other hand, the resultant selection was tightly targeted on
the worst affected areas and used a common and transparent set of criteria
across the EU. One of the reasons that indirect zoning has not resulted in a
limit  of
dissipation  of 
€500/inhabitant.

the  setting  of  a  minimum 

funding 

is 

(cid:1)  There  is  a  high  degree  of  partnership  with  local  authorities  and  local
community groups, with specific measures to develop the capacity of the
latter.  Once  such  a  partnership  is  formed  and  mobilised,  it  has  benefits
beyond the URBAN programme and can contribute to local development
more generally. Partnership and citizen involvement has been a key factor
in the success of all the Community Initiatives.

Although  other  Structural  Funds  programmes  also  make  a  significant
contribution to the needs of urban areas, URBAN is distinguished by features
such  as  tight  targeting  on  small  areas,  the  integrated  approach  and  the
strength of local partnership. Within Objectives 1 and 2 this makes it an ideal
complement to the measures pursued under the mainstream.

In addition, URBAN has an important role outside Objective 1 and 2 areas:

(cid:1)  In  tackling  blackspots  which  can  have  severe  problems  but  cover  too
small  an  area  to  be  picked  up  by  the  mainstream  programmes.  In  fact,
URBAN  areas  located  outside  the  areas  covered  by  the  mainstream

22

programmes  perform  particularly  badly  -  and  significantly  worse  than
other  URBAN  areas  -  in  terms  of  indicators  such  as  immigration  and
crime (see table 6).

(cid:1)  In  addition,  the  profile  of  these  blackspots  -  high  unemployment  and
strong multi-facetted deprivation as measured by other, social indicators -
lends itself more to URBAN than to Objective 2.

(cid:1)  As in all URBAN areas, the new partnerships formed will have a positive
impact on local planning, as well as building capacity and contributing to
innovative European models of governance.

(cid:1)  Maintaining  an  URBAN  presence  outside  Objective  1  and  2  areas
maximises  the  pool  of  experience  available  for  exchange  in  the  network
programme.  Similarly,  it  widens  the  audience  for  the  demonstration
effects.

(cid:1)  There is a different spending pattern outside Objective 1 and 2 (see table
7), with less going on physical and environmental regeneration and more
on  Information  and  Communication  Technology,  entrepreneurship  and
employment.

The  URBAN  approach  has  several  advantages  which  could  serve  as  an
inspiration for the future of Cohesion Policy at the European level:

(cid:1)  The  integrated  approach,  combining  social  inclusion  and  training  with
physical  and  environmental  regeneration  measures,  thus  accompanying
measures to boost competitiveness, entrepreneurship and employment.

(cid:1)  Measures to promote the integration of immigrants. URBAN areas are by
their  very  nature  a  strategic  location  for  pursuing  such  measures,  which
are of community interest and could even be reinforced in the future.

(cid:1)  Targeting  on  small  areas.  This  enables  high  funding  intensity,  an
integrated  approach  to  the  various  problems  faced  by  the  area  and
promotes strong value for money.

(cid:1)  Strong focus on a local partnership. This builds local capacity, making the
programmes  more  effective  and  bringing  Europe  closer  to  its  citizens.
This  could  be  taken  further  in  the  next  period,  building  on  current
experience.

(cid:1)  Indirect  zoning.  This  represents  "open  co-ordination"  rather  than  a  more
centralised approach and the resultant URBAN sites satisfy both national
and community criteria.

(cid:1)  Administrative  simplifications,  particularly  the  monofund  approach  and

the relatively simple programme structure.

(cid:1)  The programme for networking and exchange of experience, which builds

a systematic cycle of learning into the process.

23

The question for the future is whether URBAN should continue and, if so, in
what  form.  Should  the  scope  of  URBAN  be  expanded,  eg  in  terms  of  the
range of problems tackled, the range of measures possible or the size of area
covered?

24

ANNEX I: FURTHER READING

"Special  Report  No.  1/2001  concerning  the  URBAN  Community  Initiative,  together
with the Commission's replies", Court of Auditors (2001)

"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)  Communication
II",  European  Commission 
C(2000)1100

"The Urban Audit", European Commission (2000)

"The  results  of  the  programming  of  the  Structural  Funds  for  2000-2006  (Objective
1)", European Commission (2001) Communication Com(2001)378 final

"Unity, solidarity, diversity for Europe, its people and its territory - Second Report on
Economic and Social Cohesion", European Commission (2001)

"Persistent  income  poverty  and  social  exclusion  in  the  European  Union",  Eurostat
(2000), Statistics in Focus, theme 3, 13/2000

25

ANNEX II: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

The Community Initiatives

These are aid or action programmes set up to complement Structural Fund operations
in  specific  problem  areas.  Community  initiatives  are  drawn  up  by  the  Commission
and coordinated  and implemented  under national control. They absorb  5.35%  of  the
budget of the Structural Funds.

(cid:1)  Urban  II  concentrates its support on innovative strategies to regenerate  cities  and

declining urban areas (financed by the ERDF)

(cid:1)  Interreg III promotes cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation, i.e.
the creation of partnerships across borders to encourage the balanced development
of multi-regional areas (financed by the ERDF).

(cid:1)  Leader+  promotes  pilot  integrated  strategies  for  sustainable  development  in  rural
areas, drawn up and implemented by local partnerships. (financed by the EAGGF
Guidance Section).

(cid:1)  Equal  seeks  to  eliminate  the  factors  leading  to  inequalities  and  discrimination  in

the labour market (financed by the ESF).

The key common implementation features of the Community Initiatives are:

(cid:1)  Administrative simplification, in that they are financed by one Fund only
(cid:1)  A strong emphasis on partnership
(cid:1)  Networks for the exchange of experience

Community Support Frameworks:

The  Community  support  frameworks  (CSFs)  coordinate  EU  regional  activities,
occasionally  involving  the  four  Structural  Funds  (ERDF,  ESF,  EAGGF,  FIFG)  and
the EIB.  In each case, however, the projects must be incorporated into plans already
developed by national authorities, regional authorities and their economic partners.

Economic and social cohesion:

The origins of economic and social cohesion go back to the Treaty of Rome where a
reference is made in the preamble to reducing disparities in development between the
regions. However, it was not until the seventies that Community action was taken to
coordinate  the  national  instruments  and  provide  additional  financial  resources.
Subsequently these measures proved inadequate given the situation in the Community
where  the  establishment  of  the  internal  market,  contrary  to  forecasts,  had  failed  to
even out the differences between regions.

26

With the adoption of the Single European Act in 1986, economic and social cohesion
proper  was  made  an  objective,  as  well  as  the  single  market.  In  the  preparation  of
economic  and  monetary  union,  this  provided  a  legal  basis  from  1988  onwards  for
Community  action  to  become  the  central  pillar  of  a  comprehensive  development
policy.

The Maastricht Treaty finally incorporated the policy into the Treaty establishing the
European Community (Articles 130a  to 130e, now renumbered 158 to 162). It is an
expression  of  solidarity  between  the  Member  States  and  regions  of  the  European
Union.  This  means  balanced  and  sustainable  development,  reducing  structural
disparities  between  regions  and  countries  and  promoting  equal  opportunities  for  all
individuals.  In  practical  terms  it  is  achieved  by  means  of  a  variety  of  financing
operations, principally through the Structural Funds.

Every three years the European Commission must present a report on progress made
in  achieving  economic  and  social  cohesion  and  on  how  the  various  means  provided
for in the Treaty have contributed to it.

The future of economic and social cohesion was one of the major issues discussed in
the Commission's Agenda 2000 communication (presented on 15 July 1997), largely
because  of  the  financial  implications.  It  has  been  the  Community's  second  largest
budget  item  from  1994  to  1999  (around  35%  of  the  budget).  Its  importance  was
confirmed in the financial perspective 2000-2006.

With enlargement looking set to bring in countries with national incomes well below
the  Community  average,  the  Community  structural  policy  was  reformed  in  1999  in
order  to  improve  its  effectiveness  and  its  budgetary  allocation  has  been  increased
from EUR 208 billion to EUR 213 billion for 2000-2006.

Equal opportunities:

Two  key  elements  of  the  general  principle  of  equal  opportunities  are  the  ban  on
discrimination  on  grounds  of  nationality  (Article  12  of  the  EC  Treaty,  formerly
Article 6) and equal pay for men and women (Article 141 of the EC Treaty, formerly
Article 119). It is intended to apply to all fields, particularly economic, social, cultural
and family life.

The  Treaty  of  Amsterdam  added  a  new  Article  13  to  the  Treaty,  reinforcing  the
principle of non-discrimination, which is closely linked to equal opportunities. Under
this  new  Article,  the  Council  has  the  power  to  take  appropriate  action  to  combat
discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age
or sexual orientation.

European Regional Development Fund (ERDF):

The ERDF is intended to help reduce imbalances between regions of the Community.
The Fund was set up in 1975 and grants financial assistance for development projects
in the poorer regions. In terms of financial resources, the ERDF is by far the largest of
the EU's Structural Funds.

27

European Social Fund (ESF):

Established in 1960, the ESF is the  main  instrument of  Community  social  policy.  It
provides  financial  assistance  for  vocational  training,  retraining  and  job-creation
schemes.  Around  75%  of  the  funding  approved  goes  towards  combating  youth
unemployment.  With  the  increase  in  budget  resources  under  the  Delors  II  package,
changes  were  made  in  the  Social  Fund  and  the  focus  moved  to  the  new  goals  of
improving  the  functioning  of  the  labour  markets  and  helping  to  reintegrate
unemployed people  into  working  life.  Further action  will  tackle  equal  opportunities,
helping workers adapt to industrial change and changes in production systems

Managing authority:

It  means  any  public  or  private  authority  or  body  at  national,  regional  or  local  level
designated  by  the  Member  State,  or  the  Member  State  when  it  is  itself  carrying  out
this  function,  to  manage  assistance  from  the  Structural  Funds.  If  the  Member  State
designates a managing authority other than itself, it shall determine all the modalities
of its relationship with the managing authority and of the latter's relationship with the
Commission.  If  the  Member  State  so  decides,  the  managing  authority  may  be  the
same body as the paying authority for the assistance concerned.

Partnership:

One of the Structural Funds' principles which implies the closest possible cooperation
between the Commission and the appropriate authorities at national, regional or local
level  in  each  Member  State  from  the  preparatory  stage  to  implementation  of  the
measures.

Structural Funds:

The  EU's  Structural  Funds  are  administered  by  the  Commission  to  finance
Community  structural  aid.  They  comprise  the  Guidance  Section  of  the  EAGGF  for
structural  adjustment  in  agriculture  and  for  rural  development,  the  Regional
Development Fund for structural aid under regional policy, the Social Fund for social
policy measures, and the Financial Instrument for Fisheries (FIFG). Financial support
from the Structural Funds mainly goes to the poorer regions to strengthen the Union's
economic and social cohesion so that the challenges of the single market can be met
right across the EU.

Sustainable development:

The concept of sustainable development refers to a form of economic  growth which
satisfies society's needs in terms of well-being in the short, medium and - above all -
long terms. It is founded on the assumption that development must meet today's needs
without jeopardising the prospects of future generations.  In practical terms, it means
creating the conditions for long-term economic development with due respect for the
environment.  The  Copenhagen  world  summit  for  sustainable  development  (March
1995)  stressed  in  addition  the  need  to  combat  social  exclusion  and  protect  public
health.

The Treaty of Amsterdam enshrined the concept of "sustainable development" as one
of the European Union's objectives.

28

ANNEX III: TABLES

Table 1

URBAN I and URBAN II: key facts

URBAN I

Number of eligible areas

118

Eligible population

3.2 million

URBAN II

70

2.2 million

Largest programme
(inhabitants)

Smallest programme

ERDF contribution

Vienna (130,000)

Amsterdam (62,000)

Bari (8,000)
€953 million (1999 prices1)

Amadora (10,000)

€700 million (1999 prices)

Average ERDF/programme

€8.1 million

Average ERDF/inhabitant

€300

€10 million

€320

Total investment

€1800 million (current
prices)

€1580 million (current
prices)

Total investment/inhabitant

€560

€720

(1)

For the sake of comparison, the URBAN I ERDF contribution has been converted to 1999
prices  using  the  standard  deflators  for  the  Commission  budget.  The  resultant  figure  is
indicative only.

Table 2

URBAN II financial data by Member State

Country

Number 
programmes

of

ERDF  allocation
(€, current prices)

Total  Funding  (€,
current prices)

ERDF 
programme
(average)

per

Total  Funding
per programme

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

EU15

3

1

12

3

10

9

1

10

3

2

3

1

1

11

70

21.200.000

53.801.000

7.066.667

5.300.000

12.031.000

5.300.000

17.933.667

12.031.000

148.700.000

273.300.000

12.391.667

22.775.000

25.500.000

37.377.000

8.500.000

12.459.000

112.600.000

179.973.000

11.260.000

17.997.300

102.000.000

283.609.000

11.333.333

31.512.111

5.300.000

11.420.000

5.300.000

11.420.000

114.800.000

264.398.000

11.480.000

26.439.800

29.800.000

87.078.000

9.933.333

8.400.000

36.459.000

4.200.000

29.026.000

18.229.500

19.200.000

29.592.000

6.400.000

9.864.000

5.300.000

5.300.000

22.500.000

5.300.000

16.000.000

5.300.000

22.500.000

16.000.000

124.300.000

271.921.000

11.300.000

24.720.091

727.700.000

1.579.459.000

10.395.714

22.563.700

29

Table 3

URBAN II areas by type

Type of Neighbourhood

Number

Inner city

Peripheral

Whole city

Mixed (inner and peripheral)

31

27

8

4

%

44%

39%

11%

6%

Population

994.000

810.000

239.000

113.000

%

46%

38%

11%

5%

Type of City

Number

Large city (>250.000 inhab.)

Medium city

Small city (<50.000)

27

31

12

Overlap with Objective 1 or 2

Number

Obj. 1

Obj 1 phasing out

Total Objective 1

Obj. 2

Obj 2 phasing out

Partially Obj 2

Total Objective 2

Outside Objectives 1 and 2

21

6

27

12

1

6

19

24

%

39%

44%

17%

%

30%

9%

39%

17%

1%

9%

27%

34%

Population

874.000

945.000

337.000

Population

575.000

134.000

709.000

355.000

33.000

186.000

573.000

874.000

%

41%

44%

16%

%

27%

6%

33%

16%

2%

9%

27%

41%

Table 4

Rate of adoption of URBAN II and Objective 1 and 2

programmes

Time  elapsed  between  official
receipt and final adoption

URBAN II

Objective1

Objective 2

Less than five months

Less than eight months

Less than ten months

Less than a year

Total

No.

1

26

47

64

70

%

1%

37%

67%

91%

100%

No.

3

23

n/a

94

123

%

2%

19%

76%

No.

0

5

15

73

%

0%

5%

16%

76%

100% 96

100%

Figures and cut off points as set out in the Objective 1 Communication, referenced in Annex I.

30

Chart 1

Spending by main axis by Member State

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

U
E

i

ë
g
e
B

l

k
r
a
m
n
a
D

l

d
n
a
h
c
s
t
u
e
D

a
d
a

l
l

E

a
ñ
a
p
s
E

e
c
n
a
r
F

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

a

i
l

a
t
I

d
n
a
l
r
e
d
e
N

i

h
c
e
r
r
e
t
s
Ö

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

/
i

m
o
u
S

Technical Assistance

Information & Communication
Technology

Transport

Social Inclusion

Entrepreneurship &
Employment

Physical and Environmental
Regeneration

K
U

e
g
i
r
e
v
S

Danish figures are provisional

31

Table 5

Planned spending classified by categories from the URBAN Guidelines

URBAN

Objective 2

Objective 1

ERDF

Total

ERDF

Total

Physical & environmental regeneration

Entrepreneurship & Employment

Social Inclusion

Transport

Information & Communication Technologies

Technical Assistance

Other (mainly agriculture and waste management)

40%

21%

21%

8%

4%

6%

0%

31%

31%

3%

7%

17%

2%

7%

27%

37%

5%

6%

15%

2%

7%

22%

11%

7%

30%

14%

2%

14%

14%

25%

9%

19%

9%

2%

23%

32

Table 6

Socio-economic indicators for URBAN programmes by

location within the mainstream

Location 
URBAN
programme

of

Unemployment

Share 
immigrants

of

per

Crimes 
1,000
inhabitants

Green space as a %
of total area

In Objective 1

24%

In Objective 2

16%

Outside

URBAN 
Average

12%

II

17%

7%

18%

21%

15%

77

104

118

103

6%

8%

19%

11%

Table 7

Breakdown of URBAN spending priorities by location

URBAN
programmes
within:

Physical  and
Environment
al
Regeneration

Entrepreneurshi
p 
&
Employment

Social
Inclusio
n

Transpor
t

Information &
Communicati
on
Technology

Technical
Assistanc
e

Objective 1

53%

Objective 2

40%

Outside

34%

URBAN 
average

II

40%

15%

15%

24%

21%

18%

5%

22%

11%

20%

21%

9%

8%

2%

5%

8%

4%

6%

6%

6%

6%

33

Table 8

Summary data by programme

City

Population

Size of
Area (km2)

Unemployment
rate (where
available)

Immigrants as a
% of total
population
(where available)

ERDF

Total Eligible
Spending

Proportion of spending devoted to:

Physical and
Environmental
Regeneration

Entrepreneurship
& Employment

Social
Inclusion

Transport

Information &
Communication
Technology

Technical
Assistance

URBAN II

2.187.118

 693,1

Belgique-België

Antwerpen

Bruxelles-Capitale

Sambreville

Danmark (1)

Århus Gellerup

Deutschland

Berlin

Bremerhaven

Dessau

Dortmund

Gera

Kassel

Kiel

Leipzig

Luckenwalde

Mannheim - Ludwigshafen

96.287

44.677

24.413

27.197

 51,9

 16,0

 1,7

 34,2

20.331

 6,0

367.719

 110,0

30.036

23.000

28.101

54.971

21.229

33.823

32.412

31.000

22.500

40.000

 4,3

 3,3

 5,0

 7,5

 5,3

 10,9

 10,6

 8,0

 22,3

 8,0

 17

 14

 9

 20

 8

 18

 16

 15

 27

 17

 18

 27

 14

 16

 22

 20

 15 727.700.000 1.578.459.615

 29

21.200.000

53.801.285

 14

 59

 13

7066666

22800000

7066668

14827953

7066666

16173332

 50

5.300.000

12.031.308

 15 148.700.000

273.300.000

 13

 14

14870000

19842000

9914000

19828000

 3

14870000

19827000

 42

9914000

28646000

 2

14870000

19828000

 37

 17

 4

 2

9913000

42049000

9913000

19826000

14870000

19827000

14870000

19827000

 34

9913000

21439000

34

40%

35%

25%

43%

40%

23%

39%

44%

19%

61%

27%

43%

14%

36%

54%

43%

72%

21%

27%

42%

0%

32%

25%

27%

22%

70%

2%

35%

19%

25%

35%

18%

37%

10%

21%

12%

1%

24%

17%

47%

19%

21%

4%

32%

30%

19%

27%

19%

14%

7%

6%

8%

9%

20%

0%

0%

0%

8%

7%

0%

0%

0%

11%

31%

5%

0%

5%

0%

4%

11%

4%

26%

6%

0%

1%

0%

2%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

5%

6%

7%

8%

7%

5%

5%

7%

7%

5%

4%

8%

7%

3%

5%

15%

7%

7%

City

Population

Size of
Area (km2)

Unemployment
rate (where
available)

Immigrants as a
% of total
population
(where available)

ERDF

Total Eligible
Spending

Proportion of spending devoted to:

Physical and
Environmental
Regeneration

Entrepreneurship
& Employment

Social
Inclusion

Transport

Information &
Communication
Technology

Technical
Assistance

Neubrandenburg

Saarbrücken

Ellada

Iraklio

Komotini

Perama

España

Caceres

Gijon

Granada

Jaen

Orense

Pamplona

S. Adria de Besos

S. Sebastian-Pasajes

S.Cristobal de la Laguna

Teruel

France

Bastia

Bordeaux

25.450

25.197

65.000

20.000

20.000

25.000

250.044

26.705

26.815

26.842

20.557

11.558

29.119

13.000

38.179

28.275

28.994

308.632

20.335

51.300

 8,9

 16,0

 17,9

 1,4

 1,8

 14,7

 39,3

 3,0

 15,0

 2,1

 1,0

 0,5

 1,7

 0,6

 1,7

 4,8

 9,0

 96,0

 3,0

 12,3

 18

 9

 17

 9

 16

 25

 18

 19

 23

 25

 25

 20

 12

 12

 11

 27

 10

 22

 24

 26

 2

14870000

19840000

 11

9913000

22521000

 14

25.500.000

36.377.000

 3

 34

 4

7950000

10600000

8000000

12393667

9550000

13383333

 11

112600000

179973333

 6

 5

 4

11420000

15226667

10500000

14000000

12340000

16453333

 11

12340000

16453333

 2

 5

 2

9820000

13093333

11420000

22840000

12340000

24680000

 61

10500000

21000000

11420000

15226667

 2

10500000

21000000

 19 102.000.000

283.609.390

 13

11813000

31045038

9660000

26099000

35

53%

32%

55%

77%

36%

54%

50%

64%

34%

41%

44%

64%

48%

61%

55%

56%

34%

41%

55%

21%

7%

38%

13%

9%

17%

13%

16%

8%

28%

25%

21%

17%

20%

15%

12%

15%

5%

22%

18%

24%

23%

10%

17%

5%

29%

16%

18%

13%

30%

16%

28%

7%

14%

21%

15%

17%

16%

21%

24%

30%

9%

7%

1%

0%

2%

0%

6%

0%

0%

9%

0%

0%

2%

0%

6%

1%

37%

7%

0%

15%

0%

1%

5%

0%

8%

6%

5%

10%

3%

3%

2%

6%

9%

1%

6%

5%

3%

4%

0%

5%

8%

10%

9%

9%

8%

11%

6%

6%

6%

6%

5%

6%

7%

3%

6%

6%

6%

5%

3%

5%

City

Population

Size of
Area (km2)

Unemployment
rate (where
available)

Immigrants as a
% of total
population
(where available)

ERDF

Total Eligible
Spending

Proportion of spending devoted to:

Physical and
Environmental
Regeneration

Entrepreneurship
& Employment

Social
Inclusion

Transport

Information &
Communication
Technology

Technical
Assistance

Clichy-Montfermeil

Grenoble

Grigny/Viry

Le Havre

Le Mantois

Strasbourg

Val-de-Seine

Ireland

Ballyfermot

Italia

Carrara

Caserta

Crotone

Genova

Milano

Misterbianco

Mola di Bari (2)

Pescara

Taranto

Torino

52.409

40.384

37.700

17.000

29.504

37.000

23.000

21.437

350.448

34.635

23.386

50.200

23.000

53.121

45.608

26.486

21.769

47.400

24.843

 9,0

 16,0

 6,3

 8,0

 7,2

 30,0

 4,2

 5,1

 79,9

 28,0

 3,4

 8,4

 2,0

 12,1

 8,4

 5,1

 5,4

 5,1

 2,1

 21

 17

 19

 34

 24

 15

 12

 23

 12

 31

 27

 24

 7

 29

 50

 12

 24

 18

 31

 11

 27

12884000

34909940,9

9660000

26295941

12884000

36976116

 8

10742000

30297554

12884000

37910280

9660000

29642671

 21

11813000

30432849

 2

5300000

11420000

 4 114.800.000

264.397.653

 2

 2

 1

8860000

27165000

15020000

29258280

15050000

25083333

 19

10710000

29522459

 6

 0

 2

 1

 2

10730000

26999999

15050000

25090000

8620000

21853582

4900000

12250000

15130000

38750000

10730000

28425000

36

58%

53%

45%

42%

38%

48%

10%

41%

56%

42%

63%

64%

63%

35%

33%

64%

53%

74%

60%

18%

8%

25%

17%

25%

20%

42%

7%

8%

2%

2%

25%

11%

3%

6%

8%

2%

8%

2%

9%

6%

24%

23%

25%

20%

30%

34%

10%

3%

16%

2%

10%

5%

44%

2%

9%

1%

13%

4%

17%

0%

11%

3%

5%

10%

0%

14%

48%

10%

1%

10%

22%

12%

13%

24%

10%

1%

7%

11%

1%

2%

5%

3%

2%

11%

6%

0%

1%

1%

0%

30%

0%

3%

7%

2%

18%

4%

5%

6%

6%

4%

4%

6%

7%

6%

6%

8%

7%

5%

6%

6%

5%

7%

4%

6%

City

Population

Size of
Area (km2)

Unemployment
rate (where
available)

Immigrants as a
% of total
population
(where available)

ERDF

Total Eligible
Spending

Proportion of spending devoted to:

Nederland

Amsterdam

Heerlen

Rotterdam

Österreich

Graz

Wien

Portugal

Amadora

Lisboa

Porto Gondomar

Suomi/Finland

Helsinki/Vantaa

Sverige

Göteborg

UK

Belfast

Bristol

Burnley

Clyde Waterfront

135.602

62.245

43.806

29.551

54.730

31.930

22.800

57.496

10.081

20.050

27.365

 19,5

 5,3

 12,2

 2,0

 9,2

 7,4

 1,9

 11,0

 0,8

 4,5

 5,7

45.000

 29,0

31.763

 32,0

382.629

 186,3

31.902

 13,6

37.041

32.747

27.867

 11,4

 9,4

 10

 13

 9

 9

 8

 8

 7

 25

 10

 38

 27

 13

 11

 11

 26

 6

 5

 9

Physical and
Environmental
Regeneration

Entrepreneurship
& Employment

Social
Inclusion

Transport

Information &
Communication
Technology

Technical
Assistance

 35

29.800.000

87.077.632

 44

 46

 14

 19

 12

 27

8940000

31149826

11920000

32183702

8940000

23744104

8.400.000

36.459.000

4200000

20555000

4200000

15904000

 21

19.200.000

29.591.535

 44

3562152

5088786

 -

5663822

10254143

 20

9974026

14248606

19%

26%

14%

17%

59%

44%

78%

26%

32%

15%

31%

27%

27%

32%

22%

18%

23%

13%

26%

37%

33%

17%

17%

26%

8%

19%

3%

0%

7%

43%

26%

49%

45%

18%

1%

32%

22%

12%

22%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

12%

13%

9%

15%

4%

6%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

 11

5300000

22500000

0%

29%

47%

0%

16%

 42

5300000

16000000

 9 124.300.000

271.921.479

10623932

17125744

 2

10647846

22427491

 12

11426418

22852836

 1

12881517

28257982

0%

30%

66%

44%

34%

17%

71%

28%

17%

0%

0%

43%

21%

33%

5%

49%

58%

32%

0%

2%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

6%

7%

6%

5%

4%

5%

2%

5%

4%

3%

7%

8%

8%

7%

9%

8%

8%

7%

37

City

Population

Size of
Area (km2)

Unemployment
rate (where
available)

Immigrants as a
% of total
population
(where available)

ERDF

Total Eligible
Spending

Proportion of spending devoted to:

Physical and
Environmental
Regeneration

Entrepreneurship
& Employment

Social
Inclusion

Transport

Information &
Communication
Technology

Technical
Assistance

Halifax

Hetton & Murton

Normanton in Derby

Peterborough

Stockwell

Thames Gateway

West Wrexham

49.700

34.942

27.200

37.253

30.180

45.027

28.770

 13,0

 60,4

 3,5

 17,8

 2,0

 21,3

 34,0

 6

 26

 3

 10

 4

12629162

35980325

 1

11447097

24804110

11088051

27746100

 7

11125686

22291872

 36

 14

9981798

19963596

11824561

29223559

 1

10623932

21247864

33%

14%

20%

31%

38%

18%

28%

28%

39%

29%

33%

19%

37%

46%

33%

39%

45%

18%

15%

34%

18%

0%

0%

0%

0%

15%

5%

0%

0%

0%

0%

10%

7%

0%

0%

5%

8%

6%

7%

5%

6%

8%

(1)

(2)

Spending by priority for the Danish programme is provisional and will be confirmed once the programme complement is ready.

Unusually, the Mola di Bara programme includes measures for the fishery sector. Such measures, although legitimate, fall outside the classification in this table, so spending
by priority does not add to 100% in this case.

38

ANNEX IV: MAP OF URBAN II PROGRAMMES

39