Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Cohesion Policy and cities: the urban contribution to growth and jobs in the regions
Date: 2006-04-26
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: built-up area, economic and social cohesion, economic growth, employment policy, regional policy, town

29.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/17

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Cohesion Policy and cities: the urban contribution to
growth and jobs in the regions

(2006/C 206/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

HAVING REGARD TO the letter from the European Commission to President Straub of 25 January
2006 requesting the CoR's opinion on the ‘Cohesion Policy and cities: the urban contribution to growth and jobs
in the regions’;

HAVING REGARD TO the decision of its President of 10 November 2005 to instruct its Commission
for Territorial Cohesion Policy to draw up an opinion on this subject;

HAVING REGARD TO the Commission Staff Working paper: Cohesion Policy and cities: the contribution to
growth and jobs in the regions;

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions
on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund (CdR 232/2004
fin) (1) COM(2004) 492 final – 2004/0163 (AVC);

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) COM(2004) 495 final – 2004/0167 (COD) (CdR
233/2004 fin) (1);

HAVING REGARD TO its Opinion on the Communication from the Commission Cohesion Policy in Support
of Growth and Job Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013 COM(2005) 299 final (CdR 140/2005 fin);

HAVING REGARD TO the Conclusions of the informal Council of Ministers on Sustainable commu-
nities. Bristol, 6-7 December 2005;

HAVING REGARD TO the Report of the European Parliament on the Urban dimension in the context of
the enlargement (2004/2258);

HAVING REGARD TO its draft opinion (CdR 38/2006 rev. 1) adopted on 23 February 2006 by its
Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy (rapporteur: Dr Michael Häupl (AT/PES) (Mayor of Vienna);

adopted the following opinion at its 64th plenary session, held on 26 and 27 April 2006 (meeting
of 26 April):

1. Views of the Committee of the Regions

further into the foreground by fully including them in regional
programmes;

The Committee of the Regions:

1.1
points out, by way of introduction, that 78% of the
EU's population lives in towns and cities, built-up areas and
urban areas. More than 60% of the population lives in cities of
more
is
a concentration of both considerable potential and also com-
plex difficulties;

than 50 000 inhabitants.

In urban areas

there

1.3
stresses the key importance of incorporating an urban
dimension in all Community policies, not only in EU cohesion
policy. Only when the positive effects of this can be seen and
felt by the urban population will the EU manage to (re)gain the
measure of political acceptance essential for successfully devel-
oping our joint venture further;

1.2
recalls, against this background, the European Commis-
sion's intention, set out in the ‘Third Report on Economic and
Social Cohesion: a new partnership for cohesion, convergence,
competitiveness and cooperation’ (2),
to bring urban issues

1.4
supports the European Parliament initiative, set out in
its report on ‘The urban dimension in the context of enlarge-
ment’ (3), to strengthen the urban dimension of all Community
and Member States policies, as well as the promotion of this
report;

(1) OJ C231 du 20.09.2005.
(2)

‘Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion: a new partnership
for cohesion, convergence, competitiveness and cooperation’ COM
(2004) 107 final of 18 February 2004.

(3) European Parliament Resolution on ‘The urban dimension in the
context of enlargement’ dated 13 October 2005, P6_TA-PROV
(2005)0387, Rapporteur: Jean Marie BEAUPUY; not yet published
in the OJ.

C 206/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.8.2006

underlines the key contribution which cities are mak-
1.5
ing to the Lisbon strategy, newly formulated in 2005. Growth
is however not an end in itself. Rather it is a means to boost
employment, social cohesion and environmental sustainability.
In so far as it helps maintain the European social model,
it
secures quality of life for the people of Europe. Employment is
the most important issue for the European public. The new
focus on economic growth and productivity increases should
not mean that we lose sight of the other aspects of the Lisbon
strategy;

points out that cities have always provided a testing
1.6
ground for developments of all sorts: most social and techno-
logical developments started out
in cities. Tied up in this
structural change so characteristic of cities are both opportu-
nities and risks for individuals and for society as a whole.
to deal with this social change and to
Cities have learnt
respond to it. They are also used to offsetting market failure,
in part generated by structural change. Precisely because in
many sectors
to new
is necessary to adapt
challenges in order
to achieve the Lisbon objectives, cities
have a key role to play here;

structures

it

is therefore critical of the fact that, because of the
1.7
‘top-down approach’
in the development and implementation
of the Lisbon strategy, the overwhelming majority of European
cities were not
involved in setting up the Member States'
national reform programmes. Sometimes they were involved
as a formality, but not in practice. A survey revealed that cities
were more likely to be involved where the Member State
concerned had a ministry specifically dealing with urban affairs
(such as the Netherlands), or where there were cities which
were also regions (Berlin, Hamburg, Vienna, etc.). One conse-
quence of not involving them is that their potential, and their
special capacity for creating cooperation synergies between
public and private actors and social agents, remains untapped
to some extent. A study carried out by the CoR - ‘Implementa-
tion of
the
contribution of Regions and Cities’ (1) - arrived at the same
conclusion. It showed that only 17% of cities and regions were
satisfied with their involvement
in drawing up the national
reform programmes;

the Lisbon Partnership for Growth and Jobs:

is critical of the fact that very little mention is made of
1.9
the urban dimension of cohesion policy in the current draft
Strategic Cohesion Guidelines for 2007-2013 (3). The urban
‘territorial
dimension is only dealt with in the context of
dimensions’. This failing was also highlighted in the results of
the consultation process relating to the Strategic Cohesion
Guidelines for 2003-2013. There were many requests that
more stress be placed on giving cities a decisive role to play
in steps to boost growth and employment. Likewise, there were
calls for the guidelines to formally acknowledge the vital role
of cities. Without clear EU regulations which make it manda-
tory for cities to be involved, there is a danger that the urban
dimension in cohesion policy will not be consolidated, but
rather weakened, in the 2007-2013 period;

1.10 welcomes therefore the fact that the European Com-
mission's initiative - set out in its working document entitled
‘Cohesion Policy and cities: the urban contribution to growth
and jobs in the regions’ (4) - takes these criticisms on board,
giving a further boost to the urban dimension in the cohesion
policy of
the future. This document provides an excellent
illustration of the central importance of cities for the further
development of Europe,
its Member States and its regions.
Their key contribution to growth and employment, social
cohesion and sustainable development is clearly highlighted;

the European Commission sets out

appreciates particularly the fact that,

in its working
1.11
the urban
document,
dimension in all
its complexity. This holistic approach is
a major strength of the document, and should be maintained.
This complexity, illustrated with examples and data, can only
be taken into account by adopting an integrated approach in
all policy areas. The urban dimension cannot be confined to
cohesion policy, but should be explicitly taken into considera-
tion in all Community policies;

highlights in particular the fact

1.12
the document
breaks down the contribution of cities into 50 specific action
guidelines. These are now available for cities to use as guide-
lines for organising concrete measures in the future;

that

1.8
emphasises that there was a general move to involve
cities more when drawing up the National Strategic Reference
Frameworks (NSRFs) under Articles 25 and 26 of the draft
general Structural Funds regulation (2). However,
it is still not
taken for granted that the urban dimension is expressly taken
into account
in the NSRFs and the derivative operational
programmes;

1.13
supports the consultation process launched by the
European Commission for its working document, as well as
the Commission's intention to incorporate the main results of
the Strategic Cohesion
this process in the final version of
Guidelines and to publish the revised working document in
the form of a ‘communication’;

(1)

‘Implementation of the Lisbon Partnership for Growth and Jobs: the
contribution of Regions and Cities’. Lisbon Strategy: A survey on the
involvement of Regions and Cities in preparing the Lisbon National
Reform Programmes. DI CdR 45/2005.

(2) Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on
the European Social

the European Regional Development Fund,
Fund and the Cohesion Fund COM(2004) 492 of 14 July 2004.

(3) Communication from the Commission: Cohesion Policy in Support
of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013
COM(2005) 299 final of 14 July 2005.

(4) Commission working document entitled ‘Cohesion Policy and cities:
the urban contribution to growth and jobs in the regions’ dated 23
November 2005, available on the internet: http://europa.eu.int/
comm/regional_policy/consultation/urban/index_en.htm.

29.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/19

participates in steps to further strengthen the urban
1.14
dimension by organising the Urban Forum on 26 April 2006,
together with the European Commission and the European
Parliament's Committee for Regional Development;

1.15 welcomes the fact
for a Council
that
Regulation establishing the Cohesion Fund allows environmen-
tally-friendly public transport to be supported from the Fund.

the Proposal

recognise the importance of cities and urban areas in their
delivery, due to their critical mass of population, centres of
excellence in higher education and science and the ability to
apply discoveries on an industrial scale. It calls therefore for an
urban dimension of cohesion policy which recognises the
potential cities have as drivers on innovation and the knowl-
edge economy;

2. Suggestions put

forward by the Committee of

the
Regions regarding the European Commission's working
document on ‘Cohesion Policy and cities: the urban
contribution to growth and jobs in the regions’

The Committee of the Regions

2.1
congratulates the European Commission on its precise,
detailed and well-founded remarks on the following subjects:
in European regional policy,
Sustainable urban development
Urban realities: Why cities matter, Attractive cities, Supporting
innovation, Entrepreneurship and the knowledge economy,
More and better jobs, Disparities within cities, Governance
and Financing urban renewal;

2.2 welcomes the fact
that
Member States to support measures introduced by the cities;

the action guidelines call

to

2.3
calls for a fourth priority to be established in the
Community strategic guidelines, namely a priority focussed on
cities and city regions with the aim of creating safe, cohesive
and sustainable (economically, socially, environmentally and
commercially sustainable) communities even in the most de-
prived urban areas;

highlights the diverse situations of cities, which depend
2.4
in particular on their size, geographical
location for example,
peripheral areas, the way powers are distributed internally in
the countries concerned, and on whether they are located in
new or old Member States; suggests, moreover, that account
be taken of an important criterion, namely the differences that
exist between cities in the individual Member States as a result
of differing levels of urbanisation and economic development
in the countries concerned;

to take

hasres
general boost

the European Commission's viewpoint

that
2.5
a
action is
to cities' powers
a prerequisite for their successful development and enables
them to make a significant contribution to regional develop-
ment. To this end, cities must be equipped with the systems
and tools enabling them to respond to economic and social
change, as well as with a critical mass of financial resources
that could be provided in the form of global grants with the
delegation of the various management tasks, as provided for by
the new ERDF regulation (Articles 36, 41 and 42);

2.6
with high increases in growth and productivity,

stresses that in order to achieve the Lisbon strategy
it is vital to

2.7
points out, especially in connection with the improve-
ment to framework conditions for entrepreneurship and inno-
vation, that cities can only exercise this important guidance
function if they have access to the financial resources necessary
to do so. This of course also holds true for all the fields of
action mentioned;

2.8
emphasises the importance of a coordinated approach
which takes into account the realities of ‘functional regions’ for
achieving sustainable improvements through the proposed ac-
tion guidelines. Not until there is cooperation between partners
across administrative borders can opportunities arise for find-
ing solutions and exploiting potential. This cooperation, which
is not always simple in practice, should be promoted by means
of special incentives in EU policies such as the promotion of
strategic development projects for large areas. It is particularly
important that new cooperation networks should be set up
between metropolitan and urban areas, and existing ones
strengthened. Of particular note is the cooperation developed
during the current programming period under the Interreg III
initiative, which will take effect during the 2007-2013 period
through the territorial cooperation objective;

2.9
stresses the important role cities have in combating
climate change, because of the size of population, and ability
to generate change on a large scale, for example in areas such
as public transport services and innovative energy use in
buildings; Proposes therefore an environmental requirement to
be introduced to the structural funds programmes;

2.10
underlines the importance of the redevelopment and
land-use development of brown field sites and public spaces, as
a contribution to the renewal of established urban areas and
steps to reduce the amount of relocation taking place. To this
end, cities need support at national and European level.
In
order
to address their specific problems, metropolitan and
urban areas thus need financial support from the Community
based on setting up ad hoc programmes to regenerate urban
areas that are in decline and enhance the initiatives that
continue the work undertaken under URBAN;

2.11
is aware of the importance of a diversity policy that
covers all areas of public administration. This is an essential
prerequisite for fully harnessing the specific potential of people
represent
from an immigrant background, who often still
a largely untapped resource;

C 206/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.8.2006

draws particular attention to the importance of
2.12
services of general
interest in making urban systems efficient
and cities attractive. In particular, it must be remembered that,
under the subsidiarity principle, local and regional authorities
have the right to decide for themselves how services of general
(economic) interest are provided; asks that the European legal
framework should remain open to the possibility of self-provi-
sion or the direct commissioning of in-house enterprises. Cities
and regions need greater flexibility in public procurement and
state aid law;

recommends that,

2.13
in all areas of activity, particular
attention be paid to the requirements of women, youth, older
people and people with special needs;

are set to become more important. These shifts in the age
pyramid represent major challenges for urban areas in the
future. But
they also offer an opportunity for growth and
employment, for instance in the caring professions;

Europe's metropolitan

stresses that the large numbers of immigrants living
2.20
represent
and
in
a considerable challenge for
those areas, but also a new
resource where these areas should seek new growth opportu-
nities. The various public administrations should promote the
use of these opportunities;

urban

areas

believes cities have to be made more ‘women friendly’
2.14
locations through support for women's entrepreneurship, mea-
sures to develop and support women as leaders and managers
in business and public sector in cities, by means of appropriate
neighbourhood and welfare services;

stresses the increasing importance, not least for urban
2.21
the social economy as a growing labour market,
areas, of
alongside the first
(private) sector and the second (public)
sector; calls for explicit consideration to be given to the need
to promote the market opportunities of social economy en-
terprises (the ‘third sector’) in the guidelines for action (e.g. in
access to credit or through state guarantees);

proposes that the document be expanded to include
2.15
a dedicated section on health. This issue is, of course, touched
on in the three key areas – accessibility and mobility; access to
service facilities; and the natural and physical environment –
but should, given its importance, also be dealt with explicitly
in guidelines for action of its own;

2.22 would in particular underline the key importance of
sustainable job creation and action to tackle unemployment for
the EU as a whole. Tangible
the further development of
success in this area is the only way to win (back) public
acceptance of
the EU. Unemployment hits cities, which are
centres of structural change, particularly hard;

stresses the particular

importance of guaranteeing
2.16
across-the-board, affordable childcare facilities with opening
times that reflect actual need. Such facilities enable parents
and guardians to go out
the same time
laying a key foundation for children's continued education and
making a major contribution to the integration of different
cultures and the inclusion of children with special needs;

to work, while at

2.17
is critical of the fact that, under the guidelines on
Actions for SMEs and micro-enterprises, the provisions designed
to improve access to finance through burden-sharing are to be
subject to major restrictions and stringent criteria; stresses the
need to increase financial support for micro businesses;

feels that the full scope of education and education
2.18
policy,
including lifelong learning, should be considered not
only in relation to impact on growth and employment, but
also from the point of view of a socially responsible, solidarity-
based community focused above all on getting everyone in-
volved in all aspects of society, not just in economic processes;

the growing numbers of
2.19
older people, areas such as nursing, care and ‘social’ services

is aware that, because of

asks

that Member States'

2.23
labour market policies
the needs of urban regions and
should increasingly reflect
that appropriate schemes be developed in conjunction with
the established urban employment areas. Formal agreements
and pacts to coordinate national, regional and local
labour
market policies, such as the territorial employment pacts, may
serve as a basis here. These pacts consolidate linkages between
economic, regional and labour market policy at urban level.
They should be further built upon and backed up by EU
resources;

Agrees with the European Commission that the large
2.24
numbers of foreigners living in cities present opportunities and
that
to be competitive, cities need to attract and support
people with a wide variety of skills and migrants often fill
useful gaps; endorses therefore the recommendation presented
by the European Commission in its recent Report on the
the transitional arrangements on freedom of
Functioning of
‘recommends that
the Member
movement
i.e.
these
States carefully consider whether the continuation of
their
the situation of
restrictions is needed,
labour market and of the evidence of this report’;

in the light of

for persons,

29.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/21

2.25 makes a critical point about the key importance of
the quality of jobs being created. Employment gains have –
ultimately – largely been the result of more part-time jobs and
new forms of work. In some sectors, the quality of the jobs on
offer is falling and/or the conditions of employment are failing
to meet the requisite legal standards. These types of employ-
ment, which often fail to provide financial stability for work-
ers, result
in new social upheavals. The private sector and
commercial enterprises are called upon to provide jobs that
facilitate sustainable employment. A more flexible labour mar-
ket built at the expense of safe and secure work and social
security is unsustainable and therefore the various public admi-
nistrations must ensure that this does not become a reality;

2.26
stresses that moves to combat social exclusion and
the problems that stem from it – from ghettoisation to crime
– are a fundamental prerequisite for the quality of urban life.
Public administrations must pay particular attention to those
groups that suffer the greatest risk of social exclusion, espe-
cially immigrants;

2.27
stresses that the mainstreaming of Community initia-
tives such as URBAN and EQUAL within National and Regio-
nal Operational Programmes must not undermine the innova-
tive scope of EU programmes and initiatives On the contrary,
it is important to encourage the innovative nature of urban
initiatives within the new cohesion policy and to promote the
networking of ideas and their application in practice;

2.28
to this end, calls on the Commission to ensure that
urban initiatives are comparable, when they are implementing
an EU guideline, and that their effectiveness can be measured
they have an
in terms of quality and quantity, given that
emblematic and transferable quality that it is worthwhile pre-
serving for the next planning period.

3. Committee of the Regions' recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

3.1
calls on the European Commission to take account of
the urban dimension in all Community policies. This requires
an approach that identifies, analyses and reflects the practical
the real urban environment and assesses the
problems of
impact of Community policies on urban areas. To make sure
this happens,
to involve urban authorities in all
stages of policy and programme development, implementation
and evaluation;

is vital

it

DG Employment and DG Public Health. The urban dimension
must be given greater attention, both financially and territo-
rially, in all EU programmes;

3.3
also stresses the need for greater coordination between
the European Commission, the European Parliament and the
Council
in order to provide a clearer agenda for EU urban
measures;

recommends that the European Commission strength-
3.4
en the interservice working group by involving experts from
urban areas, and that it establish an interservice ‘task force’
along similar lines to the European Parliament's urban/housing
intergroup; the Committee also recommends the establishment
regular dialogue with cities on EU policy
of
affecting them, as is already done in the environment field;

forums

for

3.5
calls on the European Commission and the Member
States to launch ‘territorial dialogue’ – along similar lines to
social and civil dialogue – so as to give the various regional
and urban authorities and their respective national and Eur-
opean associations the opportunity to make their views known
during the framing, negotiation and adoption of policies and
measures affecting urban areas and the regions, and thus to
take a hand in helping formulate them. The dialogue with
associations of regional and local authorities launched by the
European Commission in 2003 (1)
in collaboration with the
Committee of the Regions, is just a first step along this path;

3.6
calls for the organisation of a high-level meeting by the
Council and the Member States before each Spring Summit. In
addition to the parties to the territorial dialogue, the partici-
pants at the proposed meeting should include,
in particular,
the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Com-
mittee of the Regions and urban networks. It is also proposed
that annual meetings be held between the ministers of
the
Member States who are responsible for urban policy and that
these be preceded by meetings between representatives of
urban networks and European and national local government
associations such as the Council of European Municipalities
and Regions. At these meetings the Interservice working group
of the European Commission should give participants regular
progress reports on its work;

urges the governments of the Member States to pay
3.7
greater attention to the urban dimension in their national
policies.
It is particularly necessary to ensure that cities are
provided with the funding required to carry out their tasks.
The dialogue with cities and their
respective associations
should also be stepped up and enshrined in a specific formal
consultation procedure;

3.2
points out the need to improve coordination of the
urban dimension among all European Commission depart-
ments, especially DG Regio, DG Environment, DG Transport,

(1) Communication from the Commission: Dialogue with associations of
regional and local authorities on the formulation of European Union policy,
COM(2003) 811, 19.12.2003.

C 206/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.8.2006

underlines the key importance of R and D to the
3.8
achievement of the Lisbon objectives; therefore urges that the
important role played by cities in research policy be reflected
in the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Com-
munity for Research, Technological Development and Demon-
stration in the form of ‘urban mainstreaming’. Up to now the
urban dimension has only been decisively taken into account
It is, however,
the environment and traffic.
in the areas of
essential
to take
themes and specific programmes
for all
account of urban research aspects.
is important, on this
front, to use special measures to better support the networking
of cities with their universities and research institutes. This will
create a synergy for urban development and broader public
awareness of R&D. One such measure, for example, could be
a competition entitled ‘European City of Science’;

It

3.9
The 7th Framework Programme on Research & Techno-
logical Development should strengthen the role that cities play
in the exchange of information and knowledge, ensure that the
allocation of resources and policies for innovation responds to
the needs of society in general and citizens in particular, and
guarantee support for transnational research into urban devel-
opment;

stresses the importance of subsidiarity and the invol-
3.10
vement of sub-national bodies in the programming and im-
plementation of cohesion policy. Decentralising the manage-
ment of the Structural Funds must not leads to the centralisa-
tion of cohesion policy at Member State level;

3.11
of proportionality with respect
systems for measures developed by municipalities;

asks the European Commission to apply the principle
to management and control

calls for local authorities to be involved more closely
3.12
and more transparently in the preparation, drawing up and
implementation of the national reform programmes and for
the Member States to include a specific chapter in their annual
reports to the European Commission detailing measures to
implement these programmes at a local level;

calls for the consolidation of the urban dimension in
3.14
the Strategic Guidelines for Cohesion 2007-2013. It is up to
the European Commission to ensure that the urban dimension
is actually taken into account by, for example, clearly stipulat-
ing that the urban dimension is to be borne in mind in the
implementation reports to be drawn up by the Member States
and the annual report by the European Commission, laid down
in Articles 27 and 28 of the draft general Structural Funds
Regulation (1);

emphasises that the forward-looking, strategic initia-
3.15
tives implemented by municipal authorities, mainly in the form
of proposals for the generation of alternative jobs in so-called
‘new sources of employment’, play an essential role in tackling
unemployment-related problems. Therefore,
the Committee
the urban dimension when
calls for both consideration of
creating and developing employment programmes, and provi-
sion of
the necessary powers, management instruments and
budgets for cities;

3.16 welcomes the joint initiatives JEREMIE, JASPERS and
JESSICA launched by the European Commission and the EIB
Group Equal access on the part of all
levels of state admi-
nistration to these financing schemes is a key prerequisite for
their success;

3.17
recommends that data and analyses demonstrating
the complex reality of cities and enabling people to make
a better appraisal of
the situation in cities be drawn up,
regularly updated and distributed. The CoR supports, in parti-
initiatives such as ESPON and STAEDTEAUDIT (Urban
cular,
audit);

3.18
supports the development of networks between cities
for the exchange of experience and best practice. With this aim
in view, we should build on the foundations laid by existing
networks - such as URBACT and the European Urban Knowl-
edge Network pilot project - inter-regional key areas of urban
cooperation, Eurocities, etc.
Initiatives of national and Eur-
opean associations that represent the interests of cities should
also be taken into account;

3.13 welcomes the fact that the European Commission has
taken account of
the urban dimension in its proposals for
Regulations on the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Funds
covering the period 2007 to 2013;

3.19
recommends that the Commission requires countries
that receive this support to set aside a substantial part of the
Cohesion Fund resources for sustainable urban transport pro-
jects.

Brussels, 26 April 2006

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE

(1) Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on
the European Social

the European Regional Development Fund,
Fund and the Cohesion Fund - COM(2004) 492 of 14 July 2004.