Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment COM(2005) 718 final — {SEC(2006) 16}
Date: 2006-09-13
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU policy, environmental policy, environmental protection, sustainable development, town planning, town-planning scheme, urban area, urban transport

C 318/86

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2006

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Thematic Strategy on the Urban
Environment

COM(2005) 718 final — {SEC(2006) 16}

(2006/C 318/15)

On 11 January 2006, the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Pezzini.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 194 votes to two with six abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

ment strategy for an urban environment deeply rooted in the
principles of subsidiarity and proximity, especially if the strategy
is implemented through shared, participatory methods, within
the framework of the renewed Lisbon and Gothenburg agendas.

The EESC realises that in order to achieve sustainable
1.1
growth and boost competitiveness and innovation, it is impera-
tive that we address the complex problems that currently face
our cities, including environmental degradation, traffic conges-
tion, housing issues,
insecurity, criminality, unemployment
crises and manufacturing restructuring, the social exclusion of
the young and elderly in particular, and spatial as well as ethnic
segregation.

The Committee believes that

1.5.1
the European Union
should adopt incentives to promote the best practices adopted
by national, regional and local authorities in order to put the
abovementioned strategy into effect in accordance with their
own individual circumstances.

1.2
Urban air pollution has long been a public health emer-
gency with extremely high social and health costs. The World
Health Organisation has identified poor air quality in cities as
the primary cause of
the rising incidence of many chronic
diseases. These diseases place a considerable burden on health
systems in terms of financial cost, treatment, hospital admis-
sions and sick leave.

1.5.2
In order to remain competitive, cities must develop
modern, efficient and readily available online services, especially
for the health sector, social services and public administration.
This would ensure greater social cohesion and include the
young and elderly in a framework that enhances relations
between historic centres and the suburbs, rich and poor urban
areas and between the latter and its hinterland.

1.3
Preventive action has become absolutely essential not
only at the level of individual responsibility, by cutting down on
vehicle use, but also collectively, through new transport policies.

1.4
The EESC believes that the Member States should now
stop reflecting upon the issue and recommends that they waste
no time in adopting concrete action plans for immediate imple-
mentation, following the Commission's numerous recommenda-
tions, within the framework of an integrated, participatory and
responsible approach, in order to make a significant, sustained
and verifiable improvement to quality of life and the environ-
ment.

In substance,

1.6
the EESC advocates using the ‘Socially
that aim to
Responsible Territories’ model
territories
develop sustainably, taking into account the economic, social
and environmental aspects of their own activities as well as the
socioeconomic implications of an ageing population) for urban
development.

(i.e.

A territory may be defined as ‘socially responsible’ when
1.7
it succeeds in combining adequate levels of wellbeing with the
obligations inherent in social responsibility.

The Committee is also convinced of the future success of
1.5
the Commission's approach in developing an integrated develop-

The process of

1.7.1
learning to accept responsibilities as
well as rights begins with informed awareness in the home and
is strengthened through formative experiences at school from
early childhood onwards.

23.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/87

The current (6th) Framework Programme for Research
1.8
and Development offers an opportunity, through the Foresight
project,
to involve society stakeholders in agreeing on the
choices most likely to produce a model that will be more alive
to territorial social responsibility.

The Committee is convinced that it would be useful to
1.10
introduce ‘European green city’ awards in order to encourage
local communities and their public and private players to opti-
mise their efforts.

1.8.1
In addition to foresight activities, the 7th Framework
Programme for Research and Development also foresees, under
the dedicated priority theme ‘health’ (1), specific activities rele-
vant
including through
interactions between factors such as the environment, individual
behaviour and gender issues.

to human development and ageing,

1.10.1
The Committee believes that it should set an example,
in conjunction with the Committee of the Regions, by looking
into the possibility of launching a ‘Eurogreen city’ civil society
award and monitoring best practice in sustainable urban devel-
opment through the SMO.

The Committee

1.8.2
that
emphasises
schools, educational institutions and universities in general are
expected to play in orientating young people and citizens
towards sustainable development.

crucial

role

the

1.8.3 Many international initiatives have attempted to iden-
tify core principles and fundamental values when discussing
corporate social responsibility. The foremost include:

— The Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union,

Article 37 on environmental protection (2);

— Global Compact (3);

— The OECD guidelines (4);

— Istituto Europeo per il Bilancio Sociale (European Institute for

Social Accounting) (5).

its

strong belief

The Committee states

1.9
that actions
intended to support the concrete application of such principles
and fundamental values should be considered as growth-enhan-
cing investments insofar as they are intended to enhance the
economic, social and occupational aspects of the urban fabric
and its potential attractions and expressiveness.

(1) OJ C 65/02/2006, point 5.2.2 (rapporteur: Heinisch) and OJ C 65,

2006 (rapporteurs: Wolf and Pezzini).

(2) Article 37: Environmental Protection — ‘A high level of environmental
protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be inte-
grated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the prin-
ciple of sustainable development’.

(3) ‘So let us choose to unite the power of markets with the authority of universal
ideals. Let us choose to reconcile the creative forces of private entrepreneurship
with the needs of the disadvantaged and the requirements of future generations.’
— The Secretary General of the United Nation, Kofi Annan, announced
the Global Compact in a statement at the World Economic Forum in
Davos, Switzerland in January 1999 and formally presented it at the
UN in July 2000. The Global Compact calls on businesses to adopt nine
universal principles of human rights and labour and environmental
standards.

(4) The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises were published in

June 2000 and target international corporations.

(5) Charter of Corporate Values drawn up by the IBS — (see Appendix II).

2. Reasons

The overwhelming majority of Europe's population lives
2.1
in urban areas (6), where the quality of life is often characterised
by a dramatic deterioration in transport systems, environmental
and social conditions, and access to basic services. The latter call
for substantial, innovative interventions, a more intelligent use
of resources and personal and community lifestyles that are
more respectful of the environment.

2.1.1
The EESC has had frequent occasion to express its
views on this issue, in particular: ‘For numerous reasons ... cities
crystallise environmental problems in concentrated form. Such
problems are acutely felt by citizens, particularly when they
concern air quality, noise pollution and, especially in the
southern Member States, water resources’.

The problems involved in integrating environmental
2.1.2
issues into the urban development process are covered by the
priorities outlined in the Sixth Community Environment Action
Programme 2002-2012 for sustainable development in various
priority areas, and on which the EESC has already expressed its
views.

The Sixth Community Environment Action Programme
2.1.3
2002–2012 provides for the development and implementation
of seven thematic strategies (7):

— * air pollution,

— * marine environment,

— * sustainable use of natural resources,

(6) With a population of over 50 000 inhabitants.
(7) Asterisks denote that the area has already been covered by a Directive.

C 318/88

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2006

— * waste prevention and recycling,

— EU environmental policy actions for urban management

under the LIFE+ programme;

— soil protection,

— use of pesticides,

— * urban environment.

2.1.4
Five of the seven thematic strategies have already been
formalised by the Commission. More specifically: the Proposal
for a Thematic Strategy on air pollution was adopted by the
Commission on 21 September 2005 (8);
for a
Marine Strategy Directive was adopted on 24 October 2005 (9);
the Proposal for a Directive on waste (new thematic strategy on the
prevention and recycling of waste) was adopted on 21 December
2005 (10); the Proposed for a thematic strategy on the sustain-
able use of natural resources was adopted on 21 December
2005 (11); and the most recent proposal on the urban environ-
ment (which is the subject of this opinion) was adopted on
11 January 2006.

the Proposal

2.1.5
There are clear interactions between the recommenda-
tions in the four previous thematic strategies and the most
recent one. The following are concentrated and magnified in an
urban environment:

— measures for combating air pollution;

— waste prevention and recycling;

— EU regional and cohesion policy actions relevant to the ESF,
the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund as well other EU initiatives
including URBAN II, EQUAL and INTERREG;

— EU initiatives

for

rational energy use,

reduced energy
consumption and energy efficiency under the Intelligent
Energy Programme and, at a future date, the Competitive-
ness and Innovation framework Programme (CIP);

— EU research and development activities under

the RTD
Multiannual Framework Programme, which mainly concern
the environment and public health; transport and energy;
the information society as a means of improving quality of
life; scientific progress and cultural growth in society; new
materials and nanotechnology; radionavigation and satellite
development through GALILEO, GEO and GMES (14);

— interventions for the conservation of the urban architectural,
and cultural heritage under Community
such as MINERVA, LIFE/RICAMA, Culture

monumental
programmes
2000, MEDIA Plus and eContentplus;

— greenhouse gas emissions produced by fossil fuels used in
urban transport and domestic heating and air-conditioning
systems;

— EU actions on behalf of the countries of the Mediterranean
basin and the Balkans (MEDA), and the countries of the
New Independent States (NIS) (TACIS) — the subject of the
new Neighbourhood Instrument;

— the protection of ground water and the natural fauna and

flora in urban parks;

— the protection of

the marine environment, with cross-

cutting issues for ports and coastal towns.

2.1.6
Other measures that are also relevant to the thematic
strategy for the urban environment concern the reduction of
noise pollution, which was covered by an action plan strategy
for major agglomerations in 2002 (12), and the recent Proposal
for a Directive on the promotion of clean road transport vehicles (espe-
cially
concerning public procure-
the
ment) (13).

recommendations

2.1.6.1
proposed strategy under consideration:

The following are also closely connected with the

(8) COM(2005) 446 final.
(9) COM(2005) 505 final.
(10) COM(2005) 667 final.
(11) COM(2005) 670 final.
(12) Directive 2002/49/EC.
(13) COM(2005) 634 final.

— EU actions under Community development cooperation
policies on behalf of various regions: ACP, Latin America
(Mercocidades) and Asia, and EU trade policies under the EU
Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA).

contributions

2.1.7 Major
towards defining a Thematic
Strategy for the Urban Environment were based on the outcome of
consultations carried out by the Commission on the interim
Communication adopted in 2004 (15); on a preliminary analysis
of possible strategies in this area; on voluntary initiatives under
Agenda 21; the Aalborg Charter (16); the Conclusions of the
Council of 14 October 2004 on the relevance of the theme and
the importance of taking action at all levels; and, finally, on the
Bristol Conclusions drawn up under the UK Presidency (17).

(14) Global Monitoring for Environment and Security.
(15) COM(2004) 60: Towards a thematic strategy on the urban environment.
(16) www.aalborgplus10.dk.
(17) The Bristol Accord, December 2005, www.odpm.gov.uk, Product
code 05 EUPMI 03584. The Bristol Accord identifies 8 basic character-
istics for a sustainable community 1) Active, inclusive and safe; 2) Well
run; 3) Well connected; 4) Well served; 5) Environmentally sensitive;
6) Thriving; 7) Well designed and built; 8) Fair for everyone.

23.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/89

Furthermore, the Commission has drawn up a working
2.1.8
document, which is appended to the Communication under
consideration. The working document consists in an impact
assessment of the different implementation scenarios for the
strategy and their cost.

2.1.9
In 2005, the European Parliament in its Report on the
urban dimension in the context of enlargement (18), recognises that
cities and urban agglomerations or areas where 78 % of the
European Union population is concentrated, are the place where
both the most complex and the most common problems are
concentrated but they are also the place where the future is
built, and where all forms of knowledge are explored and conso-
lidated. Hence, towns and cities ‘have a central role to play in
achieving the revised Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives’. The
European Parliament has also called on the Commission ‘to
develop and propose models and tools for sustainable urban
development which would be accessible to all towns and cities
and urban agglomerations or areas’.

2.1.10
The EESC maintains that political decision makers, in
coordination with the social partners and civil society at large,
should pursue the objective of developing an urban environ-
return through training-
ment
oriented policies.

that achieves a high social

2.2 The Commission proposal

2.2.1
The Commission proposal observes that the ‘diversity
in terms of history, geography, climate, administrative and legal
conditions calls for locally developed, tailor-made solutions for
the urban environment’ and that the ‘application of the subsi-
diarity principle, where action should be taken at the most effec-
tive level, also implies acting at the local level’. Given the diver-
sity of urban areas and existing national, regional and local obli-
gations, and the difficulties linked to establishing common stan-
dards, ‘it was decided that legislation would not be the best way
to achieve the objectives of this Strategy’, as was confirmed by
most Member States and the local authorities themselves.

— support for EU-wide exchange of best practices;

— Commission Internet portal for local authorities to facilitate
access to all documents published on a variety of websites
in line with the action plan for
for
improving communication on Europe;

local authorities,

— training to provide the specific skills required for adopting
an integrated approach to management. This would also
include exchange programmes for local authority officials
and ESF initiatives for strengthening the efficiency of public
administrations at regional and local level (19);

— application of other EU policies: cohesion policies (20) and

research policies (21).

Since the Commission proposal

2.2.3
it
should be read against the background of other thematic propo-
sals, and more specifically, the proposal on air pollution, and
the proposals on solid urban waste, marine pollution and soil
protection.

is multisectoral,

Furthermore, it would be appropriate for the Commis-
2.2.4
sion to provide a consolidated version of all provisions
pertaining to the sustainable development of cities and urban
agglomerations in the various EU programmes applicable to the
it should also provide strategic
urban environment. Finally,
guidelines that, in various respects, are relevant to urban devel-
opment.

2.3 General comments

2.3.1
The Committee welcomes the Communication from
the Commission because it tackles an issue of considerable rele-
vance to EU citizens insofar as it impacts on the quality of life
in their cities and urban areas and also because of the funda-
mental
the latter play in generating wealth and
economic, social and cultural development.

role that

2.2.2
following lines:

The proposed thematic strategy is structured along the

— guidance on integrated environmental management;

— guidance on sustainable urban transport plans to be devel-
oped by the local authorities with technical guidance on the
main aspects of transport plans and with examples of best
practice, to be published by the Commission by 2006;

(18) EP(2005)0272, 21 September 2005.

2.3.2
Emphasis should be placed on the pre-requisites of the
strategic action as outlined in the Bristol Accord of December
2005 (22) for sustainable communities across Europe:

— economic growth, without which we are unable to invest in
the creation and maintenance of sustainable communities;

(19) The European Social Fund (COM(2004) 493) could be used to support
public administration training at various levels. The new Life+
programme could also play an important role.

(20) COM(2004) 494 and 495.
(21) COM(2005) 1.
(22) See footnote 18.

C 318/90

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2006

— an integrated approach that ensures sustainable develop-
ment, reconciling economic, social and environmental chal-
lenges as well as social inclusion and social justice;

— strong cultural identities to turn Europe's cities into places
international excellence with a view to achieving the

of
Lisbon Agenda;

— the ability to respond to the challenge of social segregation;

— recognition that

sustainable communities can exist at

different spatial levels: local, urban, regional.

2.3.3
commitment
‘to legislate less but
Committee believes that it would be appropriate to:

In order to ensure consistency with the Community
the

to legislate better’,

— adopt voluntary coordination methods that combine the
new integrated approach to urban management with the
contents of the environmental directives (water, air, noise,
waste, gas emissions, climate change, nature and biodiver-
sity) and other thematic strategies under the Sixth Action
Programme 2002 — 2012;

— adopt

foresight systems for urban environment develop-
ment, involving all economic and social players, stakeholders
and end-user groups,
including the most vulnerable and
marginalised, on which local decision-makers can base their
independent choices and whose outcomes could serve to
identify common indicators at European level
for moni-
toring and benchmarking;

— provide EU support

training, best practice
sharing and exchange programmes for local authority offi-
cials and experts from different Member States;

technical

for

— form public-private partnerships, especially for the manage-
ment of integrated economic development programmes and
the promotion of ecological economic activities in program-
ming sustainable development and rehabilitating degraded
or brownfield sites as well as the socioeconomic sustainable
regeneration of small to medium-sized urban centres or run-
down neighbourhoods in large cities (23);

— ensure coordination and consistency in the approach of
Commission departments
and
programmes that focus on the various economic, social and
environmental aspects of urban development by setting up a
clearly defined interservice focal point that outside partners
can easily identify;

for policies

responsible

— provide EU support for feasibility studies to ensure a clear
and objective assessment of the cost of preparation, adop-
tion, implementation, certification, control and monitoring,
quality assessment and the review of Integrated Environ-
mental Management Plans (EMPs), Sustainable Urban Trans-
and Environmental Management
port
Plans
Systems (EMSs) (24)
for cities and urban agglomerations
according to type and characteristics;

(SUTPs),

— strengthen Community support for concrete development
projects as well as networks of European cities and non-
European cities such as the European Urban Knowledge
Network, Eurocities, Mercocidades, Civitas-Mobilis, Urbact;

— develop the technological potential of

society,
enhance the development of the urban environment;

e-government,

e-learning,

the information
and teleworking to

— intensify cooperation at all

(local,
levels of government
local
regional and national) and between the various
including in the area of public
authority departments,
security, and to safeguard economic activities from crimin-
ality and urban petty crime;

— develop curricula for schools and vocational training centres
at various levels to increase the citizens' sense of responsi-
bility towards environmental issues and to create ‘knowledge
workers’;

— take concrete action that addresses the problems presented
by an ageing urban population, also by comparing experi-
ences in different European cities;

progress

— develop impact assessment systems that are able to provide
harmonised
environmental,
reports
economic, social, cultural and technological situation in
European cities. To this end,
it would be appropriate to
provide common guidelines for impact assessments, similar
to the EU Draft Handbook for Sustainability Impact Assess-
ment.

on the

— provide EU support

in
support of local administrations and economic and social
stakeholder and civil society organisations in the region;

for capacity-building initiatives

(23) The contribution of the European Investment Bank (EIB) in this field is

substantial.

(24) See Annex F of the Commission Staff Working Document SEC(2006)

16.

23.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/91

The Committee attributes considerable importance to
2.3.4
the process that will enable regions and especially cities to
define themselves as ‘Socially Responsible Territories’ (25).
This will only happen if regions and cities can successfully inte-
grate:

— social and environmental considerations into our economic

decisions;

— value models combined with participatory decision-making
processes to relaunch competitiveness under the EU JESSICA
initiative (26), amongst others;

— best practice and continuous stakeholder
promote innovation and competitiveness;

interaction to

2.3.5.1
solutions, including the following examples:

Local authorities have already identified a number of

— electric minibus service to replace the use of private vehicles

in urban centres (Salzburg);

— biofuel buses (Bologna);

— assisted pedal cycles (27): very important for the elderly in
the inhabitants of non-upland towns

general and for
(Ferrara, Milan);

— light railways connecting airports and intermodal centres

— ‘reasonable’ wellbeing combined with responsibility for the

with cities;

environment and health;

— a sensitive and participatory approach to sustainable urban

development from politicians.

— local plans for urban restructuring to regenerate the city
whilst preserving its architecture and character, as in the
outstanding example of Versailles (28).

The Committee is convinced that

2.3.4.1
the social and
cultural development of the urban environment is of primary
importance,
in view of demographic trends and migratory
flows.

economic,

2.3.4.2
The Committee is also convinced that at the heart of
an effective sustainable development strategy lies the need to
social and cultural poverty, deteriorating
fight
physical and mental health in humans, social exclusion, and the
marginalisation of the most vulnerable sectors of the urban
population in order to achieve more effective social inclusion of
all ethnic and cultural groups.

2.3.5
clearly defined phases:

The process should be divided into the following

— identification of the local community's shared values;

— identification of resources and needs;

— definition of improvement objectives and harmonised assess-

ment indicators;

— establishment of an operation plan and identification of

instruments;

— bottom-up management and monitoring of

the Socially

Responsible Territories project;

— intensive awareness-raising activities and continual training

to develop a territorial culture.

(25) See the Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy (Council docu-

ment 10117/06, 09.06.06, paragraphs 29 and 30).

(26) JESSICA (Joint European Support for Sustainable Development in City
Areas: Community support for sustainable investments in urban areas)
aims to provide solutions to financing problems for urban restruc-
turing and development projects and social housing projects through
a combination of subsidies and loans.

2.3.5.2
The EESC endorses the Commission proposal on the
promotion of clean road transport vehicles and the proposal on
taxing vehicles according to CO2 emissions and not cylinder
capacity.

2.3.6
The EESC considers that awareness-raising initiatives
relevant to these themes should be intensified at all levels, but
especially at the local level, in order to ensure that citizens and
businesses develop a sense of commitment and responsibility
towards the work
(including through the Foresight project)
carried out in recent years on sustainable development and
corporate social responsibility by international bodies, including
the Commission, the UN, the OECD, and the Istituto Europeo per
il Bilancio Sociale (European Institute for Social Accounting).

2.3.6.1
The procedures to be adopted centre round research
and innovation, policies for supporting the renovation of instal-
lations,
training, disseminating environmental management
systems, and monitoring systems.

2.3.6.2
The most appropriate instruments in addition to
information campaigns and the promotion of a culture of
responsibility, include ISO 14001; EMAS (29); GHG (30); tax and
financial support for meeting these targets; simplified proce-
dures; exemption from environmental procedures for those who
have obtained the relevant certification.

(27) With electric motors.
(28) The study group chaired by Mr Mendoza Castro was able to verify on
site, at the invitation from the city's Deputy Mayor, Mr Buffetaut, the
concept, structure and development of the local urban development
plan for Versailles in the context of Agenda 21, which was decided by
the city's municipal council in 2003 (See appendix 3).

(29) EMAS, Regulation 1836/93, amended by Regulation 761/2001.
(30) The new ISO 14064 standard on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and Directive

2003/87/EC.

C 318/92

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2006

— involve all stakeholders in the socio-economic and environ-
mental sustainability of cities when drafting proposals for
action;

— continuous and structured dialogue with civil society for the
transparent dissemination of information on environmental
risks, clean technology choices, and the need to make one's
own city more attractive;

— a common vision for medium-term prospects through parti-
cipatory foresight that involves all public and private deci-
sion-making centres;

— impact assessment tools based on pre-defined criteria and
indicators at EU level, corresponding to an integrated terri-
torial approach;

— best practice analysis, especially with regard to social inclu-

sion, safety and social co-existence;

— more environmental education in schools and extracurri-

cular training for adults and the elderly;

— a joint effort to develop, including through the EU JEREMIE
and JESSICA initiatives, a financial engineering system liable
to promote growth, employment and social
inclusion in
cities, through the Structural Fund and the Cohesion Fund,
the EIB, the EIF and with the support of the PPP (public-
private partnership);

— incentives and certification schemes that reward public and
the development of a

private voluntary initiatives
sustainable and competitive urban environment.

for

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

The Committee believes that it would be useful to
2.3.6.3
introduce ‘European green city’ awards. Such awards could
prove to be effective incentives for optimising the efforts of
local communities, and their public and private components, to
develop an integrated approach and lifestyles that are consistent
with it.

that

The Committee believes

2.3.6.4
should set an
example, in conjunction with the Committee of the Regions, by
looking into the possibility of launching a ‘Eurogreen city’ civil
contributing to a progress assessment of
society award,
ESPON (31), identifying obstacles and monitoring best practice
in sustainable urban development through the SMO.

it

2.3.7
The EESC believes that the focal point of an effective
urban development strategy consists primarily in identifying
appropriate governance systems in order to take action through
the integrated management of complex situations that provide
for the co-existence of:

— multilevel territorial interventions and decision-making;

— multiple decision-making centres with their own specificities

and priority objectives;

— timeframes for short, medium and long term objectives.

The Committee maintains that amongst the most rele-
2.3.8
vant points for improving the integrated governance system of
socially responsible territories, the following should be included:

— improvements to the Commission's internal consultation

process;

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

(31) ESPON (European Spatial Planning Observation Network).