Assessment study of the urban agenda for the European Union (UAEU) : final report.
Date: 2020-01-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
Subjects: EU policy, regional policy, sustainable development, urban area, urbanisation

Assessment Study of the 
Urban Agenda for the 
European Union (UAEU) 

Final Report 

November 2019 

Written by Ipsos Mori, Technopolis Group and Economisti Associati  
November 2019 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 
Unit DDG.03 —Inclusive Growth, Urban and Territorial Development 

Contact : Lamprini Ethra Lambropoulou 

E-mail : REGIO-URBAN-TERRITORIAL@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Assessment Study of the 
Urban Agenda for the 
European Union (UAEU) 

Final Report 

November 2019 

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 

2020 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication.  

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 

ISBN 978-92-76-14914-9 
doi: 10.2776/8208 

© European Union, 2020 
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.  
The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 
14.12.2011, p. 39). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Contents 

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 2 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 11 

THE URBAN AGENDA FOR THE EU........................................................................... 13 

2.1 Background and objectives of the UAEU ............................................................. 13 
2.2 EU Policy context ............................................................................................ 14 
2.3 UAEU Governance ........................................................................................... 17 
2.4 UAEU modes of implementation ........................................................................ 19 
2.5 UAEU wider policy context ................................................................................ 23 
2.6 Status of implementation of the UAEU ............................................................... 24 

3.  METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 36 

3.1 The analytical approach / framework ................................................................. 36 
3.2 Data collection methods ................................................................................... 36 
3.3 Key challenges and limitations .......................................................................... 40 

4. 

ASSESSMENT RESULTS ......................................................................................... 42 

4.1 Effectiveness .................................................................................................. 42 
4.2 Efficiency ....................................................................................................... 70 
4.3 Relevance ...................................................................................................... 78 
4.4 Coherence ...................................................................................................... 90 
4.5 EU Added Value .............................................................................................. 99 

5.  OVERARCHING CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................. 109 

6. 

CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF THE UAEU................................................. 113 

ANNEXES .................................................................................................................. 120 

ANNEX A: UAEU CONSULTATION SYNOPSIS REPORT ...................................................... 120 

ANNEX B: CASE STUDY REPORTS ................................................................................ 132 

Case study 1: Governance ................................................................................... 132 
Case study 2: Partnership functioning & coordination .............................................. 137 
Case study 3: Technical Assistance ....................................................................... 143 
Case study 4: The role of cities, MS and Commission in Partnerships ........................ 149 
Case study 5: Action Planning .............................................................................. 157 
Case study 6: Implementation of Action Plans ........................................................ 164 
Case study 7: Wider Impacts & Outreach .............................................................. 170 

ANNEX C: ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK .......................................................................... 176 

ANNEX D: INTERVENTION LOGIC OF THE URBAN AGENDA FOR THE EU ............................ 183 

ANNEX E: BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................... 184 

ANNEX F: TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT FACTSHEET ........................................................... 186 

 v 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

CEMR 

CoR 

Council of European Municipalities and Regions 

European Committee of the Regions 

DG REGIO 

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 

DGUM 

Directors-General Meeting on Urban Matters 

EEA 

EESC 

EIB 

ERDF 

European Environmental Agency 

European Economic and Social Committee 

European Investment Bank 

European Regional Development Fund 

ESPON 

European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion 

EU 

EUI 

EUKN 

JPI 

MS 

OECD 

SDG 

TIA 

TP 

TS 

UATPG 

UAEU 

UDG 

UDN 

UIA 

UN 

URBACT 

European Union 

European Urban Initiative 

European Urban Knowledge Network 

Joint Programming Initiative 

Member State 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

Sustainable Development Goal 

Territorial Impact Assessment 

Thematic Partnership 

Technical Secretariat 

Urban Agenda Technical Preparatory Group 

Urban Agenda for the European Union 

Urban Development Group 

Urban Development Network 

Urban Innovative Action 

United Nations 

European exchange and learning programme promoting sustainable urban 
development 

 vi 

 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Abstract 

This study aims to provide a holistic assessment of the implementation and performance 
of  the  Urban  Agenda  for  the  European  Union  (UAEU).  The  UAEU  is  a  multi-level 
governance  framework  for  dialogue  and  collaboration  that  was  launched  in  2016  to 
identify  and  tackle  urban  challenges  by  bringing  together  Member  States,  cities,  the 
European Commission and other stakeholders. 

The  study  explores  how  far  the  objectives  of  the  UAEU  (as  described  in  its  founding 
document, the Pact of  Amsterdam) have been attained, and provides insight into the 
strengths,  opportunities,  challenges  and  shortcomings  encountered  throughout  the 
implementation  of  the  UAEU  to  date.  It  also  identifies  areas  for  improvement  and 
considers how to make the UAEU more effective in future. 

The study was carried out by external consultants from Ipsos and Technopolis Group in 
2019. The evidence base includes both secondary data (gleaned via a review of relevant 
literature and monitoring data) and primary data (an online consultation, as well as over 
70 in-depth interviews with UAEU stakeholders and participants). 

1 

 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

About the Urban Agenda for the European Union 

The Urban Agenda for the European Union (UAEU) was launched in May 2016 with the 
Pact  of  Amsterdam.  It  represents  a  new  multi-level  working  method  promoting 
cooperation  between  Member  States,  cities,  the  European  Commission  and  other 
stakeholders  in  order  to  stimulate  growth,  liveability  and  innovation  in  the  cities  of 
Europe and to identify and successfully tackle societal challenges. 

The key delivery mechanism of the UAEU are a series of Thematic Partnerships (TPs), 
each  composed  of  around  15-20  members  representing  various  governmental  levels 
and stakeholders. 14 TPs have been launched in four “waves”, addressing a wide range 
of social, environmental and economic issues, such as Housing, Air Quality, or Digital 
Transition,  to  name  but  a  few.  Each  TP  is  tasked  with  developing  an  Action  Plan  to 
identify  and  address  key  issues  under  three  “pillars”  of  EU  policy-making  and 
implementation: Better Regulation, Better Funding, and Better Knowledge. 

About this study 

This study was carried out by external consultants from Ipsos and Technopolis Group in 
2019.  It  aims  to  provide  a  holistic  assessment  of  the  implementation  and 
performance of the UAEU. The study explores how far the objectives of the UAEU (as 
described in the Pact of Amsterdam) have been attained, and provides insight into the 
strengths,  opportunities,  challenges  and  shortcomings  encountered  throughout  the 
implementation  of  the  UAEU  to  date.  It  also  identifies  areas  for  improvement  and 
considers how to make the UAEU more effective in future. 

The  analysis  for  this  study  is  based  on  five  assessment  criteria:  Effectiveness, 
Efficiency, Relevance, Coherence and EU Added Value. For each of these criteria, a set 
of specific assessment questions were defined, and an assessment framework developed 
to clarify how these would be answered. 

The findings and conclusions are based on a mix of primary and secondary evidence 
from the following main sources: 

  Analysis of monitoring data: The study team has reviewed data collected by 
DG REGIO and/or the Technical Secretariat on a range of issues, including the 
composition of TPs, the financial resources invested, the  objectives and target 
audiences of actions, and their implementation status. 

  Desk  research  and  literature  review:  The  team  compiled  and  reviewed  a 
wide  range  of  relevant  documentation  and  literature,  including  previous  and 
ongoing assessments of the UAEU and academic articles. 

  Online consultation: A specifically designed online survey was developed and 
distributed among relevant stakeholders via a range of channels (including the 
Futurium  website).  In  total,  118  respondents  completed  the  survey.  Most  of 

 2 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

these (31%) belonged to a city or urban public entity, while 21% represented a 
regional or national public entity. 

  Stakeholder  interviews:  A  total  of  71  in-depth  interviews  were  carried  out, 
including 26 with EU-level and other stakeholders who were directly or indirectly 
involved  in  the  design,  operationalisation  and/or  implementation  of  the  UAEU, 
and 45 with members of all 14 TPs (including 18 representatives of cities). 

  Case  studies:  To  assess  certain  themes  that  were  of  particular  interest  in 
greater depth, seven case studies were carried out. Each of these drew on the 
review  of  relevant  documentation  as  well  as  the  interviews  with  members  of 
selected TPs. 

Main conclusions 

Based  on the findings obtained via the various research methods  and sources (which 
are described in greater detail in the report), this study concludes that the UAEU has 
been a qualified success, and there is a strong case  for its continuation (albeit not 
necessarily  in  the  exact  same  form).  It  has  been  widely  welcomed  by  the  key 
stakeholders it is meant to serve, and has generated a number of important benefits. 
Having said this, there are areas and aspects where the UAEU’s functioning and progress 
towards its objectives has been hampered by certain challenges and obstacles. The main 
strengths and achievements of the UAEU to date, as well as its main weaknesses and 
issues that need to be addressed to ensure its future success, can be summed up as 
follows.   

Key strengths and achievements  

Since  its  formal  launch  in  2016,  the  UAEU  has  contributed  to  establishing  a  more 
effective  integrated  and  coordinated  approach  to  EU  policies  and  legislation  with  a 
potential impact on urban areas. By far the most important vehicle for achieving this 
are the 14 Thematic Partnerships (TPs) that have been launched. The main strengths 
and achievements to date can be summed up as follows:  

1.  The UAEU’s added value stems primarily from its multi-level, multi-stakeholder 
approach. This innovative and (in the eyes of many) ground-breaking feature has 
fostered significant collaboration between cities, the European Commission, Member 
States,  other  EU  institutions,  and  other  stakeholders,  who  have  engaged  in 
discussions  and  jointly  identified  solutions  to  address  key  challenges  facing  cities 
across a wide range of policy areas and themes.  

2.  By implementing this approach, the TPs have provided a unique opportunity for 
stakeholders  at  all  relevant  levels  to  enter  into  dialogue,  better  understand  each 
other’s  concerns,  exchange  views  and  ideas,  identify  issues  with  the  design  and 
implementation of policies with a strong urban dimension, and try to find common 
ground  and  instigate  actions  to  address  these.  Cities  in  particular  valued  the 
opportunity  to  have  a  seat  at  the  “EU  table”  for  the  first  time,  and  saw  it  as  a 
significant first step towards a greater involvement in future EU policy making. 

3 

 
3.  The  Thematic  Partnership  approach  has  enabled  the  UAEU  to  identify  specific 
issues and bottlenecks for cities, and develop concrete Action Plans to address these. 
All of the themes (ranging from Housing, to Digital Transition, to Climate Adaptation, 
to  name  but  a  few)  were  highly  relevant.  Similarly,  the  three  pillars  (Better 
Regulation, Better Funding, and Better Knowledge) were highly relevant, and helped 
to orient TPs towards relevant areas for action. 

4.  The flexible, ‘experimental’ nature of the TPs was a key enabler for their success. 
It allowed them to take a genuinely ‘bottom-up’ approach and define their own remit, 
focus  and  working  methods  in  a  way  that  matched  the  interests  and  expertise  of 
their  members.  This  helped  bridge  and  reconcile  the  sometimes  significantly 
different perspectives and priorities of participants, and address the very wide range 
of themes in a broadly effective way. Although this process was frequently difficult 
and time-consuming, the overall level of engagement among participants was high, 
and most (especially cities) were happy to be involved in what many viewed as a 
longer-term investment in better urban policy making processes.  

5.  The  12  Action  Plans  that  have  been  finalised  contain  a  total  of  114  actions, 
representing a wide range of types, target audiences, and levels of ambition. Among 
these  are  numerous  actions  where  implementation  is  progressing  well,  and  is 
beginning to generate tangible impacts, including a few Commission legislative 
proposals  that  individual  TPs  have  reportedly  had  an  influence  on,  guidelines  or 
recommendations aimed at improving the implementation of existing legislation, as 
well as a large number of best practices, guides, toolkits and roadmaps to contribute 
to the generation and dissemination of Better Knowledge. 

6.  Thus, the UAEU is beginning to exert a certain, albeit limited influence in terms of 
strengthening the urban dimension in the design and implementation of EU as 
well as certain national policies. This includes the creation of new national structures 
that  were  inspired  by  the  UAEU,  as  well  as,  more  generally,  the  attempts  (more 
successful  in  some  TPs  than  in  others)  to  reach  out  to  and  raise  awareness  of 
relevant issues among non-participating cities. 

7.  Overall,  stakeholder  feedback  suggests  the  UAEU  is  increasingly  living  up  to  the 
ambition of becoming the “common frame” for urban policy initiatives at EU 
level,  with  other  EU  programmes,  policies  and  initiatives  relating  to  urban  policy 
being aligned to the topics of the TPs of the UAEU, as was called for in the Pact of 
Amsterdam. For example, the calls for Urban Innovative Actions are based on the 
UAEU  themes  and  some  of  the  Horizon  2020  Work  Programme  2018-2020  topics 
that are linked to cities and urban development are based on the themes of the TPs. 

Key weaknesses and issues to be addressed 

The  strengths  and  achievements  summarised  above  provide  proof  of  the  strong 
potential  of  the  UAEU  to  build  on  its  early  successes  and  continue  to  increase  its 
influence over relevant policy processes. A clear majority of the stakeholders consulted 
for  this  study  supports  the  continuation  of  the  UAEU.  However,  this  study  has  also 
identified a number of challenges, weaknesses and shortcomings that have limited 
the effectiveness of the UAEU so far. In order to build on and learn from the experience 

 4 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

to  date,  and  maximise  its  future  usefulness,  influence,  and  attractiveness  for 
stakeholders, the following key issues will need to be addressed:   

1.  The  implementation  of  many  actions  is  uncertain.  In  spite  of  the  positive 
examples  alluded  to  above,  overall,  there  are  serious  doubts  about  the  extent  to 
which  TP  members  (or  other  stakeholders)  are  able  to  fully  implement  their 
respective Action Plans, and therefore there is a risk that the UAEU will ultimately 
fail to have the desired impacts. The reasons for this are manifold; many are related 
to  the  issues  listed  below,  and  include  a  lack  of  clarity  about  who  is  ultimately 
responsible, a lack of resources, and a lack of direct control by TP members over the 
policy and/or legislative processes that would be  required to achieve  the ultimate 
objectives of actions. 

2.  Relatively few actions focus on Better Regulation or Better Funding (the first 
two pillars of the UAEU), compared with Better Knowledge (the third pillar), which 
accounts  for  nearly  half  of  all  actions,  and  whose  share  has  grown  from  wave  to 
wave  of  TPs.  Although  many  of  the  Better  Knowledge  actions  are  undoubtedly 
relevant  and  important,  their  prevalence  raises  questions  about  the  TPs’  level  of 
ambition  and  ultimate  impacts.  Arguably,  Better  Knowledge  actions  tend  to  be 
‘easier’ to formulate and implement (because they do not require legislative changes 
that cities have no direct control over). However, they are also less likely to have as 
significant  (potential)  impacts  as  actions  under  the  pillars  of  Better  Regulation  or 
Better Funding, as well as less unique to the UAEU. In these areas, the TP Action 
Plans  have  successfully  identified  and  recommended  a  significant  number  of 
desirable actions, but actual changes to EU legislation or funding programmes are 
still few and far between. 

3.  The high degree of flexibility and experimentation that characterised the first phase 
of the UAEU was necessary to get the TPs “off the ground” and enable the mix of 
stakeholders  represented in them to begin to cooperate and find common ground 
(see  above).  However,  it  also  had  drawbacks.  The  widely  felt  lack  of  clear  and 
transparent  processes,  requirements  and  specific  objectives  (in  particular 
regarding  the  envisaged  aims  and  content  of  their  Action  Plans,  as  well  as  with 
regard to who is  responsible for the implementation and follow up of  the actions) 
also led to challenges inefficiencies and delays in the Action Planning process. For 
the next phase of the UAEU, the balance needs to shift towards greater clarity and 
transparency, even if this is at the expense of a certain amount of flexibility.  

4.  The level of engagement of stakeholder in and with the UAEU was uneven. 
The progress of the TPs relied heavily on a relatively small ‘hard core’ of active and 
engaged  members,  especially  coordinators.  Some  other  members  were  quite 
passive, for a variety of reasons including both a lack of strong interest and a lack 
of specific expertise. Notable exceptions notwithstanding, the two groups that drew 
significant criticism from stakeholders (in particular city representatives) due to their 
perceived  lack  of  engagement  where  (1)  Member  States  and  (2)  Commission 
services (other than DG REGIO). 

5.  The outreach to stakeholders who are not directly involved in the UAEU has 
been limited. Although some TPs have been reasonably successful in reaching out 
to  and  disseminating  information  about  their  work  to  a  “second  circle”  of  cities 

5 

 
(based largely on intense efforts by active and committed coordinators and EU-level 
organisations with large pre-established networks), others have been more inwards-
focused. Overall, the profile and visibility of the UAEU remains quite low.  

6.  Resource constraints were a challenge for the TPs, which had to rely primarily 
on the time members  were able to make available (on top of their “day jobs”) to 
progress their work. Although funding was available to support TPs, its effectiveness 
was limited due to both the relatively small amounts available, and, in some cases, 
a lack of awareness (some TPs did not use parts of the available budget).   

7.  The governance mechanism for the UAEU is not effective. The UDG and DGUM 
were  only  able  to  provide  a  limited  extent  of  meaningful  guidance  and  steer  for, 
feedback to, or coordination between TPs. This was partly due to the large number 
and specialised thematic focus of TPs; it clearly would have been very challenging 
for UDG and/or DGUM members to engage with all 14 TPs and their Action Plans in 
any significant depth. Various TP members also felt that the Commission could have 
provided  more  direction  to  the  Action  Planning  process,  although  it  was  generally 
recognised  that  the  Commission  had  to  walk  a  thin  line  between  maintaining  its 
impartiality in the framework of the UAEU, and moving the Action Planning forward. 

8.  Internal communication within and between the different elements of the 
UAEU has been lacking. The study results suggest the flow of information between 
key  actors  (in  particular  the  European  Commission,  TP  coordinators,  and  the 
Technical Secretariat), as well as from these to TP members at large, and from and 
to the governing bodies, has been suboptimal. This has contributed to the perceived 
lack of transparency and awareness of key issues including the available resources 
and  how  they  can  be  used,  the  responsibilities  for  and  implementation  status  of 
actions, etc.     

9.  The internal and external coherence of the UAEU is low. Internally, the extent 
to  which  its  elements  (including  both  the  14  TPs  and  other  elements,  such  as 
territorial  impact  assessments  or  the  “one-stop-shop”  portal)  complement  and 
reinforce each other is not especially pronounced. Externally, the alignment between 
the UAEU and its TPs, and other relevant EU initiatives (such as the timing of URBACT 
calls for proposals) was limited. This results in a certain amount of “working in silos”. 
There  is  room  for  improving  the  way  the  UAEU  interacts  with  other  relevant 
initiatives, which was recognised by the Commission in its proposal for the European 
Urban Initiative-post 2020. 

Considerations for the future of the UAEU 

The  study  considered  specific  ways  in  which  the  Urban  Agenda  for  the  EU  could  be 
updated and adapted, in order to build on the results achieved to date, address the key 
challenges  and  weaknesses  identified,  and  try  to  ensure  the  UAEU  functions  as 
effectively  as  possible  as  it  moves  into  the  next  phase  of  its  existence,  within  the 
changed  framework  of  urban  policy,  in  particular  the  proposed  new  European  Urban 
Initiative (EUI). The three key issues to be addressed are:  

 6 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

1.  Enhancing  the  implementation  and  impact  of  actions  (relating  to  key  weaknesses 

1,2 and 3); 

2.  Improving  the  engagement  of  stakeholder  in  and  with  the  UAEU  (relating  to  key 

weaknesses 4, 5 and 6); and 

3.  Refining the UAEU’s governance mechanisms, internal communication, and place in 

the wider policy / institutional framework (relating to key weaknesses 7, 8 and 9). 

The ways in which many of these issues can best be addressed depends inter alia on 
the  overall  strategic  approach  to  the  future  UAEU.  Broadly  speaking,  a  choice  will 
need  to  be  made  between  a  continuation  and  deepening  of  the  current  “thematic” 
approach,  which  relies  primarily  on  the  individual  TPs  to  formulate  and  implement 
actions, or a shift towards a more “holistic / integrated” approach, which would focus 
more on the elements that are common to, or cut across, the different priority themes. 
Therefore, when looking at the first two groups of issues listed above, a distinction is 
made between two options that reflect this fundamental choice. Under each option, we 
list  a  number  of  measures  that  could  be  taken  to  address  the  main  weaknesses 
identified, and are aligned with the chosen approach. It is important to note that options 
A  and  B  are  not  necessarily  scenarios  or  models  to  be  implemented  wholly;  different 
elements  could  be  combined,  and  not  all  aspects  listed  under  different  options  are 
mutually  exclusive  (i.e.  it  could  be  possible  to  find  a  “middle  ground”  and  choose  to 
address some aspects by following a more thematic, and others via a more horizontal 
approach). The aim of the options is to serve as an inspiration for how to address the 
issues  the  UAEU  is  dealing  with  and  to  highlight  possible  ways  forward,  whilst 
considering the political context / support needed.  

1. Enhancing the implementation and impact of actions 

As noted in the conclusions, the implementation of many actions defined by the TPs is 
uncertain. Moreover, the fact that relatively few actions focus on Better Regulation or 
Better Funding raises questions about the TPs’ level of ambition and ultimate impacts. 
Below we outline measures that can be taken to enhance the implementation and impact 
of actions.  

Option A: Continuation and deepening of the thematic approach 

Ways to enhance the implementation and impact of actions by means of finetuning the 
current, primarily thematic approach to the UAEU, could include: 

  Prolonging  the  current  14  TPs  (potentially  by  up  to  another  two  or  three 
years) with a focus on implementing the Action Plans, and potentially launching 
new TPs if other highly relevant themes are identified.  

  Stimulating amendments to current actions, in order to make them more 

“implementable” (e.g. by revisiting their specific objectives).  

  Formulating clear and transparent processes, requirements and specific 
objectives  for  TPs,  and  providing  guidance  to  ensure  these  are  fully 
understood.  

7 

 
  Promoting  cross-Partnership  collaboration,  e.g.  by  expanding  on  the 

current coordinators’ meetings.  

  Improving information on the status and progress of actions, inter alia to 

facilitate better outreach to stakeholders outside of the TPs.  

Option B: Shift towards a more holistic / integrated approach 

The  implementation  and  impact  of  actions  could  benefit  from  a  more  coordinated, 
integrated  approach  that  goes  beyond  the  TPs.  This  approach  would  make  use  of 
commonalities in terms of cross-cutting themes and desired results. It could entail: 

  Letting the Partnerships in their current format end after three years, as 

originally envisaged, and refrain from setting up new TPs.  

  Setting  up  an  alternative  transversal  /  integrated  working  method,  to 
allow  the  former  ‘core’  TP  members  to  work  together  (on  a  strictly  voluntary 
basis) on implementing the actions. This could entail a systematic identification 
of lessons learned, challenges and potential solutions identified across all 14 TPs; 
an identification and prioritisation of actions with a potentially high impact and a 
reasonable  chance  of  implementation;  the  formation  of  one  or  more  working 
groups to cluster the selected actions and identify commonalities and synergies; 
and  ultimately,  the  development  of  a  joint  proposal  for  implementation, 
combining and building on the original actions. 

2. Improving the engagement of stakeholders in and with the UAEU 

As highlighted above, the performance of the UAEU so far was hampered by the uneven 
level of engagement of stakeholder in and with the UAEU, and its limited visibility and 
profile beyond the “inner circle” of participants, which was caused by a number of factors 
including resource constraints. Below we outline actions that could be taken to enhance 
the engagement of stakeholders. 

Option A: Continuation of the thematic approach 

Possibilities to improve the engagement of stakeholders in and with the UAEU by means 
of finetuning the current, primarily thematic approach to the UAEU, include: 

  Allowing for a greater role of cities in the composition of Partnerships 

by revisiting the selection process of members. 

  Ensuring  all  TP  members  have  sufficient  relevant  thematic  expertise 
(rather  than  “just”  urban  policy  experience),  in  order  to  ensure  they  are  in  a 
position to contribute constructively to the Action Planning and implementation 
process. 

  Ensuring adequate resources for TPs to facilitate greater and more balanced 

engagement of stakeholders (including smaller cities).  

 8 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

  Strengthening  the  relations  of  the  TPs  with  relevant  institutions,  for 
example by making other EU institutions and national authorities (co) responsible 
for the implementation of actions.  

  Reaching out to external actors that are not directly involved in the TPs, in 
particular dissemination of information about the work of TPs to a “second circle” 
of cities. 

Option B: Shift towards a more holistic / integrated approach  

If opting for a more holistic / integrated approach to the UAEU, in which the TPs in their 
current format would be disbanded and more integrated structures created (see above), 
measures that could help ensure the engagement of stakeholders in and with the UAEU 
include: 

  Expanding  on  the  format  of  coordinators’  meetings,  e.g.  via  regular 
meetings of the core former TP members with high-level representatives of the 
Commission  and  the  Member  States  to  discuss  the  progress  of  the 
implementation of actions.  

  Active engagement in thematic working groups (see above), which could 
also serve as a platform for multi-level cooperation with the institutions as well 
as knowledge exchange and sharing of best-practices.  

  Ensuring  adequate  resources  for  engagement,  as  a  holistic  /  integrated 
approach  would  necessitate  making  available  sufficient  resources  for  the 
stakeholders to participate.  

3. Refining the UAEU’s governance mechanisms, internal communication, and 
place in the wider policy / institutional framework 

As noted above, the performance of the UAEU to date was also hindered by an ineffective 
governance  mechanism,  suboptimal  internal  communication,  and  low  internal  and 
external coherence. Measures that could be taken to address these issues are largely 
independent of the options discussed previously (i.e. could be envisaged under either a 
more  thematic  or  a  more  holistic  approach),  but  are  dependent  on  broader  policy 
developments  and  buy-in  from  the  relevant  actors  (especially  regarding  some  of  the 
more far-reaching changes listed below): 

  Improving guidance from the DGUM/UDG, including the Commission, for 
example by revisiting and clarifying specific roles of the DGUM, UDG and UATPG, 
and exploring whether some ‘recalibration’ of the way the Commission interprets 
its role is possible. 

  Enhancing  the  links  between  the  UAEU  and  the  decision-making 
processes and policy cycles, by looking at ways to make it required to consider 
the Action Plans as more than just ‘another stakeholder opinion’.  

  Enhancing  the  representation  of  cities  in  relevant  decision-making  / 
governance bodies at EU-level, in particular improving the representation of 
cities in the UDG and DGUM.  

9 

 
  Improving  the  alignment  with  Cohesion  Policy  programmes  and  other 
EU initiatives in the framework of the European Urban Initiative-post 2020. 

 10 

 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

1.   Introduction  

This deliverable is the final report for the Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for 
the  European  Union  (UAEU).  This  study  was  commissioned  to  Ipsos  and  Technopolis 
Group  in  December  2018  under  the  FWC  575/PP/2016/FC,  and  was  finalised  in 
November 2019.  

This report is structured as follows: 

  Section 1 introduces the purpose of the assignment.  

  Section 2 provides contextual information about the UAEU.  

  Section 3 presents the methodology used to deliver the assessment, as well as 

the limitations and challenges found. 

  Section  4  summarises  the  key  findings  on  five  criteria  used  to  carry  out  the 
assessment: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU-added value. 

  Section 5 provides conclusions from the key findings.  

  Section 6 provides considerations for the future of the UAEU.  

  Finally, the annexes include some of the main elements used to carry out this 
assessment,  mainly  the  synopsis  report,  case  studies  and  bibliography.  The 
assessment framework and the intervention logic developed during the scoping 
phase are also included in the annexes. 

About the assignment  

This assessment study responds to the Report to the Council of November 2017 on the 
Urban Agenda for the EU (COM (2017) 657 final), which states that 'by the end of 2019, 
the Commission plans to carry out an evaluation on the Urban Agenda for the EU'.  

The overall purpose of this assessment is to holistically assess the implementation and 
performance of the UAEU to date since the launch of the four pilot Partnerships and the 
signature of the Pact of Amsterdam, and to explore possible ways to improve its utility 
and effectiveness, thereby contributing to a shared understanding of the best ways to 
work with cities and support them in their development. More specifically, the objectives 
of the study are: 

  Providing evidence on how far the objectives of the UAEU, as described in the 

Pact of Amsterdam, have been attained;  

  Providing insight into the challenges, shortcomings, strengths and opportunities 

that have arisen throughout the implementation of the UAEU;  

  Striving to understand the causes and factors of success or failure of the UAEU;  

  Examining the sustainability of results and impacts of the UAEU;  

11 

 
 
  Providing  guidance  and  recommendations  in  order  to  make  the  UAEU  more 
effective, more efficient, more relevant, more coherent and with an increased EU 
added value in view of its future implementation. 

The study covers all aspects of the UAEU since its official launch in 2016, namely: the 
multilevel governance approach, the operationalisation of the UAEU through the work 
of  the  Thematic  Partnerships  –  including  the  development  of  Action  Plans  and 
implementation of actions – as well as other aspects of the UAEU such as the one-stop-
shop and urban proofing (Territorial Impact Assessment). 

 12 

 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

2.   The Urban Agenda for the EU  

2.1 Background and objectives of the UAEU 

The main aim of the Urban Agenda for the European Union is to identify and tackle urban 
challenges by bringing together Member States, cities, the European Commission and 
other  stakeholders,  into  a  framework  for  dialogue  and  finding  solutions  on  policy 
initiatives  that  affect  urban  areas  (Pact  of  Amsterdam,  2016).  The  Urban  Agenda 
proposes to use a new multi-level, multi-stakeholder working method to better achieve 
the objectives of the Union and national policy by involving urban authorities in both the 
design  and  implementation  phases  of  policy  making.  This  in  turn  is  intended  to 
strengthen the urban dimension of policies as well as facilitate their uptake, ultimately 
leading to a more efficient and effective policy making and implementation process.  

The main objectives of the UAEU, as laid out in the Pact of Amsterdam, are presented 
in the box below.  

 Objectives of the Urban Agenda for the EU  

1. The Urban Agenda for the EU aims to realise the full potential and contribution of 
urban  areas  towards  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  Union  and  related  national 
priorities in full respect of subsidiarity and proportionality principles and competences. 

2. The Urban Agenda for the EU strives to establish a more effective integrated and 
coordinated approach to EU policies and legislation with a potential impact on urban 
areas  and  also  to  contribute  to  territorial  cohesion  by  reducing  the  socioeconomic 
gaps observed in urban areas and regions. 

3. The Urban Agenda for the EU strives to involve urban authorities in the design of 
policies, to mobilise urban authorities for the implementation of EU policies, and to 
strengthen  the  urban  dimension  in  these  policies.  By  identifying  and  striving  to 
overcome unnecessary obstacles in EU policy, the Urban Agenda for the EU aims to 
enable  urban  authorities  to  work  in  a  more  systematic  and  coherent  way  towards 
achieving  overarching  goals.  Moreover,  it  will  help  make  EU  policy  more  urban-
friendly, effective and efficient. 

4. The Urban Agenda for the EU will not create new EU funding sources, unnecessary 
administrative  burden,  nor  affect  the  current  distribution  of  legal  competences  and 
existing working and decision-making structures and will not transfer competences to 
the EU level (in accordance with Articles 4 and 5 of the Treaty on European Union). 

 Source: (Pact of Amsterdam, 2016)  

The Urban Agenda seeks to stimulate action along three key  objectives (or “pillars”): 
Better  Regulation,  Better  Funding  and  Better  Knowledge,  as  defined  in  the  Pact  of 
Amsterdam, signed by the EU Ministers responsible for Urban Matters. In addition, the 
UAEU aims to address several cross-cutting issues1 and thematic priorities. The latter 
have been addressed in the form of Partnerships’ themes, namely:  

1 These cross-cutting issues are: 1 Effective urban governance; 2 Governance across administrative 

boundaries and inter-municipal cooperation; 3 Sound and strategic urban planning; 4 Integrated and 
participatory approach; 5 Innovative approaches, including Smart Cities; 6 Impact on societal change; 
7 Challenges and opportunities of small- and medium-sized Urban Areas; 8 Urban regeneration;          

13 

 
                                                 
1)   Inclusion of migrants and refugees,  
2)   Air quality, 
3)   Urban poverty, 
4)   Housing,  
5)   Circular economy, 
6)   Jobs and skills in the local economy, 
7)   Climate adaptation, 
8)   Energy transition, 
9)   Sustainable use of land and Nature-Based solutions, 
10)  Urban mobility, 
11)  Digital transition, and  
12)  Innovative and responsible public procurement.  

Two  more  thematic  priorities  (i.e.  Partnerships)  were  added  under  the  Austrian 
presidency:  

13)  Culture and Cultural Heritage, and  
14)  Security in Public Spaces.   

2.2 EU Policy context  

The first Commission Communication (1997) “Towards an urban agenda in the European 
Union”  (COM  (97)197)  recognised  cities  as  “sources  of  economic  prosperity  and 
sustainable  development,  and  as  the  bases  of  democracy”  (European  Commission, 
1997).  In  addition,  the  Urban  Intergroup,  which  was  set  up  in  2005  in  the  European 
Parliament (EP), further institutionalised urban policy at the EU level. Actions such as 
the  Leipzig  Charter  on  Sustainable  Cities  in  2007,  signed  by  Member  States’  (MS) 
Ministers responsible for Urban Development, showed a growing momentum regarding 
the role of cities in Europe and their importance as players in multi-level governance. 
In addition, the Charter called for the development of a ‘European platform to pool and 
develop best practice, statistics, benchmarking studies, evaluations, peer reviews and 
other urban research to support actors involved in urban development at all levels and 
in all sectors’, asking thus for an EU level coordination of cities.  

In order to increase the visibility of the urban dimension of all Community policies, the 
Commission published a guide on “The urban dimension in Community policies for the 
period 2007 – 2013”. The attention to urban policies grew in line with the broader growth 
in the attention for cities. Territorial cohesion and multi-level governance were included 
in  the  Treaty  of  Lisbon,  and  in  2011,  a  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  European 
Parliament  to  strengthen  the  urban  dimension  of  European  policy  development  and 
enhance  the  involvement  of  cities  in  the  EU  policy  making  process.  Multi-level 
governance and the involvement of regional and sub-regional actors is a key feature of 
the shared management approach to the implementation of EU Cohesion Policy and the 
structural funds.  

9 Adaptation to demographic change and migration; 10 Provision of adequate public services of general 
interest; 11 International dimension. 

 14 

 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

The Urban Agenda for the EU (UAEU) reflects the recognition that cities play a key role 
in delivering EU policies on the ground and that, equally important, EU policies need to 
appropriately  reflect  and  address  urban  realities  and  challenges.  The  Urban  Agenda 
responds to a need to better involve cities in EU policy making. It also reflects their need 
to share best practices and to coordinate local policies in dealing with societal challenges 
at city level. The UAEU was devised in a bottom-up process from cities themselves, with 
Mayors of Amsterdam, Barcelona and other major cities pushing for a more coordinated 
approach to policy making at EU level. 

In  response  to  these  calls  for  collaboration  and  within  the  ambit  of  the  European 
intergovernmental framework, more concrete steps were undertaken at EU level since 
2014 through Ministerial meetings to involve cities in creating and in adapting EU and 
national policy. In order to develop the UAEU implementation concept, the Commission 
organised workshops with key UAEU stakeholders (e.g. Member States, city associations 
and  EU  institutions),  in  which  the  Commission  encouraged  participants  to  identify 
relevant themes of interest. In addition, the Commission launched a public consultation 
on UAEU in order to gather the opinions of all relevant stakeholders and further clarify 
the  rationale  and  possible  scope  of  action  for  an  EU  Urban  Agenda  (European 
Commission,  2015).  The  225  responses  received  from  stakeholders  across  all 
governance levels and sectors in 29 European countries, as well as Canada and the USA 
confirmed  the  view  that  the  UAEU  should  support  cities  in  addressing  society's 
challenges,  such  as  demographic  change,  urban  poverty  or  migration  without 
necessarily developing new legislation but utilising instead soft policy approaches. The 
respondents expected that the UAEU would achieve the following results: empower cities 
to work in a systematic and coherent way towards overarching goals; and making EU 
action  more  effective  on  the  ground.  The  consultation  results  pointed  that  better  EU 
legislation  through  “urban  proofing”,  improved  policy  coherence  and  coordination  of 
instruments, and development and better use of the knowledge base are avenues for 
moving  forward  the  urban  agenda  at  EU  level.  The  respondents  also  emphasised  the 
need for concerted action on few priorities. Focusing on a limited number of important 
challenges would make it possible to achieve results. The three suggested areas were 
Green, Smart and Inclusive. 

The  declaration  ‘Towards  the  EU  Urban  Agenda’,  or  the  so-called  Riga  declaration 
(Council of Ministers on Urban Matters, 2015) was agreed at the informal Meeting of EU 
Ministers  Responsible  for  Territorial  Cohesion  and  Urban  Matters  in  June  2015.  The 
declaration provided political support for the further development of the Urban Agenda 
for the EU. In 2016, under the Dutch Presidency of the Council, this process culminated 
in the Informal Meeting of EU Ministers responsible for Urban Matters and the signature 
of the Pact of Amsterdam, which launched the Urban Agenda for the European Union 
(UAEU) and established its objectives, priority themes and way of functioning (Pact of 
Amsterdam, 2016)  

In  parallel,  the  European  Union  was  also  involved  in  global  dialogues  that  led  to  the 
adoption of the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development goals  (SDGs) in 2015. 
Several goals have an urban dimension, including a specific one on Sustainable Cities 
and Communities (goal 11) that has given global visibility to the issue  of  sustainable 
urbanisation. In 2016, this movement was reinforced when a first implementing agenda 

15 

 
was  adopted  in  order  to  complement  the  global  framework,  with  a  dedicated  urban 
focus: the United Nations (UN) New Urban Agenda2. 

In tandem with the preparations for the post-2020 EU Multiannual Financial Framework 
(MFF), conclusions of the trio Council Presidencies of Estonia-Bulgaria-Austria on UAEU 
are to: “capitalise on results of UAEU Partnerships; ensuring long-term support for UAEU 
process and partnership, develop time-line for Leipzig Charter review, integrating UAEU 
and Territorial Agenda (TAEU) processes; capitalize on lessons learned from the UAEU 
process  and  method  so  far;  continue  the  work  of  the  Technical  Preparatory  Group 
(UATPG);  continue  with  new  UAEU  themes  and  partnerships  development  in  an 
improved way, with a perspective towards the Ministerial Meeting in 2020; reflect upon 
future  UAEU  support  from  Cohesion  Policy  (or  realistic  alternatives)  and  continue 
cooperation  on  the  governance  model  of  this  support”  DG  meeting  on  Urban  Matters 
(DGUM, 2019).  

The Bucharest Declaration of the Informal Meeting of EU Ministers Responsible for Urban 
Matters,  published  in  June  2019,  builds  on  the  above  conclusions  and  calls,  among 
others, for an improvement of the way the UAEU delivers to cities and citizens and for 
an improved integration of the UAEU in the Leipzig Charter and the EU Territorial Agenda  
(Romanian Presidency of the EU Council , 2019). It also paves the way for a review of 
the  Leipzig  Charter,  which is  to  be  renewed  during  the  German  Presidency  of  the  EU 
Council in 2020, and take into account the new EU policy frameworks and evolving role 
of the cities in the EU and at global level.  

Post 2020, a new instrument, the European Urban Initiative (EUI) will build on the Urban 
Agenda  themes  and  on  the  integrated  approach  developed  by  the  UAEU.  The  stated 
overall objective of the EUI is “To strengthen integrated and participatory approach to 
sustainable urban development and provide a stronger link to EU policies and cohesion 
policy in particular3”. It will preserve the collaborative philosophy of the UAEU, vertically 
across  multi-stakeholder  representation  and  horizontally  across  (mostly)  EC  services. 
At  its  core,  the  EUI  will  aim  to  solve  urban  problematics  in  a  coherent  manner.  The 
suggested EUI will provide three types of support: capacity-building, innovative actions 
(experiments),  knowledge  and  policy  development  and  communication.  Most  of  the 
foreseen  budget  will  be  allocated  to  the  financing  of  experiments  to  develop  urban 
solutions  that  have  a  potential  to  be  scalable  and  transferable  to  other  cities.  It  is 
foreseen the knowledge creation strand will build on work from recognised institutions 
such as ESPON, World Bank or the OECD. Besides, the EUI will be linked to the efforts 
in localising SDGs in cities.  

The  UAEU  looks  to  be  an  important  priority  for  the  upcoming  European  Commission, 
which is expected to take office in December 2019. As noted in the mission letter of 10 
September  2019  of  the  President-elect  of  the  European  Commission,  Ursula  von  der 
Leyen,  to  the  Commissioner-designate  for  Cohesion  and  Reforms,  Elisa  Ferreira,  the 

2  United Nations, New Urban Agenda, UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Development – Habitat 

III, 17-20 October 2016, URL: http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/NUA-English.pdf 

3 European Commission, Explanatory Memo: European Urban Initiative- Post 2020, Article 104(5) CPR 

Proposal And Article 10 ERDF/CF Proposal, 2019, URL: 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/brochure/explanatory_memo_eui_post_2020_e
n.pdf  

 16 

 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

mission  of  the  latter  should  have  a  specific  focus  on  the  sustainable  development  of 
Europe’s cities and urban areas.  The letter also  refers to the  upcoming review of the 
Urban Agenda for the EU as an opportunity to look at how the Commission can better 
work  with  cities  on  issues  such  as  climate  change,  digitalisation  and  the  circular 
economy. 

2.3 UAEU Governance 

The  Pact  of  Amsterdam  (2016)  mentions  that  the  UAEU  “will  be  taken  forward  by 
Member States together with the European Commission, the European Parliament, the 
European  Committee  of  the  Regions,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
(EESC), the European Investment Bank (EIB), representatives of the European Urban 
Authorities and other relevant stakeholders.” Thus, a participation of all relevant actors 
is foreseen in the UAEU foundation.  

The  strategic  steering  of  the  UAEU  is  provided  by  the  Directors-General  Meeting  on 
Urban Matters (DGUM), which is the high-level decision-making body initiated prior to 
the  Urban  Agenda  for  the  EU.  The  DGUM  is  composed  of  all  Member  States,  the 
Commission  and  city  representatives  and  associations  (European  Committee  of  the 
Regions (CoR), Eurocities, Council of the European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR), 
and  is  co-chaired  by  the  country  holding  the  EU  Presidency  and  the  Commission 
(European  Commission,  2017).  The  DGUM  meetings  may  include  a  range  of 
organisations  as  observers,  such  as  representatives  of  Partner  States,  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  (EESC),  European  Parliament  (EP),  European 
Investment  Bank  (EIB),  URBACT,  ESPON  and  European  Urban  Knowledge  Network 
(EUKN) (European Commission, 2016).  

According to the Pact of Amsterdam, the DGUM’s role is to:  

1)  “Ensure  that  the  actions  are  organised  in  such  a  way  that  they  are  transparent, 
conceived  with  and  supported  by  (representatives  of)  Member  States,  Urban 
Authorities and the European Commission, mutually reinforcing and having the most 
effective impact on EU policy making;  

2)  Report  to  the  Informal  meeting  of  Ministers  responsible  for  Urban  Matters  and 

Territorial Cohesion;  

3)  Monitor progress on the actions of the Urban Agenda for the EU;  
4)  Provide feedback on the Action Plans to the Partnerships;  
5)  Give informal guidelines for future developments of the Urban Agenda for the EU;  
6)  Evaluate the current and future set of actions of the Urban Agenda for the EU at the 

latest by 2020;   

7)  Review the initial list of Priority Themes which will be revised by the Informal Meeting 

of Ministers responsible for Urban Matters.” 

The  Urban  Development  Group  (UDG)  (expert  working  level)  is  made  up  of 
representatives of the Member State ministries responsible for urban issues, as well as 
other representatives of the multiple levels of governance (EC, EP, EIB, CoR, EESC, city 
representatives Eurocities and CEMR). Several organisations and networks may act as 
observers  and  /  or  be  invited  to  participate  in  a  particular  relevant  session,  such  as 
Partner States, URBACT, ESPON, JPI Urban Europe and EUKN. The UDG is an informal 
advisory body to Directors-General’s meeting on Urban Matters (DGUM). Its role is to 

17 

 
both review the progress of the Partnerships and discuss issues pertaining to the UAEU 
at the intergovernmental level (European Commission, 2016). In principle, DGUM takes 
decisions based on the opinion forming process at the level of the UDG.  

It was considered that the work of the Partnerships requires “operational guidance and 
interpretation  of  aspects  of  the  Pact  of  Amsterdam  and  its  Working  Programme  in 
between  UDG  meetings.”  (Bulgarian  Presidency  of  the  EU  Council,  2018).  As  a 
consequence, the DGUM tasked the Estonian Presidency in 2017 to develop a proposal 
for a “smaller group of technical experts to work on technical issues and preparation of 
draft documents to be reflected in the UDG on the implementation of the UAEU” (ibid). 
The mandate,  scope, responsibilities tasks  of an Urban Agenda  Technical Preparatory 
Group (UATPG) was thus created as a non-decision-making body, to act “as a technical 
executive group, supporting the actual Presidency of the Council in preparing UDG and 
DGUM  meetings  only  with  respect  to  the  items  related  to  UAEU”,  and  coordinate  the 
technical issues related to the preparation of  UAEU Partnerships (ibid).  The UATPG is 
composed of 10 members, including: six Member States at a time – representing the 
rolling Presidencies (the two past Presidencies, the current one and the three succeeding 
ones);  Commission  (with  the  UAEU  Technical  Secretariat  until  available);  three 
members in total from the European Committee of the Regions, Eurocities and CEMR.   

Other key supporters involved in the implementation of the UAEU and present as part 
of  governance  bodies’  meetings  include  members  of  the  Technical  Secretariat  – 
represented  by  Ecorys4,  which  was  commissioned  as  the  body  coordinating  the 
secretariat,  as  well  as  Eurocities  and  European  Knowledge  Network  as  outreach  and 
knowledge partners of the secretariat. The support from the Technical Secretariat for all 
Partnerships  is  based  on  the  framework  contract  managed  by  DG  REGIO  (and  which 
finished / will finish at the end of 2018 for the Amsterdam Partnerships, mid-2019 for 
the  Bratislava  Partnerships,  February  2020  for  the  Malta  ones  and  mid-2021  for  the 
Vienna  Partnerships).  DG  REGIO  has  been  actively  engaged  in  all  Partnerships.  In 
addition, DG REGIO supervises the work of the Technical Secretariat.  

The  Technical  Secretariat  is  tasked  with  the  following  activities:  Supporting  the 
European  Commission  in  the  implementation  of  the  Urban  Agenda  of  the  EU  through 
Partnerships, Communication on the Partnerships towards external partners, Progress 
and final reporting on the achievements of the Partnerships, Providing management and 
administrative  support  to  the  Partnerships,  Provision  of  (technical  and  thematic) 
expertise  to  the  Partnerships  and  Organise  and  reimburse  travels  for  Partnership 
members.   

Below is a diagram of the governance structure of the Urban Agenda for the EU:  

4 International service provider in the areas of research, consulting, programme management and 

communications services 

 18 

 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

 Governance structure of the UAEU 

Source: Technopolis Group based on the Pact of Amsterdam (2016) and documentation received 
from the European Commission services 

2.4 UAEU modes of implementation  

The Urban Agenda for the EU is implemented through a set of four categories of actions, 
“aimed  at  Themes,  Vertical  and  Horizontal  Coordination,  Impact  Assessments  and 
Knowledge”. As specified by the Work Programme annexed to the Pact of Amsterdam, 
the following actions were foreseen to be undertaken under the UAEU:  

1)  “Thematic Partnerships   
2)  Mapping  urban  related  Commission  initiatives  in  the  selected  UAEU  themes  – 

identifying gaps, overlaps and synergies  

3)  Identifying  main  actors,  networks  and  platforms  within  selected  themes  for 

streamlining cooperation and exchange of good practice   

4)  Exploring tools and methods for better urban impact assessment of EU policies for 

urban authorities  

5)  Alignment of Urban Innovative Actions with UAEU themes by the Commission  
6)  Contribution  of  URBACT  to  priority  themes  through  exchange  and  learning, 
networking, capacity building, capitalisation and dissemination of urban knowledge 
and know how  

7)  Alignment of the work of UDN to the framework of UAEU  
8)  Use  scientific  work  and  solutions  of  JPI  Urban  Europe  to  promote  and  exchange 

evidence based proposals for urban policy and urban projects 

9)  Contribution of scientific research activities of ESPON, where relevant 
10) Organisation  of  informal  Ministerial  Meetings,  preferably  once  during  each  Trio 

Presidency term 

11) Organisation of biennial CITIES Forum conferences 

19 

 
 
 
12) Development  of  appropriate  tools  and  formats  for  transparent,  inclusive  and 

effective implementation of UAEU” 

The  Pact  of  Amsterdam  led  to  the  selection  of  an  initial  list  of  12  priority  themes  for 
challenges to be addressed in Thematic Partnerships between Member States, regions, 
cities and city networks, the European Commission, other EU institutions, the Union’s 
advisory bodies, and other stakeholders. In 2018, two more themes were added, and 
two Thematic Partnerships launched accordingly.  According to the Working Programme 
of the UAEU annexed to the Pact of Amsterdam, the selected themes were chosen based 
on the following criteria:  “Themes must require integrated action at the EU-level and 
multi-level cooperation, clear support of MS, EC and Urban Authorities, address major 
challenges  in  Urban  Areas,  have  the  potential  to  generate  concrete  results  in  a 
reasonable  timeframe  and  promote  the  EU2020  objectives”    (European  Commission, 
2016). 

 Partnerships launched per Presidency  

The Partnerships are tasked with developing an Action Plan aimed at addressing issues 
that hamper urban development in a specific thematic area. Each Partnership follows 
the  same  /  a  common  organisational  framework,  which  broadly  consists  of  Urban 
Authorities,  EU  institutions,  Member  States,  partner  states,  experts,  umbrella 
organisations, knowledge organisations and stakeholders. Each Partnership should have 
one or two coordinators that should be designated from the start, with the responsibility 
to organise and chair the Partnership meetings, organise the work and coordinate the 
drafting  of  the  Action  Plan,  implementation  phase  and  monitoring  (European 
Commission, 2016).  

Each Partnership was launched with the same guiding principles: representation of all 
levels of government and relevant stakeholders (EU, MS, regions and cities, stakeholder 
organisations, etc.); a partnership of equals; 15-20 founding partners selected by DGUM 
following  calls  for  expression  of  interest  with  possibility  to  add  further  partners  and 
stakeholders; voluntary participation.   

 20 

 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

 Phases & Deliverables of Partnerships 

Source: (Pact of Amsterdam, 2016) 

Each Partnership is in principle following a process along five major phases as described 
in the box below and above figure. The duration of the Partnerships is, according to the 
Pact of Amsterdam, foreseen to be about three years. After this period, a Partnership 
can however request to the DGUM an extension, which would enable the Partnership to 
keep working under the UAEU umbrella, and for instance, use the visual identity of the 
Urban Agenda. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 The five phases of a Partnership 

Phase 1: - Stocktaking 

In the first step, the members of the Partnership would identify the existing work carried out 
on the Priority Theme (strategies, actions and working groups/ networks covering these issues 
at EU  level). As the aim  is to avoid duplication but rather ensure coordination  and reinforce 
what is already being done, this step is crucial to decide how to move forward in building the 
Partnership (for example: adjust the topic of the Priority Theme and assessing the relevance 
of main cross-cutting aspects; limit the scope of the Partnership; organise active participation 
to  existing  strategies,  actions  and  working  groups/  networks  to  ensure  that  the  urban 
dimension  of  all  Member  States  is  taken  into  account;  etc.).  In  this  stocktaking  step,  the 
members of the Partnerships would also identify the sources of  funding and expertise which 
could be made available for the functioning of the Partnership. The Commission will contribute 
by providing the stocktaking at EU level.  

Phase 2: Preparatory actions (identifying bottlenecks and potentials).   

In  the  second  step,  the  members  of  the  Partnership  would  identify  the  bottlenecks  and  the 
potentials to identify the areas on which the Action Plan should focus. This will require in depth- 
research and analytical work. These could be at EU, national or local level. It would lead to a 
list of preparatory actions that are needed to define the final actions. The Partnership will take 
into account and respect the available data from Member States whose representatives are not 
included in the Partnership. 

Phase 3: Define objectives and deliverables  

In the third step, the members of the Partnership would agree on a set of actions that address 
the  issues  of  the  Priority  Theme  (Action  Plan).  The  proposed  actions  need  to  respect  the 
principles  of  subsidiarity  and  proportionality.  This  should  ideally  be  done  in  the  first  6-12 
months of the Partnership. A model Action Plan is available for each Partnership and should 
include:   

 

a Actions which could be, for example: 

 

 

i Developing a proposal for better use of or adaptation of existing EU legislation and 
funding instruments; 

ii  Implementing  a  research  project  to  find  possible  solutions  and/or  fill  EU  wide 
knowledge gaps.  

 

 

b  Roadmap  of  each  action  indicating  deliverables,  target  dates  and  the  responsible 
organisation (e.g. Commission, participating Member States, Urban Authorities, etc.). 

c If appropriate, indicators and targets could be set (but only if there is a direct link 
between the Action Plan and the target). 

Phase 4: Implementation of the Action Plan 

In the fourth step, the members of the Partnership should coordinate the work (aimed at Better 
Regulation, Better Funding and Better Knowledge) on the implementation of the Action Plan 
with partners of the Partnership and other interested parties i.e. other Member States, Urban 
Authorities  and  existing  Urban  Networks  concerned,  etc.  (once  the  Action  Plan  has  been 
designed and agreed).  

Phase 5:  Evaluation of the Partnership  

The DG meeting will coordinate the evaluation of the work of the Partnership after three years 
or earlier if deemed necessary by the DG meeting. Its outcomes should be presented to the DG 
meeting. The evaluation will provide input for other existing and new Partnerships and should, 
if appropriate, contain general suggestions for further exploration. 

Source: (Pact of Amsterdam, 2016) 

 22 

 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

2.5 UAEU wider policy context 

There  are  strong  links  between  Cohesion  Policy  and  the  Urban  Agenda  for  the  EU 
process,  for  instance  the  multi-level  governance  approach.  Around  115  billion  euros 
from  Cohesion  Policy  Funds  are  being  spent  in  cities;  out  of  which  17  billion  are 
implemented  locally  through  integrated  urban  strategies  managed  directly  by  urban 
authorities.5  Specific  initiatives  that  are  funded  through  the  European  Regional 
Development Fund (ERDF) in the 2014-2020 period and are dedicated to urban areas 
include6: 

  Earmarking  a  minimum  of  5%  of  the  ERDF  for  integrated  sustainable  urban 
development in each Member State (article 7, ERDF Regulation 1301/2013). 

  Allocation  of  €371  million  for  Urban  Innovative  Actions,  which  promote  the 
development  of  pilot  projects  in  the  field  of  Sustainable  Urban  Development 
(article  8,  ERDF  Regulation  1301/2013).7  The  initiative  launches  call  for 
proposals  to  finance  projects  from  cities.  The  entity  in  charge  of  the 
implementation of the UIA initiative is the Hauts-de-France region.  

  The Urban Development Network (UDN), which is responsible for “reviewing on-
the-ground  deployment  of  European  funds  and  boosting  knowledge-sharing 
between  cities  involved  in  integrated  sustainable  urban  development  and  in 
Urban  Innovative  Actions  (article  9,  ERDF  Regulation  1301/2013).”8  It  helps 
cities implement article 7 and 8 and complements the work of URBACT III. It is 
the  first  formal  REGIO  platform  where  cities  can  interact  directly  with  the 
Commission. 

  The  URBACT  III  programme,  which  is  a  European  programme  that  promotes 
learning  and  exchanges  on  the  topic  of  sustainable  urban  development  and 
supports  cities  in  cooperating  towards  finding  solutions  for  urban  challenges.9 
URBACT  has  three  types  of  interventions:  transnational  exchanges,  capacity-
building  and  capitalisation  and  dissemination.  ERDF  funds  the  programme  at 
nearly 75 million euro.   

There are further areas of EU and/or global policies and initiatives that (may) address 
urban issues such as:  

  Several  sectoral  EU  policies  and  corresponding  funding,  managed  by  various 
DGs, address urban issues, such as the European Social Fund, Horizon 2020, the 
European Fund for Strategic Investments, LIFE programme, etc.   

5 See https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/brochures/2019/urban-agenda-for-
the-eu-multi-level-governance-in-action  

6 https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/urban-agenda/multi-level-governance-in-action 

7 See https://www.uia-initiative.eu/en  

8 See European Commission, 2019, DG Regional and Urban Policy, Urban Development Network  

9 See https://urbact.eu/  

23 

 
                                                 
  The European Innovation Partnership for Smart Cities and Communities, which 
aims to “establish strategic Partnerships between industry and European cities 
to develop the urban systems and infrastructures of tomorrow”,10 especially with 
a focus on ICT, energy management and mobility. 

  The Joint Programming Initiative Urban Europe, an instrument to align national 
research  and  innovation  funding  agendas,  established  in  2010  in  the  frame  of 
the European Research Area and with the goal to “develop a European research 
and innovation hub on urban matters and create European solutions by means 
of coordinated research.”11 

  The  Covenant  of  Mayors  for  Climate  &  Energy,  a  global  movement  of  mayors 
who commit to curb green-house gases by 40% by 2030 adopt a joint approach 
to tackling mitigation and adaptation to climate change.12 

  The UN New Urban Agenda, which provides a framework specifying how global 
cities should be planned and managed to promote sustainable urbanisation and 
social  inclusiveness,  and  builds  upon  the  UN’s  Sustainable  Development  goals 
(SDGs). The EU has undertaken a voluntary commitment to implement the New 
Urban Agenda through the UAEU. 

2.6 Status of implementation of the UAEU 

The information about the implementation of the UAEU has been collected during the 
process  by  the  technical  secretariat  and  DG  REGIO.  The  study  team  has  based  its 
analysis on the monitoring data made available. Therefore, there are limitations to the 
information provided. In particular, the Partnerships’ composition is based on a list of 
members  that  were  nominated,  but  may  or  may  not  have  been  active  during  the 
implementation phase of the Partnerships. The data on the progress of the Action Plans’ 
implementation  was  self-reported  by  the  Partnerships,  posing  the  risk  of  potential 
subjectivity and bias in the reporting.  

2.6.1  PARTICIPATION IN UAEU PARTNERSHIPS  

The table below shows the number of participating organisations per Partnership. There 
appears to be no clear pattern between the different Partnership waves in terms 
of  increase  or  decrease  in  participation.  The  participation  in  the  Wave  4 
Partnerships is relatively higher than in the previous ones, with the Culture and Cultural 
Heritage  Partnership  achieving  a  record  number  of  organisations  participating, 
amounting to 37.  

The  UAEU  Partnerships  have  a  balanced  composition,  with  the  majority  of 
participating  organisations  being  urban  authorities  (37%  of  total  participations), 

10 See https://e3p.jrc.ec.europa.eu/articles/european-innovation-partnership-smart-cities-and-communities  

11 See https://jpi-urbaneurope.eu/about/intro/  

12 See https://www.covenantofmayors.eu/about/covenant-initiative/objectives-and-scope.html  

 24 

 
 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

followed  by  umbrella  organisations  (which  include  EU-wide  organisations,  knowledge 
organisations  or  other  stakeholders)  and  EU  institutions  (which  include  the  European 
Commission,  European  Committee  of  the  Regions,  EIB  and  European  Environment 
Agency (EEA)), which each make up for 22% of participations.  Member States account 
for 19% of the total number of participating organisations. It is interesting to note that 
the number of participating Urban Authorities has significantly increased for the Malta 
Partnerships.    

Table 1 :  Partnerships’ composition by types of active organisations 

Waves 

TPs 

Air Quality 

Wave 1 
(Amsterdam) 

Inclusion of migrants 
and refugees 

Urban Poverty 

Housing 

Circular economy 

Digital Transition 

Jobs and Skills 

Urban Mobility 

Climate Adaptation 

Energy Transition 

Public procurement 

Sustainable Land Use 
and Nature Based 
Solutions 

Culture / Cultural 
Heritage 

Security in Public 
Spaces 

Wave 2 
(Bratislava) 

Wave 3 
(Malta) 

Wave 4 
(Vienna) 

Grand Total 

% 

EU 
institu-
tions 

Member 
State 

Urban 
Authority 

Umbrella 
org.& 
stake-
holders 

Total 

8 

6 

2 

5 

5 

3 

3 

2 

4 

5 

2 

6 

11 

6 

68 

4 

4 

4 

6 

4 

7 

4 

4 

2 

2 

2 

7 

6 

2 

60 

22% 

19% 

6 

5 

8 

6 

7 

7 

8 

8 

5 

11 

7 

9 

15 

12 

3 

6 

5 

5 

4 

3 

3 

5 

6 

7 

5 

5 

5 

3 

21 

21 

19 

22 

20 

20 

18 

19 

17 

25 

16 

27 

37 

23 

115 

37% 

68 

311 

22% 

Source: Technopolis Group based on the database of contacts for the UAEU Partnerships (updated 
to include only confirmed active members for the Wave 2-4 TPs, and the database of confirmed 
members of the Wave 1 TPs, verified based on the Final Reports of the Partnerships & interviews 
performed with the Partnership members).  
Umbrella  organisations  include:  EU-wide  organisations,  knowledge  organisations  or  other 
stakeholders 
Regions have been also counted as urban authorities  

Italy,  the  Netherlands,  Poland  and  Germany  have  the  highest  number  of  participants 
(i.e. members) in the Partnerships. At the other end of the spectrum, Denmark, Austria, 
Estonia,  Ireland  and  Slovakia  participate  very  little  in  the  Partnerships  (see  figure 
below).  Overall,  five  countries  (Denmark,  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Slovakia,  Slovenia) 
delegated only national officials to the TPs, whereas six countries only had participants 
in TPs from the city level (Austria, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, the UK, Latvia). Overall, 

25 

 
 
65%  of  the  participants  from  Member  States  were  the  representative  of  an  urban 
authority, while 35% were working at the national level. 

 Participation per Member State 

Source: Technopolis Group based on contact data of UAEU Partnership members. Note that the 
data is calculated based on the numbers of organisations categorised as partners, coordinators 
and members 

2.6.2  OVERALL PROGRESS OF IMPLEMENTATION  

A total of 114 actions were planned through the Wave 1-3 Partnerships’ Action 
Planning  process13.  On  the  whole,  the  majority  of  UAEU  actions  are  in  the 
incipient phase of implementation, which makes it difficult to draw clear conclusions 
on  their  results  or  any  longer-term  effects  achieved.  In  particular,  almost  half  of  the 
actions (46%) are in the initial implementation phase, while 18% are still in the planning 
and inception stage (see the Figure overleaf) (as of May 2019). Only 10% of actions (a 
total number of 11) are finalised, all of them stemming from three Wave 1 Partnerships, 
namely  Air  Quality,  Inclusion  of  Migrants  and  Refugees  and  Housing.  These  three 
Partnerships seem to be the most advanced in terms of implementation, insofar as this 
can be made up from the monitoring data. 

13 Based on the Monitoring data of the UAEU provided by DG REGIO. More details on the data used can be 

found in the Methodology section.   

 26 

0246810121416AustriaDenmarkEstoniaIrelandSlovakiaCyprusLithuaniaLuxembourgSwedenBulgariaNorwayUnited…CroatiaCzech…LatviaRomaniaSloveniaFinlandGreeceSpainFrancePortugalBelgiumPolandGermanyItalyNetherlandsNational AuthorityUrban Authority 
 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

 Overall status of implementation of TPs – Waves 1-3 

Source: Technopolis Group based on the UAEU Monitoring Table of Actions  

It is interesting to note that the status of implementation is very different across TPs 
for the Wave 1 (Amsterdam) and Wave 2 (Bratislava) Partnerships’ actions, covering 
the  entire  spectrum,  from  being  in  the  incipient  phase  to  the  advanced  or  finalised 
phase. For example, in Wave 1, the Air Quality Partnership has finalised all of its five 
actions, whereas the Urban Poverty Partnership has not finalised any of its actions. In 
contrast, all Wave 3 (Malta) Partnerships’ actions are at the same initial stage 
of implementation, which hints at a potentially more coordinated approach to 
their  development  and  implementation  (see  figure  below).  A  significant  share  of 
actions planned by the Wave 2 Partnerships are on hold, or in the initial implementation 
phase.     

 Overall status of implementation by wave of Partnerships 

Source: Technopolis Group based on the UAEU Monitoring Table of Actions  

We also looked at the implementation stage of the actions under each Partnership. As 
shown in the figure below, the number of actions per Partnership does not seem to be 
associated with a more advanced status of implementation. For example, the Wave 1 
Partnerships (Inclusion of Migrants and Refugees and Housing) have a similar number 
of  actions  at  an  advanced  /  finalised  stage,  although  the  Housing  Partnership  has  a 
larger  number  of  actions  than  the  Inclusion  of  Migrants  and  Refugees  one.  Two 

27 

10%7%11%46%18%7%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%TOTALFinalisedAdvanced implementationHalf implementationInitial implementationPlanning/inception stageOn hold0102030405060FinalisedAdvancedimplementationHalfimplementationInitialimplementationPlanning/inceptionstageOn holdWave 1Wave 2Wave 3 
 
 
Partnerships under the Wave 3 (Sustainable Land Use and Nature Based Solutions and 
Climate Adaptation) with similar number of actions as two Partnerships under Wave 2 
(Urban Mobility and Jobs and Skills) are at a more advanced level of implementation. 
Granted, Partnerships with over 10 actions are the ones showcasing the most actions 
on hold or in an inception or initial implementation stage (Digital Transition – Wave 2, 
Urban Poverty, Housing -Wave 1). Apart from the number of actions, it is important to 
understand what other reasons drive the progress in implementing TP actions.  

 Implementation status of Partnerships' actions 

3
e
v
a
W

2
e
v
a
W

1
e
v
a
W

Sustainable land use and Nature Based Solutions

Public procurement

Energy transition

Climate adaptation

Urban mobility

Jobs and skills

Digital transition

7

5

9

10

9

10

9

Circular economy

4

Urban poverty

Inclusion of migrants and refugees

Housing

Air quality

3

3

5

5

0

2

2

2

4

6

3

2

5

3

2

1

1

2

6

6

8

10

12

14

16

Sum of Finalised

Sum of Advanced implementation

Sum of Half implementation

Sum of Initial implementation

Sum of Planning/inception stage

Sum of On hold

Source: Technopolis Group based on the UAEU Monitoring Table of Actions  

2.6.3  OVERVIEW  OF  OUTPUTS  OF  THE  THEMATIC  PARTNERSHIPS  ACTIONS 

AND TARGETED STAKEHOLDERS 

The top three types of actions that have been taken up by the Partnerships consist of 
guidance documents and handbooks (22%), policy recommendations (21%), and data 
and  indicators  (18%).  Partnerships  engage  the  least  in  hands-on  modification  of  EU 
legislation (6%) or policy preparation / impact assessment (3%). Moreover, none of the 
Wave 3 (Malta) Partnerships undertake the latter types of actions.  

 28 

 
 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

 Types of actions undertaken by UAEU Partnerships 

Source: Technopolis Group based on the UAEU Monitoring Table of Actions  

Overall,  the  majority  of  actions  (48%)  are  oriented  towards  “Better 
Knowledge”.  Almost  similar  proportions  of  Actions  are  targeting  “Better  Regulation” 
(28%) and “Better Funding” (24%). 

Comparing the Wave 1 (Amsterdam) Partnerships to the later waves, there is a gradual 
shift  of  the  actions  away  from  focusing  on  Better  Regulation,  towards  more 
focus on Better Knowledge. While roughly 45% of the actions in the Wave 1 were 
focusing on Better Regulation, the percentage gradually decreased to 22% in the Wave 
2  (Bratislava)  Partnerships,  and  to  15%  in  the  Wave  3  (Malta)  Partnerships  –  in  the 
latter wave the majority of actions focuses on Better Knowledge (58%).  

 Percentage of actions per pillar and per wave of Partnership 

Wave 3

16%

Wave 2

22%

58%

48%

26%

30%

Wave 1

46%

41%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Better Regulation

Better Knowledge

Better  Funding

Source: Technopolis Group based on the UAEU Monitoring Table of Actions  

When looking at the stage of implementation by pillar, the Better Regulation actions are 
the  most  advanced  ones,  with  19%  finalised  and  25%  at  advanced  or  half 
implementation  stage.  This  might  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  a  large  share  of  the 
actions targeting Better Regulation have been concentrated in the Wave 1 Partnerships. 

29 

 
 
 
On the other hand, Better Regulation is also the pillar with the highest share of actions 
on hold (9%). Overall, the Better Funding actions appear to be the less advanced, with 
only  4%  of  the  Actions  having  been  finalised  and  8%  being  at  advanced  or  half 
implementation stage.  

 Overall implementation status by objective of action 

Source: Technopolis Group based on the UAEU Monitoring table of actions.  

The actions are taken forward by one of the Partnership members who is appointed as 
‘Action Leader’. Most actions are led by urban authorities (58 of the 114 actions). The 
second most common leader of actions are the EU institutions (European Commission), 
which lead 35 actions. The EU level leads actions primarily in the Climate Adaptation, 
Urban Mobility and Inclusion of Migrants and Refugees Partnerships. The national level 
is leading actions in the Partnerships on Urban Poverty and Digital Transition. There is 
an  uneven  distribution  of  responsibilities  across  the  Partnerships  between  urban  and 
national authorities. The formers are active across the board, while the latter are not 
strongly engaged in Partnerships, either at the planning or implementation stage.  

In terms of progress, it appears that the actions led by cities and urban authorities are 
most  often  in  the  advanced  or  finalised  stage  (21%),  followed  by  those  led  by  the 
Commission  (17%).  The  national  and  local  levels  show  similar  shares  of  progress  in 
terms of actions that are on hold / inception stage (26%), while this figure is slightly 
lower for the Commission (23%).     

 30 

19%7%4%9%7%4%16%13%4%38%47%56%9%20%26%9%5%7%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%BRBKBFFinalisedAdvanced implementationHalf implementationInitial implementationPlanning/inception stageOn hold 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

 Progress of implementation by type of action leader 

Source: Technopolis Group based on the UAEU Monitoring table of actions 

Actions aim to address issues or bottlenecks at the EU, national or local level, and hence 
targeted institutions at the corresponding government levels. The implementation stage 
of actions seems, however, not to be related to the institutions targeted. There is no 
noticeable difference in terms of implementation status between actions targeted at the 
EU or the local levels: 9% of actions aiming at the EU level are finalised, versus 11% at 
the  local  level.  At  the  national level,  however,  no  actions  are  finalised.  Slightly  more 
than half (53%) of actions targeting the EU-level are either at the half implementation 
stage or at the initial implementation stage, whereas 62% of actions targeting the local 
level are at those stages. Notably, one fourth of actions targeting the EU level are in the 
planning or inception stage, compared to 17% of Actions for the national level and 13% 
of actions targeting the local level that reached the same stage. Finally, 6% of actions 
targeting the EU are on hold, compared to 7% of the actions targeting the local level.   

Looking at the three pillars, we see that the Better Regulation and Better Funding actions 
often target EU actors, while the Better Knowledge actions largely target the local level. 
National actors, meanwhile, are less accounted for, with only 3% of Better Regulation 
actions and 9% of Better Knowledge actions targeted at the Member State level.  

31 

0%20%40%60%80%100%EULocalNationalAdvanced + finalisedHalf + initial implementationOn hold + planning / inception stage 
 
 Share of EU/National/Local targets by objectives of actions 

Source: Technopolis Group based on the UAEU Monitoring table of actions 

2.6.4  FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

Based  on information provided by the European Commission, the budget allocated to 
the  UAEU  technical  support  Framework  Contract  (FWC)  amounts  to  €  4.8  million 
financed through the Technical assistance of  DG REGIO and the European Parliament 
(preparatory action: € 2.5 million). It does not automatically mean that the full budget 
is available. In order to effectively use the necessary budget, the European Commission 
needs to formally request it and approval is subject to availability14. In total, circa €4.2 
million are already allocated to the technical assistance to all Partnerships, in the form 
of tender contracts with the Framework Contract partners. According to the Technical 
Secretariat  factsheet,  the  available  budget  for  each  Partnership  is  approximately  € 
250,000 for two years.  

The  major  blocks  of  activities  of  the  FWC  have  been  explained  in  the  Technical 
Secretariat  factsheet  (Annex  F)  which  was  made  available  for  TP  coordinators  and 
include:  

  Support to the Partnerships. For each Partnership, a Project Manager and a 
Junior  Coordinator  have  been  appointed;  they  are  responsible  for  providing 
management and administrative support activities about ½ day per week each, 
including assist and advise coordinators in setting up and functioning of the TPs, 
participate in meetings and draft minutes, help the monitoring and follow-up of 
Partnership activities etc.   

  Expertise to the Partnerships. Expert days available with a view to fill specific 
Partnerships’ needs and hence does not replace the expertise  of its members. 

14 See the factsheet ‘Technical Secretariat in support to the Urban Agenda for the EU. General overview of the 

activities carried out’, Urban Agenda for the EU (24 January 2018).   

 32 

75%24%59%3%9%22%67%41%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%BRBKBFEUNationalLocal 
 
 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

For  each  year  of  support,  35  senior  expertise  days  are  available  to  each 
Partnership. 

  Outreach  and  Communication.  The  Technical  Secretariat  helps  the 
dissemination of information on the Urban Agenda in general, as well as on the 
Partnerships,  towards  UAEU  stakeholders  and  wider.  Communication  activities 
are mainly carried out via the online platform Futurium15.  

  Reimburse  travel  costs  to  Partnership  members;  maximum  3,197€/year 

per Partnership. 

Based on the final reports of the Amsterdam Partnerships, it appears that the budget 
allocated to the travel reimbursements of Partnership members was totally spent in two 
Partnerships (Inclusion of migrants and Air quality), and up to three quarters spent in 
two others. All of the Amsterdam Partnerships were supported with close to 70 days of 
technical and thematic expertise from the secretariat (see Table overleaf), the use of 
the  secretariat  budget  for  experts  was  more  mixed  for  the  Bratislava  Partnerships. 
Moreover, the Jobs and Skills Partnership did not make use at all of the travel budget, 
while the Circular Economy and Urban Mobility Partnerships also used less than a quarter 
of the travel budget.    

Table 2 :  Technical assistance budget spent (travel and technical expertise) 

Wave 

Thematic 

Share  of 

travel 

Number  of  expert 

Partnership 

budget spent 

days used 

Wave 1 (Amsterdam) 

Inclusion of migrants  

Housing  

Urban poverty 

Air quality  

Wave 2 (Bratislava) 

Jobs & Skills  

Circular Economy 

Urban Mobility  

Digital Transition 

98.5% 

78.5% 

73.1% 

96.8% 

0 

16.8% 

23.6% 

76.6% 

70   

68 

70 

70 

68 

87.5 

81.5  

53 

Source: Technopolis Group based on the Final reports of the Amsterdam (Wave 1) and Bratislava 
(Wave 2) Partnerships 

In  addition  to  the  direct  support  to  Partnerships,  the  Technical  Secretariat  was  also 
engaged  in  a  number  of  activities  in  support  of  the  Commission,  such  as  monthly 

15 Futurium is a platform dedicated to European citizens for discussing EU policies and hosts the sub-page on 
the Urban Agenda for the EU. 

33 

 
                                                 
reporting  on  the  state  of  play  of  the  TPs,  development  of  guidelines,  support  for  the 
organisation of meetings, etc. 

2.6.5  COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES  

the 

The  main  communication  channels  of  the  UAEU  and  Partnerships  are:  the  Futurium 
account 
website, 
(https://twitter.com/EUUrbanAgenda). As of the end of 2018, most page visits (aside 
from those to the general Futurium website / Urban Agenda landing page) were received 
by the Inclusion, Housing and Circular Economy Partnerships’ pages.  

newsletter, 

brochure 

Twitter 

and 

the 

the 

 Statistics on page views on the Futurium website 

Urban agenda

Inclusion

Housing

Circular Economy

Urban Mobility

Digital transition

Sustainable land use

Jobs & skills

Public Procurement

Climate adaptation

Urban Poverty

Air Quality

Energy Transition

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

Pageviews

Unique Pageviews

Source: Technopolis Group based on data provided by the UAEU Technical Secretariat 

The Futurium website offers the possibility for registration on the platform according to 
one’s own preferred Partnership topic or on the general webpage. By end of 2018, the 
number of registrations was rather limited: the Urban Agenda general website counted 
98 registrations, while the top theme – Circular Economy – had only 48 registrations, 
with decreasing numbers for the rest of the Partnerships. This shows that the website 
communication platform / forum has not been used much.  

The  Twitter  account  increased  its  reach  significantly  in  the  2018-mid-2019 
period. The account had 1,110 followers with 279 posts by the  end of 2018, but this 
increased to 3,540 followers by 30 May 2019. For comparison, the EUKN Twitter account 
has 1,297 followers, while URBACT Twitter Account has 13,600 followers.  

The  newsletter  grew  its  reach  from  176  newsletter  recipients  in  March  2017,  to 
15,251 recipients in October 2019.  

 34 

 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

The brochure is a publication that showcases the activities of the UAEU as well as its 
achievements  and  therefore  how  it  concretely  benefits  the  citizens.  For  example,  it 
includes  “action  stories”  that  present  how  actions  support  the  three  pillars  of  Better 
Regulation,  Better  Funding  and  Better  Knowledge.  It  highlights  how  the  UAEU 
cooperative process helps improve the governance, integrated urban development and 
implementing  the  UN  New  Urban  Agenda.  The  brochure  also  presents  the  other  EU 
programmes and initiatives that address sustainable urban development16. 

2.6.6  SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

The section lists the key findings of the monitoring data:  

  The majority of UAEU actions (46%) are in the incipient implementation phase, 

which makes it difficult to draw clear conclusions on their results.  

  The  majority  of  actions  (48%)  are  oriented  towards  Better  Knowledge.  The 
remainder was split more  or less  evenly between action aimed towards Better 
Regulation (28%) and Better Funding (24%).   

  When comparing the actions of Wave 1 (Amsterdam) Partnerships to the actions 
of the later waves, a gradual shift can be observed away from actions focusing 
on Better Regulation, towards more actions focusing on Better Knowledge. 

  The main target level of the actions are the local level (48% of actions) and the 

European level (47%).  

  The Better Regulation and Better Funding actions mainly target EU actors while 

the Better Knowledge actions primarily target the local actors. 

  Almost  half  of  the  actions  are  led  by  cities  and  urban  areas  (58  of  the  114 
actions). The second most common leader of actions are the EU institutions, with 
35 actions. 

16 European Commission, Urban Agenda for the EU - Multi-level governance in action, June 2019, URL: 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/brochure/urban_agenda_eu_en.pdf  

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.   Methodology  

3.1 The analytical approach / framework 

The  analysis  for  this  study  has  been  based  on  five  criteria:  Effectiveness,  Efficiency, 
Relevance, Coherence and EU Added Value. For each of these criteria, a set of specific 
assessment questions were defined, and an assessment framework developed to clarify 
how these would be answered (see Annex C). The framework guided the data collection 
and analysis, and was informed by an intervention logic (IL). The IL was developed at 
the proposal stage and amended during the scoping phase (see Annex D).  

The  methodology included  five tasks: analysis of monitoring data, desk  research and 
literature review, online consultation, general stakeholder interviews and case studies. 
Each of these tasks in described in more detail below.  

3.2 Data collection methods 

3.2.1  ANALYSIS OF UAEU PARTNERSHIPS’ MONITORING DATA  

As part of the assignment, the research team reviewed the monitoring data collected by 
the  Technical  Secretariat  in  excel  format  (the  Monitoring  Table  of  Actions).  The 
objectives of the MTA, as stated in the documents provided by the Commission include:  

1.  Monitoring the progress of the actions by the coordinators and other interested 

stakeholders. 

2.  Facilitating and supporting the coordination between Partnerships. 

3.   Integrating  key  information  on  all  Urban  Agenda  actions,  that  can  serve  as  a 

basis for further qualitative and quantitative analysis.  

4.  Communicating  about  the  achievements  of  the  Urban  Agenda  to  the  wider 

audience. 

We  received  the  latest  Monitoring  Table  of  Actions  data  as  of  6th  of  May  2019.  It  is 
important to note that this data is self-reported by the Partnerships, which may lead to 
bias. As received, the data included a review of:  

1.  The actions by Partnership including the objective they refer to, the category of 
the actions, the starting date of implementation, the communication and outreach 
activities as well as the implementation status and results, the action leaders, the 
institutional level and target organisation that are targeted with the actions.  

2.  The action leaders’ details and members of the Partnership involved by action as 

well as target institutions. 

3.  The cross-cutting issues covered by each thematic Partnerships’ actions. 

4.  The SDGs covered by each thematic Partnerships’ actions.  

In addition, we have analysed the following data and documents provided:  

 36 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

5.  Composition  of  the  Partnerships  (Wave  1  based  on  data  available  from  the 
Partnership contacts at the end of 2018 and Waves 2, 3 and 4 based on updated 
Partnership data provided by DG REGIO).  

6.  Financial resources invested based on the information provided by DG REGIO and 

the final reports of the Amsterdam and Bratislava Partnerships.  

7.  Overview of the activities of the technical secretariat based on the final reports of 

the Amsterdam and Bratislava Partnerships.  

8.  Communication activities for the UAEU.  

3.2.2  DESK RESEARCH AND LITERATURE REVIEW   

The team engaged in a comprehensive review of all documentation received from the 
European  Commission  services  and  literature  identified  in  the  inception  phase  and 
interim phase. The literature review included previous and parallel assessments of the 
UAEU  and  academic  articles,  as  well  as  PowerPoint  presentations  and  summaries  of 
surveys  performed  by  UAEU  members  (EUKN,  Eurocities,  CEMR  and  the  Romanian 
Council Presidency (2019).  

Additionally, UAEU internal documentation including minutes and presentations of UDG, 
DGUM, UATPG meetings, coordinators’ meetings and Communication meetings has been 
reviewed and reported in the following sub-chapter. The team also received final reports 
from the Amsterdam and Bratislava Partnerships, contextual information on the future 
of cities and the state of play of the Urban Agenda for the EU, as well as visions of the 
upcoming presidencies and the European mayors. 

3.2.3  ONLINE CONSULTATION 

The  online  consultation  targeted  all  stakeholders  by  means  of  a  single  survey.  This 
included  the  general  public,  cities  and  urban  authority  representatives,  other  public 
authority  representatives  (international,  EU,  national  and  regional),  as  well  as  other 
stakeholders including civil society organisations, NGOs, businesses, academic research 
organisations and experts.  

The online consultation was turned live and posted on the Futurium website on 1 April 
2019  and  remained  open  until  30  June  2019.  Apart  from  Futurium,  the  survey  was 
distributed by DG REGIO and the Technical Secretariat by means  of a range  of  other 
channels,  including  the  Urban  Agenda  twitter,  the  Urban  Agenda  newsletters,  the 
Inforegio website, as well as by the Presidency and  other organisations (Covenant  of 
Mayors, JPI Urban Europe etc.). 

In  total,  118  respondents  completed  the  online  consultation.  This  included 
respondents based in 24 out of the 28 EU Member States. Most respondents were based 
in Belgium (22), followed by Portugal (12), the Netherlands (12), Germany (11), Italy 
(9) and Spain (6).  

37 

 
 
 
Most respondents (31%) who completed the survey belonged to a city or urban public 
entity. A further one fifth belonged to either a regional (10%) or national (11%) public 
entity.  Other  well  represented  groups  of  respondents  were  those  from  non-
governmental organisations (8%) and those responding as a private individual (12%). 

Table 3 :  Type of organisation 

A city or urban public entity 

A national public entity 

A regional public entity 

European Commission 

Other EU institution / body 

An EU-level association / network 

An international organisation 

An academic / research institution 

I’m responding as an individual / private person 

A non-governmental organisation 

A private enterprise 

Other 

Total 

Q1.2. Please specify the organisation you belong to 
All respondents (n=118) 
Source: Online consultation 

# 

37 

13 

12 

7 

3 

5 

3 

7 

14 

9 

5 

3 

% 

31% 

11% 

10% 

6% 

3% 

4% 

3% 

6% 

12% 

8% 

4% 

3% 

118 

100% 

3.2.4  GENERAL INTERVIEWS 

A total of 26 interviews with EU-level and other stakeholders who have been directly or 
indirectly  involved  in  the  design,  operationalisation  and  implementation  of  the  UAEU 
were carried out.  

The aim of the general interviews was to collect information on: the effectiveness of the 
UAEU, particularly on the horizontal and vertical cooperation and interaction amongst 
UAEU stakeholders; the benefits achieved relative to the resources invested by the EU 
and other stakeholders (efficiency), the alignment of UAEU objectives with the needs of 
cities and urban areas in the EU (relevance); the complementarity of UAEU with other 
EU initiatives (coherence); and the added value of having the UAEU (EU added value). 
The table below provides a summary of the interviews carried out by type of stakeholder. 

Table 4 :  General interviews conducted 

Stakeholder type 

EU institutions 

Member State representatives at EU bodies 

Number of 
interviews  

7 

9 

 38 

 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Stakeholder type 

Number of 
interviews  

International and European organisations working on urban and 
regional policy 

Civil society  

Cities  

Total 

3.2.5  CASE STUDIES 

7 

1 

2 

26 

A set of case studies were conducted to assess certain themes that were of particular 
interest  in  greater  depth  than  would  have  been  possible  solely  through  the  methods 
described  previously.  The  case  study  research  focused  on  seven  themes:  1) 
Governance,  2)  Technical  Assistance,  3)  Partnership  functioning  and  coordination,  4) 
The  role  of  cities,  MS  and  Commission  in  Partnerships,  5)  Action  Planning,  6) 
Implementation of APs and 7) Wider impacts and outreach. These themes were explored 
through the lens of the 14 Partnerships from all four waves. The table below shows how 
the seven themes were covered across Partnerships. 

Table 5 :  Themes covered across Partnerships 

d
e
s
a
B

e
r
u
t
a
N
d
n
a

e
s
U
d
n
a
L

l

i

e
b
a
n
a
t
s
u
S

)
3
W

(

n
o
i
t
a
t
p
a
d
A

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

)
2
W

(

y
t
i
l
i

b
o
m
n
a
b
r
U

)
3
W

(

s
n
o
i
t
u
o
S

l

x 

y
m
o
n
o
c
E

l

a
c
o
L

e
h
t

n

i

s
l
l
i

k
S

d
n
a

s
b
o
J

)
2
W

(

)
4
W

(

e
g
a
t
i
r
e
H

l

a
r
u
t
l
u
C
&
e
r
u
t
l
u
C

x 

)
3
W

(

n
o
i
t
i
s
n
a
r
T

y
g
r
e
n
E

x 

x 

x 

x 

)
1
W

(

s
e
e
g
u
f
e
R

d
n
a

s
t
n
a
r
g
M

i

x 

)
1
W

(

y
t
r
e
v
o
p

n
a
b
r
U

)
1
W

(

g
n
i
s
u
o
H

)
4
W

(

s
e
c
a
p
S

c
i
l

b
u
P

n

i

y
t
i
r
u
c
e
S

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

)
3
W

(

t
n
e
m
e
r
u
c
o
r
P

c
i
l

b
u
P

x 

x 

Thematic Partnership  

)
2
W

(

y
m
o
n
o
c
E

l

r
a
u
c
r
i
C

)
1
W

(

y
t
i
l

a
u
Q
r
i
A

)
2
W

(

n
o
i
t
i
s
n
a
r
T

l

a
t
i
g
D

i

1. Governance  

x 

x 

x 

x 

2. Technical 
Assistance  

3. TP functioning 
& coordination 

4. The role of 
cities, MS and 
Commission in TPs 

s
e
m
e
h
t

y
d
u
t
s

e
s
a
C

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

5. Action Planning 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

6. Implementation 
of APs 

x 

7. Wider impacts 
and outreach  

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The case study research comprised the following tasks:  

  Review of documentation available for the 14 Partnerships. The study team 
reviewed  relevant  documentation  for  all  fourteen  TPs,  including  Action  Plans, 
Progress  reports,  Partnership  deliverables  (if  available)  and,  meeting  agendas 
and minutes.  

  Interviews  with  members  of  the  Partnerships.  The  study  team  in  principle 
carried out a minimum of three interviews per Partnership17. The total number 
of interviews carried out was 45. The table below shows the number of interviews 
per TPs and per member category. 

Table 6 :  Case study interviews conducted 

Thematic Partnership 

Member – category 

Total  

MS 

Cities 

EC 

Others 

Air Quality (W1) 

Circular Economy (W2) 

Climate Adaptation (W3) 

Culture & Cultural Heritage (W4) 

Digital Transition (W2) 

Energy Transition (W3) 

Housing (W1) 

Jobs and Skills in the Local 
Economy (W2) 

Migrants and Refugees (W1) 

Public Procurement (W3) 

Security in Public Spaces (W4) 

Sustainable Land Use and Nature 
Based Solutions (W3) 

Urban Mobility (W2) 

Urban Poverty (W1) 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

1 

2 

Total interviews 

13 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

18 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

8 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

6 

3 

3 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

3 

3 

5 

3 

3 

45 

3.3 Key challenges and limitations 

As a general point, we would like to note that the study made relatively heavy use of 
qualitative  data,  based  on  stakeholder  interviews.  Substantial  efforts  were  taken  to 
weight  and  compare  stakeholder  feedback,  and  where  possible  findings  were 
triangulated  with  stakeholder  survey  data  and  findings  from  the  monitoring  data. 

17 Except for the Climate Adaptation TP, which was compensated in other TPs.  

 40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

However, considering the limitations to the data available (see below), the options were 
limited in this regard.   

In  relation to the above, it should be noted that the UAEU’s  Partnerships’ monitoring 
data  (see  Section  3.2.1)  is  based  on  information  provided  by  DG  REGIO  and  the 
coordinators  of  the  Thematic  Partnerships  themselves,  and  there  may  well  be 
differences in terms of how the different coordinators have interpreted and applied the 
categories  (e.g.  stage  of  finalisation  or  target  levels  of  actions).  Therefore,  the  data 
needs to be considered with a certain degree of caution – it provides an overview of the 
progress of Partnerships as perceived by their respective coordinators, rather than an 
objectively verifiable, fully consistent and robust account.  

We  also  would  like  to  note  that  the  assessment  was  limited  to  some  degree  by  the 
overall timing of the UAEU. Some Partnerships have not yet finalised their Action Plan, 
and many actions are still in the inception phase. This makes it, for example, challenging 
to draw conclusions on the impacts to emerge.  

41 

 
 
4.   Assessment results   

4.1 Effectiveness 

In this chapter, we focus on the effectiveness of the UAEU to date, namely: the extent 
it  has  fostered  cooperation,  coordination  and  interaction  across  UAEU  stakeholders, 
facilitated progress under the three pillars, and contributed to strengthening the urban 
dimension in the design and implementation of relevant EU and national policies. It also 
includes the main drivers and barriers of the UAEU’s effectiveness. 

4.1.1  COOPERATION,  COORDINATION  AND 

INTERACTION  BETWEEN 

STAKEHOLDERS 

Assessment question 1: To what extent has the UAEU fostered effective cooperation, 
coordination and interaction between stakeholders at different levels? 

According to the majority of the consulted UAEU stakeholders, the Urban Agenda has 
been  highly  effective  at  fostering  cooperation,  coordination  and  interaction 
between  stakeholders.  Moreover,  multi-level  cooperation  is  often  considered  the 
main achievement of the Urban Agenda to date. The UAEU brings together organisations 
that normally do not interact with each  other  (e.g.  cities and DGs), allowing them to 
find  solutions  for  urban  challenges.  The  networks  established  by  the  UAEU,  which 
include  cities,  Member  States,  the  Commission  and  other  stakeholders,  have 
substantially  changed  the  way  these  stakeholders  interacted  with  each  other,  as 
highlighted by most interviewees. This was confirmed by the survey, in which 80% of 
respondents indicated that the Urban Agenda improved networking and collaboration on 
urban issues with all stakeholders.  

The  UAEU  allows  for  a  systematic  and  multi-level  European  dialogue,  though  the 
Thematic Partnership approach, in which all relevant levels of governance sit around the 
same  table  to  co-design  principles  and  actions  that  can  contribute  to  addressing  key 
urban challenges. The majority of stakeholders considered this TP approach to be a 
first good formal step to get cities more directly involved in EU policy related 
to  urban matters.  It  was  considered  to  be  a  unique  approach  in  comparison  to  the 
other  existing  EU  programmes  and  initiatives.  For  example,  URBACT,  an  EU  funding 
programme,  provides  a  platform  and  funding  for  cities  to  work  together  and  develop 
integrated  solutions  to  common  urban  challenges.  It  differs  from  the  UAEU  in  that  it 
does not provide the chance to discuss and develop these ideas and solutions with other 
Members States and the Commission (see coherence).  

Having  cities  at  the  table,  discussing  key  urban  challenges  with  MS  and  the  EC  was 
particularly valued by all stakeholders consulted. Cities usually got engaged in the UAEU 
with  a  clear  objective  to  find  practical  solutions  to  their  local  challenges  and  needs, 
including by increasing their knowledge  on certain urban issues and /  or by trying to 
influence policy at the EU level (for example with the aim of improving local authorities’ 
access  to  EU  funding  by  relaxing  certain  requirements  of  certain  EU  funds).  TP 
interviewees  perceived  cities  as  very  valuable  contributors  as  they  share  their  local 
knowledge,  experiences  and  challenges,  and  come  up  with  concrete  ideas  and 
propositions.  This  practical  experience  was  appreciated  by  Members  States  and  the 
Europeans Commission – which tend to be further removed from what is happening ‘on 

 42 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

the  ground’.  For  this  reason,  these  other  stakeholders  regarded  the  involvement  of 
cities as the key benefit of the multi-level approach. 

Moreover,  many  stakeholders  highlighted  the  importance  of  having  “other 
stakeholders”  involved  in  the  UAEU,  such  as  ESPON,  EUKN,  URBACT  as  well  as 
umbrella  organisation  such  as  CEMR  and  Eurocities,  and  their  contribution  to  the 
advancement  of  informal  intergovernmental  cooperation  at  both  the  vertical  and 
horizontal  levels.  At  the  UDG  and  DGUM  meetings,  these  “other  stakeholders”  are 
perceived as key contributors, bringing extensive experience in urban issues, and with 
the  potential  to  significantly  support  the  discussions.  Similarly,  TP  interviewees 
highlighted how relevant these  other  stakeholders’ experience and advice were  when 
preparing  the  Action  Plans,  as  well  as  the  importance  of  their  role  of  mediator  when 
needed. TP interviewees also emphasised the multiplier and consultative role of these 
organisations; they can consult members of their organisation about actions included in 
the APs and can disseminate information (including on the Action Plans) of the TPs. 

The TP approach used in the UAEU to jointly identify issues, challenges and actions, 
and subsequently operationalise the ideas and proposals of different stakeholders, was 
described  as  overall  “quite  practical  and  pragmatic”  by  stakeholders.  Several 
believed  it  to  be  one  of  the  success  factors  of  the  UAEU,  some  criticism  on  its 
implementation notwithstanding (see below). Some Member States have been inspired 
by the Urban Agenda and applied similar approaches at national and/or regional level.18 
For example, the Habitat Urbano pilot group – part of the Urban Agenda of the Basque 
Region in Spain – brings together 40 stakeholders from the private and public sector to 
discuss themes that are important to cities in the region such as digitalisation, health, 
culture and cultural heritage, employability, gender, etc.19 

Even  though  the  overall  perception  of  the  cooperation,  coordination  and  interaction 
between stakeholders at different levels through the UAEU is positive, stakeholders had 
mixed views on a number of elements, each of which is described in more detail below. 
This includes: 

  The formation and composition of the TPs, particularly regarding the criteria 

for participation and the representativeness of members.  

  The participation and engagement of different stakeholders in the UAEU; 
not only at the TP level but also with regard to their relationship with the DGUM 
and UDG.  

  The working methods of the TPs, and particularly the role of the coordinators. 

The formation and composition of the TPs 

Most  of  the  consulted  stakeholders  did  not  have  a  clear  understanding  of  the 
criteria for selecting  the stakeholders that form part of  each TP.  Interviewees 
perceived that the formation and composition of Wave 1 TPs was different than for the 

18 Urban agenda for the EU Multi-level governance in action (2019), DG REGIO  

19 Ibid.  

43 

 
                                                 
other three waves. Some stated that Member States played an important role in deciding 
which organisations were part of the TPs in Wave 1, and described the approach used 
to select members  for  wave 1 TPs as “a  first  come first  served approach”. This often 
meant  in  practice  that  participation  was  largely  limited  to  those  cities  that  had  been 
actively  involved  in  urban  policy  discussions  at  the  EU  level  before,  like  the  cities  of 
Amsterdam  and  Vienna.  For  the  other  three  waves,  particularly  for  Wave  4  TPs, 
interviewees  found  the  selection  and  formation  process  more  structured,  as  the 
Commission was reportedly more involved in the selection of TP members. Contributing 
to the structure of the selection process in Waves 2 and 3, stakeholders also highlighted 
that stakeholders representing urban areas and cities, as well as Member States, could 
propose  partners  to  get  involved  in  Partnerships  taking  into  consideration  their 
expertise, and then DGUM representatives would discuss and decide on the final list of 
partners. The selection of TP partners for the 4th wave of TPs was done differently than 
for the first three waves; a call for interest was published in the Futurium website for 
which  candidates  could  submit  their  applications  following  a  template  with  selection 
criteria. Partners for the last two TPs (Wave 4) were selected based on the submitted 
applications by DGUM representatives, taking into account the geographical balance and 
size of cities. This process ensured a more transparent selection of partners. Even if the 
TP  formation  was  more  structured  in  the  last  three  waves  and  to  an  extent  more 
transparent in wave 4, the criteria used to decide on the final list of TP partners 
were  not  clear  to  stakeholders.  Interviewees  highlighted  for  example  that  in 
situations  where  stakeholders  proposed  two  organisations  from  the  same  country  to 
participate  in  a  Partnership,  there  was  a  lack  of  clarity  on  why  one,  or  both,  were 
selected (some Partnerships have a ministry and city from the same Member State).  

Several  interviewees  made  suggestions  on  how  to  improve  the  clarity  in  the 
selection process of TPs and define clear criteria for participation. Firstly, they 
argued that, if any further TPs are launched in the future, there should be a guidance 
document outlining selection criteria as well as what is expected of members, including 
aspects such as participation in meetings, the type of expertise that members should 
bring  to  the  TP  (e.g.  thematic  expertise  rather  than  general  urban  /  spatial  planning 
expertise), responsibilities of coordinators etc. It was suggested that, to ensure that TP 
members are selected based on the criteria included in the guidance document, each 
organisation should draft a letter of intent or application form stating their commitment 
to the TP and their responsibilities, in order to be considered in the selection process. 
Moreover, interviewees highlighted that some sort of feedback / explanation should be 
given to organisations that were not included in specific TPs.  

Nevertheless, the overall composition of the existing TPs was considered to be 
quite balanced. Survey respondents were typically fairly positive on the composition 
of  the  Thematic  Partnerships:  when  asked  if  the  TPs  of  the  UAEU  are  composed  of  a 
balanced set of members, more than half (54%) agreed or strongly agreed (see figure 
below). Some concerns were raised regarding the lack of representation of small cities 
and  (in  some  TPs)  Member  States.  Additionally,  some  interviewees  questioned  why 
regions seem to have been left out of the UAEU framework, as only one or two TP include 
them as members.    

 44 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

 Composition of Thematic Partnerships  

 Q3.3.  Do  you  agree  or  disagree  that  Partnerships  of  the  Urban  Agenda  are  composed  of  a 
balanced set of Members?  
Please answer for the Thematic Partnership(s) you know best. 
%; All respondents who are  familiar with a Partnership / All respondent who are  a  Member or 
Coordinator in a Partnerships (n=82 / 40) 
Source: Online consultation 

The participation and engagement of different stakeholders in the UAEU 

When considering which types of stakeholders were more engaged in the TPs, most TP 
interviewees  felt  cities  were  generally  most  engaged.  It  was  noted  that  cities 
typically  regard  their  involvement  in  the  UAEU  as  an  opportunity  to  find  solutions  to 
practical  urban  problems,  increase  their  knowledge  on  relevant  policies  and  practises 
and  feed  into  EU  policymaking.  The  high  level  of  involvement  of  cities  in  TPs  is  also 
visible  from  the  number  of  actions  that  they  have  put  forward;  according  to  the 
monitoring  data,  just  over  half  of  all  actions  are  led  by  urban  authorities.  But  even 
though cities on average appear to have been the most active members in the TPs, their 
engagement  varied  within  each  TP.  According  to  TP  interviewees,  typically  a  limited 
number of cities were highly engaged, while others played a more passive role. This was 
thought to be driven by the following two key issues: 1) resource constraints, and 2) a 
high  variability  in  expertise  on  the  topics  covered  in  the  TPs.  All  TP  interviewees 
highlighted the limited budget and time they could dedicate to the UAEU as key factors 
hindering  the  engagement  of  cities,  particularly  in  case  of  smaller  cities.  Thus,  large 
cities tend to take a more active role in the TPs (e.g. the coordinator role). The variability 
in  the  expertise  of  cities’  representatives  was  another  influential  factor  for  cities’ 
engagement  and  contribution  to  TPs.  This  related  for  example  to  some  cities’ 
representatives being experts in international cooperation, but not being knowledgeable 
on the specific topic of the TP. To some extent, the evidence suggests that the size and 
geographical  location  of  cities  was  related  to  cities’  representatives’  expertise,  with 
smaller  or  Eastern  European  cities  more  likely  to  be  engaging  directly  with  EU  policy 

45 

7%46%20%20%2%5%13%58%10%18%3%Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree nor DisagreeDisagreeStrongly DisagreeDon’t knowAll respondentsPartnership members and coordinators 
 
 
 
fora for the first time, and therefore tending to play a less active role, and focus primarily 
on learning opportunities.  

As  for  the  engagement  of  DGs,  the  overall  perception  was  that  DG  REGIO  was 
very active and committed to the functioning of the TPs and implementation of 
actions.  Its  ‘neutral’  and  supporting  role  was  generally  appreciated,  even  if  some 
stakeholders  would  have  liked  DG  REGIO  to  have  provided  more  steering  (see  also 
section  on  governance).  Generally  speaking,  other  DGs  appear  to  have  been  less 
actively involved.  Even  though  the  representation  of  DGs  in  each  TP  (average  2  to  3 
different  DGs)  was  considered  appropriate  by  stakeholders,  many  of  TP  interviewees 
perceived a disconnect between their representation in the TPs and their involvement 
in, and contribution to, the TPs. For example, 21% of survey respondents perceived a 
lack of support of European Commission DGs (other than DG REGIO) when completing 
and implementing Action Plans as one of the key barriers to the Urban Agenda reaching 
its full potential.  

The  contribution  of  the DGs varied  across  TPs.  Some  TP  members  reported  that 
DGs played a useful role in aligning the work of the TP with other EU initiatives, and in 
collecting / sharing relevant data for the drafting of the Action Plans. However, in other 
Partnerships, TP members highlighted that the DGs could have done more to contribute 
to  Action  Planning  and  implementation,  the  coordination  with  other  relevant  DGs  not 
represented  in  the  TPs,  and/or  to  ensure  that  the  work  of  the  TP  was  aligned  with 
broader  EU initiatives. Whether or not DGs played  an important role  in TPs seems to 
have depended inter alia on whether the DG in question had direct competency in the 
policy areas targeted by the TP or not (those who had direct competency appear to have 
been more involved, e.g. DG HOME in the Inclusion of Migrants and Refugees TP). Also, 
the  individuals  that  represented  DGs  seems  to  have  been  an  important  factor  in 
determining the involvement of DGs. Overall, stakeholders recognised that DGs often 
found it difficult to position themselves in the TPs, especially in terms of striking 
the  right  balance  between  allowing  for  flexibility  /  facilitating  a  bottom-up  approach, 
and  guiding  the  process.  A  recurrent  issue  raised  by  various  stakeholders,  including 
representatives of several DGs, was the  limited coordination amongst DGs on the 
UAEU, and more generally regarding urban policies at EU level. 

The  UAEU  stakeholders  highlighted  that,  generally,  Member  States  were  the 
stakeholders  that  were  least  involved  in  the  operationalisation  of  the  UAEU, 
although there were notable exception (e.g. the Netherlands, which was the main driver 
of the UAEU, while Czechia and Poland were active coordinators in the Urban Mobility 
and  Sustainable  Land  Use  and  Nature  Based  Solutions  TPs,  respectively).  Most  TP 
members interviewed  deemed the level of involvement of Member States to be fairly 
limited; various MS tended not to attend meetings or lead actions. Some interviewees 
believed that a potential explanation for Member States’ limited involvement is that the 
UAEU  does  not  offer  strong  advantages  for  them,  as  they  are  already  part  of  the 
discussion  with  the  Commission  and  take  part  in  the  inter-governmental  legislative 
process  at  EU  level,  through  their  representation  in  the  Council.  Similarly,  other  TP 
members  highlighted  that  MS  might  not  be  used  to  taking  a  multi-level,  multi-
stakeholders  approach,  and  some  might  have  failed  to  see  the  benefits  for  them  in 
participating in this sort of initiatives. Some Member States interviewed highlighted that 
they are still learning about the new multi-level process within the frame of the UAEU.  

 46 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

TP members provided various other reasons for the in general rather limited 
involvement of MS in TPs, including the varying relevance of the ministries involved 
as well as resource constraints and skills gap. According to the Pact of Amsterdam, “it 
is  important  that  all  members  of  the  Partnership  have  extensive  experience  and 
expertise  on  the  topic”.  However,  in  several  TPs,  this  was  not  the  case  for  all  the 
ministries involved, some of whom were not  perceived as the most  relevant ones  for 
the purpose of the TP, and their representatives were not always individuals who were 
considered  to  be  best  placed  to  engage  in  conversations  with  other  MS  and  other  TP 
stakeholders  on  the  specific  themes  being  discussed.  In  other  cases  where  TPs  were 
treating  more  transversal  policy  issues,  the  ministries  present  were  relevant  but  not 
necessarily  able  to  cover  all  policy  aspects  (depending  also  on  how  urban  policy  is 
organised  at  the  MS-level).  Thus,  in  at  least  some  cases  it  was  not  a  matter  of 
unwillingness to participate by MS, but rather a difficulty to involve the  right experts 
(urban expert versus topic expert) that led to their limited participation.  

In relation to their (lack of) participation in the UAEU, many MS also reported to suffer 
from  significant  resource  constraints.  Time  constraints  and  severe  opportunity  costs 
were often mentioned as key factors hindering their active participation. Moreover, in 
several TPs, TP members also noted that a skills gap limited their participation, with a 
limited  pool  of  civil  servants  having  the  right  expertise  and  being  fluent  in  English, 
meaning that those who do tick both boxes tend to be over-exposed to EU initiatives. 

According to some interviewees, the approach of the MS involved in TPs differed 
substantially from that of cities. As noted above, cities usually approached the TP 
as  an  opportunity  to  find  solutions  to  practical  problems,  such  as  ‘why  can’t  the  EU 
provide financing for the types of projects we want to undertake?’. Member States, on 
the other hand, frequently opted for a broader, higher-level perspective. Stakeholders 
highlighted that MS tended to approach issues more conceptually, through the lens of 
‘policy,  legal  and/or  institutional  frameworks’,  with  a  keener  interest  to  set  up  well-
rounded, ‘proper frameworks’ at the EU-level as well as ‘national sectoral policies’. TP 
members  considered  the  MS  approach  beneficial  particularly  when  a  contextual 
information and higher-level perspective was needed to understand if actions could be 
implemented,  taking  into  consideration  not  only  practical  factors,  but  also  external  / 
contextual factors.  

As mentioned before, umbrella organisations such as Eurocities, EUKN and CEMR 
have substantially contributed to the overall functioning and implementation 
of the UAEU. This took place at the two levels: at the overall governance / coordination 
level, with umbrella organisations’ active participation in the DGUM/UDG meetings (e.g. 
proposing members for TPs and providing insights on the work carried out by TPs); and 
at the operational level, by being active members of the TPs.  To an extent, umbrella 
organisations (in particular the EUKN) also contributed to cross fertilising the discussion 
and  actions  across  TPs,  according  to  stakeholders.  The  interviewees  highlighted  that 
umbrella  organisations  have  been  crucial  at  DGUM/UDG  meetings  in  contributing  to 
advancement of informal cooperation to address current and future challenges faced by 
urban areas. Umbrella organisations were perceived as having extensive experience in 
urban issues and as having the potential to significantly support the discussions at EU 
level.  Additionally,  TP  interviewees  highlighted  that  umbrella  organisations  possess 
extensive  experience  with  coordinating  pan-European  networks  of  partners. 

47 

 
They were recognised as key actors to provide an overarching, ‘eagle eye view’ of issues, 
liaise with cities that are not members of the TPs if needed, and, in certain cases, fill in 
for other stakeholders when these faced capacity gaps. Moreover, several stakeholders 
believed that umbrella organisation were instrumental in giving the DGUM/UDG a multi-
level  format  –  as  they  represent  cities  which  do  not  normally  attend  these  meeting 
(except when invited by their respective Member States). Despite the mostly positive 
views on the umbrella organisations’ experience in coordinating European networks and 
reaching out to TP non-members, the case studies suggest that the extent to which TPs 
reached stakeholders that were not directly involved in the UAEU varied; in some TPs, 
members (including umbrella organisations) were actively informing non-TP members 
and disseminating their work, while in other TPs this was not the case.  

The  engagement  of  other  EU  level  organisation  and  programmes,  such  as 
URBACT and the EIB,  was slightly more limited according to stakeholders. This 
was related to the nature of these organisations’ involvement in the UAEU, which mainly 
entails providing advice on funding opportunities, but also sometimes to a mismatch in 
the topics covered by the funding sources and those relevant for the TP. For example, 
the EIB is focused mainly on urban regeneration (EIB mandate) and does not tend to 
cover e.g. migration policy at urban level. Nonetheless, in certain cases, the EIB played 
an important role in identifying and providing source of funding for concrete TP actions, 
linked directly to the Better Funding pillar of the UAEU. For example, in two TPs the EIB 
helped to drive forward the work  of the TP by  publishing and funding two tenders to 
support  the  implementation  of  actions.  In  the  case  of  URBACT,  representatives 
highlighted that their funding programme did not align fully to the UAEU themes because 
URBACT funding themes were selected before the UAEU themes were determined (see 
Coherence section).  

Overall the stakeholder engagement in the UAEU, and particularly in TPs, was 
relatively  high.  According  to  TP  interviewees,  the  work  carried  out  in  the  TPs  was 
driven  mainly  by  a  few  core  members  including  the  coordinators  and  in  most  cases 
actions  leaders.  Other  TP  members  frequently  took  a  more  passive  role  and  only 
participated in meetings, instead of committing time to implement actions. Interviews 
with TP coordinators also highlighted a  disconnect between the partners’ involvement 
during the meetings, and their commitment in-between the meetings. Whilst partners 
were generally happy to attend the meetings and participate in the discussions at the 
meetings, their engagement in the production and delivery of outputs was limited, and 
output production was commonly almost completely taken over by coordinators and/or 
action leaders. In some TPs, coordinators / action leaders stressed the lack of effective 
support  from  members.  This  resulted  in  coordinators  and  action  leaders  sometimes 
taking on a larger role and responsibilities than they had expected or felt comfortable 
with.  The  limited  engagement  by  some  TP  members  was  also  highlighted  at  the  last 
coordinators’ meeting (February 2019), where several TP coordinators emphasised that 
they  expected/would  expect  more  support  from  TP  member  in  the  implementation 
phase.  

 48 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

The  relationship  between  Partnership  members  and  the  UAEU  governance 
structure  

Despite their generally positive views on the multi-level cooperation of the UAEU, the 
consulted stakeholders were not entirely satisfied with the role of DGUM and 
UDG. TP members seem to have little awareness of the specific roles of these governing 
bodies. Some argued that there is a lack of transparency and communication between 
the governing bodies and the TP members. Stakeholders (in particular cities) attributed 
this among others to the limited representation of cities in these bodies. TP members 
highlighted that they have not been informed from the beginning of the roles of the UDG 
/  DGUM  and  that  they  felt  slightly  isolated  from  what  is  happening  in  these  political 
bodies. Several stakeholders emphasised that they would like to be better informed by 
the DGUM and UDG about the overall development of the UAEU, and how different TPs 
are  progressing  in terms  of  Better  Knowledge,  Better  Funding  and  Better  Regulation. 
Several stakeholders also indicated that they would have liked more guidance from the 
DGUM/UDG  in  terms  of  the  development  and  implementation  of  Action  Plans.  It  was 
also recognised, however, that this would have been hard to implement in the current 
governance  structure  of  the  UAEU,  as  the  DGUM  and  UDG  already  experienced 
difficulties with following-up 14 TPs. These difficulties included: covering the feedback 
needs of all TPs the first year when twelve TPs were set up – this required DGUM /UDG 
to spend substantial amount of time supporting TPs that they realistically did not have 
to spend on the UAEU – and providing meaningful feedback as many of APs were quite 
technical and outside of the expertise of DGUM representatives.     

Working methods and arrangements and the role of coordinators 

According  to  the  survey  respondents,  the  internal  functioning  of  the  TPs  is 
generally effective. Seven out of ten respondents (69%) strongly agreed or agreed 
that the Thematic Partnerships’ coordinators effectively fulfil their role. Close to six out 
of  ten  respondents  (56%-58%)  strongly  agreed  or  agreed  that  the  Thematic 
Partnership(s)  meetings  are  well  organised  and  that  the  Thematic  Partnerships’ 
members are generally involved / participate well. Only 6% oppose that coordinators 
had effectively fulfil their role and 7% that TP meetings were well organised. 

As  highlighted  by  survey  respondents  and  by  interviewees,  the  role  of  the  TP 
coordinator is key for the effective operationalisation of the UAEU. TP members 
perceived having a ‘knowledgeable, engaged and committed’ coordinator as crucial for 
the effectiveness of the functioning of the TPs, regardless of their profile (cities, MS, or 
other types of organisations). Having an active coordinator was considered important in 
all the stages of the TP: from the inception to the implementation phase. Feedback from 
interviewees suggests that TPs in which the coordinator was less active, were considered 
less effective overall. Where coordinators were less active, this seem to have been due 
mainly to a lack of understanding and misinterpretation of  the role of the coordinator 
and how the TP should function, what it should generate, and in which timeframe. This 
misinterpretation  was  less  of  an  issue  in  the  last  wave,  in  which  the  Commission 
provided more guidance on the role of the coordinator and overall governance.   

The Technical Assistance provided by the Technical Secretariat to the TPs was 
welcomed by the consulted stakeholders. This included the support and provision 
of expertise to the Partnerships; outreach and communication support; reimbursement 

49 

 
of  travel  costs  to  Partnership  members  and  support  to  the  European  Commission. 
Stakeholders  highlighted  the  benefits  of  having  administrative  and  organisational 
support to ensure a smooth functioning of the TPs by supporting coordinators and other 
TP members with time-consuming tasks like the preparation of meetings and drafting 
meeting minutes. TP members highlighted that the Technical Secretariat provided good 
support  in  keeping  the  members  active  and  involved  during  the  organisation  of  the 
Partnership calls and meetings. However, TP members were less satisfied with the 
outreach  and  communication  support  and  the  provision  of  expertise  to  the 
Partnerships.  TP  members  believed  that  there  is  a  need  for  more  support  on 
communication,  apart  from  the  website  and  social  media  posts  and  updates.  Several 
TPs  would  have  appreciated  support  on  putting  together  an  infographic  or  a  video 
presenting the TP and its objectives and impacts; however according to interviewees, 
this support was outside the scope of the Technical Secretariat.  

A  key  concern  regarding  the  support  provided  by  the  Technical  Secretariat  was  the 
perceived  lack  of  transparency  about  its  remit  and  functioning.  It  appears  the 
Secretariat could have done more to clarify what the Technical Assistance comprised of, 
but also that some coordinators may not have disseminated the information presented 
at  coordinators’  meetings  on  the  Technical  Assistance  to  their  TP  members. 
Stakeholders suggested that some TPs managed to have their travel cost reimbursed 
while others did not, they were also unsure how the travel budget was supposed to be 
reimbursed.  According  to  the  factsheet  made  available  for  TP  coordinators  on  the 
Technical  Secretariat  in  support  to  the  Urban  Agenda  for  the  EU,  the  travel  and 
accommodation  expenses  shall  be  covered  in  exceptional  cases  only;  on  average,  a 
maximum of one travel per Partnership meeting can be accommodated (max. 3,197€ / 
year).  Thus,  stakeholders’  perception  that  some  TPs  got  their  travel  reimbursed  and 
other didn’t could be right if the TP members that asked for travel reimbursement were 
“exceptional cases”. Stakeholders felt that the Technical Secretariat could have provided 
more guidance and information on its functioning and remit during the initial phase of 
the Partnership formation to address these kinds of issues.  

4.1.2  THE  THREE  PILLARS:  BETTER  REGULATION,  BETTER  FUNDING, 

BETTER KNOWLEDGE 

Assessment question 2: To what extent has the UAEU facilitated progress under the 
three  pillars  of  EU  policy  making  and  implementation  that  it  focuses  on  (Better 
Regulation, Better Funding, Better Knowledge)? 

As stated in the Pact of Amsterdam, to realise the full potential of the European Union 
and deliver on its strategic objectives, the Urban Agenda for the EU strives to involve 
cities in achieving Better Regulation, Better Funding and Better Knowledge.20 According 
to  stakeholders,  the  UAEU  has,  to  an  extent,  facilitated  progress  under  these 
three pillars, particularly increasing knowledge on urban issues and – to a somewhat 
lesser extent – access to funding for urban policies. However, stakeholders believed that 

20 Urban Agenda for the EU, Pact of Amsterdam (2016).  

 50 

 
 
  
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

the  contribution  of  the  UAEU  to  the  implementation  of  existing  and  future  policies, 
legislation and instruments (EU, national and local) has been more limited.  

In  the  stakeholder  survey,  eight  out  of  ten  respondents  (79%),  felt  that  the  Urban 
Agenda contributed to a great or some extent to “better knowledge and data on urban 
issues”. Slightly less than two thirds of respondents (64%) felt that the Urban Agenda 
contributed to a great or some extent to “EU funding that is better adapted to cities and 
urban  areas.  A  similar  proportion  (61%)  felt  that  the  Urban  Agenda  contributed  to  a 
great or some extent to “EU regulation that is better adapted to cities and urban areas”. 
As can be noted in the figure below, notably smaller proportions of respondents (18%-
30%) felt that the UAEU, and the TPs, contributed to a ‘great extent’ to Better Funding, 
Better Knowledge and Better Regulation.  

 Contribution to Better Funding, Better Knowledge and Better 

Regulation 

Q5.1.  In  your  view,  to  what  extent  do  the  Urban  Agenda,  and  the  Thematic  Partnerships, 
contribute to… 
%; All respondents who answered question item (n=113-115) 
Source: Online consultation 

Noticeable actions   

There  are  noticeable  actions  from  all  three  pillars.  Stakeholders  highlighted  the 
following  actions,  all  of  which  have  had  a  tangible  impact  on  Better  Funding,  Better 
Knowledge or Better Regulation, or are expected to have an impact in the future. The 
first three actions were also part of the UAEU State of Play brochure published in June 
2019.21    

  The  Housing  Partnership  is  developing  a  good  practice  database  on  affordable 
housing.  This  database  gathers  best  practices  from  the  social  and  affordable 
housing  sector  from  across  the  EU,  in  order  to  foster  learning  and  knowledge 

21 See: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/brochure/urban_agenda_eu_en.pdf 

51 

19183042464921179553121490102030405060708090100EU regulation that is better adapted to cities and urbanareas?EU funding that is better adapted to cities and urbanareas?better knowledge and data on urban issues?In your view, to what extent do the Urban Agenda, and the Thematic Partnerships, contribute to…To a great extentSomewhatVery littleNot at allDon’t know 
                                                 
 
exchange about the provision of affordable housing in European cities.22 The first 
prototype of the data base is available.23 (Better Knowledge) 

  The  Air  Quality  TP  has  been  working  on  identifying  gaps  in  regulation  and 
implementation on air pollutant emission sources, to help policy-makers to better 
understand and meet the requirements of European Air Quality Directive. This 
led  to  a  joint  position  paper24  that  reviewed  the  interaction  between  different 
regulations  and  the  implementation  of  air  quality  legislation,  including  with 
regard  to  funding  mechanisms  and  knowledge  sharing.  The  position  paper 
includes recommendations on how to improve the implementation of air quality 
legislation  and  identify  regulatory  gaps  in  the  urban  environment  through  a 
cooperative  and  integrated  approach.  (Better  Regulation,  Better  Funding  and 
Better Knowledge)  

  The  Jobs  and  Skills  in  the  Local  Economy  Partnership  has  been  working  on 
several actions to support the local economy. One of these actions is the Talent 
Office, which is a new governance structure to support and enhance the talent 
community and its development, acting as an enabler to connect talent and all 
stakeholders with an interest in the area of talent supply and demand. (Better 
Knowledge)  

  The  Circular  Economy  TP  members  have  reportedly  helped  to  convince  the 
Commission to include aspects related to the circular economy among the areas 
that  are  eligible  for  funding  in  its  proposals  for  the  post-2020  Cohesion  Policy 
and corresponding Funds. The TP also reported that its influence is apparent in 
the proposed regulation on minimum requirements for water reuse, and may yet 
influence  future  proposals  on  waste  management  and  production  of  bio-based 
products. (Better Regulation) 

  The Inclusion of Migrants and Refugees TP members highlighted that they have 
influenced the Commission proposal for the successor programme of the Asylum, 
Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), which takes on board a recommendation 
from  the  TP  specifying  that  local  authorities  and  other  local  actors  should  be 
consulted  to  improve  cities’  access  to  funding.  (Better  Funding,  Better 
Regulation) 

  The Urban Poverty Partnership has developed two actions aimed at the 

‘Regeneration of Urban Deprived Areas and Neighbourhoods (UDAN)’. One of 
these actions (Action 7), calls for a ‘Local Pact’ for the regeneration of urban 
deprived areas, a multi-fund instrument giving cities a leading role in designing 
their urban regeneration strategies for UDAN in post-2020 Cohesion Policy. The 
Action Leader (URBACT) organised three ‘Policy Labs’ in 2018 to exchange 
experiences between countries (France, Germany, Poland and Spain) about 
methods to tackle local deprivation. This resulted in detailed guidelines on how 

22 DG REGIO. Urban agenda for the EU Multi-level governance in action (2019). 

23https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1RcxrQ2QqfgUAU9Pw3EkuIOYDyJw&hl=en&ll=52.86312542

5834454%2C28.997022443749983&z=4 

24 https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/1.ua-aqp-position_paper-fitness.check_.aaqd_.pdf 

 52 

 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

to set up a Local Pact. Action 7 was flagged by interviewees as one of the 
successes of the Urban Poverty Partnership so far. (Better Funding)  

Challenges encountered 

Notwithstanding  these  examples  of  successful  actions,  stakeholders  felt  that  the 
UAEU could have contributed more to the three pillars, particularly with regard to 
Better Regulation and (to a somewhat lesser extent) Better Funding. This in particular 
because  numerous  TPs  struggled  with  the  Action  Planning  process  and  the 
implementation of actions, as outlined below.  

Stakeholders have highlighted difficulties encountered at the Action Planning and 
implementation  stage.  TP  members  reported  that  the  process  of  selecting  and 
designing  actions  was  challenging,  and  considered  that  this  process  could  have  been 
dealt with differently. TP members had plenty of ideas for actions, but it took TPs a long 
time  to  reach  a  consensus  on  which  actions  to  include  in  the  Action  Plans.  As  an 
explanation,  stakeholders  pointed  to  inefficiencies  in  the  Action  Planning  process, 
including the drawn-out stock-taking and scoping phase, as well as to issues inherent 
to the format of the TPs, encompassing a very diverse set of members. This necessitated 
a high level of engagement of members and strong coordination. Coordinators generally 
did a good job, but for  them the Action Planning process constituted a heavy burden 
(see also Chapter of Efficiency). Another key reason provided by stakeholders for the 
difficulties  experienced  was  the  perceived  lack  of  guidance  from  the  DGUM/UDG, 
including    the  Commission,  both  with  regard  to  the  Action  Planning  process  and  the 
implementation of actions (see above). What also played a role was a perceived lack of 
clarity about the target of the actions and who should implement them, i.e. TP members 
themselves, and/or other actors outside the TP (DGs, MS…). 

TPs appear to have dealt with these challenges differently, as can be derived from the 
finalised Action Plans. These shows marked variation, notably in the division of actions 
between  pillars.  For  example,  the  Urban  Poverty  Partnership’s  Action  Plan  contains 
seven Better Regulation actions out of a total of twelve actions. The Climate Adaptation 
Action Plan, on the other hand, includes one Better Regulation action, out of a total of 
ten actions. This divergence can, of course, partly be explained by differences between 
TPs in themes covered. For some TP themes, there was a clearer EU policy-angle than 
for  others.  For  example,  members  of  the  Inclusion  of  Migrants  and  Refugees  TP 
mentioned that the topic of their theme remains largely an MS competency while topics 
covered  in  the  Climate  Adaptation  TP  cover  EU  policy  competencies.  However,  the 
evidence  suggests that  the divergence between TPs in terms of pillars  covered is not 
only related to the topics, but is also related to differences in how the TP’s interpreted 
their role and mandate.   

Some  TPs  opted primarily for ‘concrete’ actions that could be implemented by the TP 
members themselves within the lifetime of the TP. For example, the Circular Economy 
TP only included actions in the AP that members were fully able and willing to implement 
(i.e. actions leaders had put forward the actions that they are in charge of coordinating 
and  implementing).  Other  TPs  formulated  more  ‘high-level’  actions.  The  high-level 
action  typically  targeted  the  Commission  and  targeted  Better  Regulation,  while 

53 

 
‘concrete’  actions  tended  to  target  the  local  level  and  targeted  Better  Knowledge25. 
Stakeholders  believed  that  the  ‘concrete’  Better  Knowledge  actions  were  relatively 
easier to implement, among others because these actions require: 

  Limited involvement of external actors: “Better Knowledge” actions often involve 
the  development  of  a  ‘product’  (such  as  a  web  portal)  and  as  such  are  less 
dependent  on  the  involvement  of  other  actors  compared  to  actions  in  the  two 
other pillars. Numerous TP members noted that the implementation of  actions 
targeting  Better  Regulation  and  Better  Funding  was  “not  in  their  control”,  but 
reliant  on  the  involvement  of  the  European  Commission,  Member  States,  the 
European Investment Bank, etc.  

  Limited  alignment  with  EU  policy-making  process:  Better  Knowledge  Actions 
were  considered  relatively  easier  to  implement  because  they  require  less 
knowledge of / access to the EU policy-making process and could be implemented 
by for example the Action Leader.  

  Lack  of  time  and  resources:  TP  members  felt  that  Better  Funding  and  Better 
Regulation actions could not be implemented in the timeframe of the TPs, among 
other because these actions are dependent on the EU policy cycle and because 
of  uncertainty  about  what  would  happen  with  actions  after  the  Partnerships’ 
planned timespan.  

According to the stakeholders, perceived “feasibility” also explained TPs’ apparent – and 
increasing  –  preference  for  formulating  Better  Knowledge  actions.  As  noted  in  the 
monitoring  data,  almost  half  of  all  actions  (48%)  were  oriented  towards  “Better 
Knowledge”. The remainder were split between “Better Regulation” actions (28%) and 
“Better  Funding”  actions  (24%)26.  Moreover,  across  waves,  there  has  been  a  shift 
towards TPs formulating relatively more Better Knowledge actions, compared to Better 
Funding and Regulation actions (see Figure below). While roughly 45% of the actions in 
the first wave focussed on Better Regulation, this percentage decreased to 22% in the 
Wave 2 TPs, and to 15% in the Wave 3 TPs. In wave 3, the majority of actions (58%) 
targets Better Knowledge. This might have been driven by previous experiences of TPs. 
For example, the Sustainable Land Use and Nature Based Solutions TP members had to 
redesign and merge actions at the implementation phase due to a lack of ownership of 
certain actions and of alternative ideas on how to implement them. 

A  certain  preference  for  ‘concrete’  actions  is  also  visible  within  the  pillars,  with  for 
instance various Better Regulation or Better Funding actions that did not aim to tackle 
key urban challenges directly by, for example, proposing changes to key legislation, but 
rather aimed to develop guidelines and handbooks on how to solve these challenges. 

25 This divergence between TPs focussing on very concrete actions (often evolving around better knowledge) 
and TPs focusing on more fundamental issues (often evolving around better legislation and funding) was 
also described in the report of the Urban Futures Studio on the Urban Agenda from 2018, available at: 
http://nws.eurocities.eu/MediaShell/media/Research-UrbanFuturesStudio-def.pdf 

26 As noted in the case study on the Implementation of actions, the division across pillars varies substantially 
across Thematic Partnerships. For example, the Urban Poverty Partnership’s Action Plan contains seven 
Better Regulation actions out of a total of twelve actions. The Climate Adaptation Action Plan, on the 
other hand, includes one Better Regulation action, out of a total of ten actions. 

 54 

 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

According to the monitoring data, only five of the 31 actions under the Better Regulation 
pillar target the “modification to existing EU legislation”. 

 Percentage of actions per pillar and wave of Partnership  

Wave 3

16%

Wave 2

22%

58%

48%

26%

30%

Wave 1

46%

41%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Better Regulation

Better Knowledge

Better Funding

Was the prevalence of Better Knowledge actions a problem for the effectiveness of the 
UAEU? TP members can, of course, hardly be blamed for opting for feasible actions and 
the variation in actions formulated to some extent fitted the experimental nature of the 
UAEU.  Moreover,  Partnership  members  found  the  content  of  their  APs  overall 
satisfactory  considering  the  time  and  efforts  put  into  developing  APs.  Nonetheless, 
stakeholders felt that the prevalence of Better Knowledge actions, in combination with 
the  slow  progress  with  the  implementation  across  all  types  of  actions,  was  to  some 
extent detrimental to the overall effectiveness of the UAEU. Partnership members felt 
that  Better  Regulation and  Better  Funding  are  key  aspects  of  the  UAEU,  as  it  is  here 
that  multi-level  governance  could  in  theory  have  most  impact,  whereas  Better 
Knowledge can to some extent be achieved through other means and networks. 

To the above should be added, however, that there is no conclusive evidence that the 
Better Knowledge actions have indeed been easier to implement. The monitoring data 
(see Chapter 2) shows that Better Regulation are the most advanced actions with 19% 
finalised  and  25%  at  advanced  or  half  implementation  stage,  followed  by  Better 
Knowledge (7% finalised, 20% at advanced or  half implementation stage) and Better 
Funding (4% finalised and 8% at advanced or  half implementation stage). Moreover, 
there  is  no  noticeable  difference  in  terms  of  implementation  status  between  actions 
targeted at the EU or the local levels, with 9% of actions aiming at the EU level having 
been finalised, versus 11% at the local level. 

4.1.3  STRENGTHENING  THE  URBAN  DIMENSION  IN  POLICY  DESIGN  AND 

IMPLEMENTATION 

Assessment question 3: To what extent has the UAEU contributed to strengthening 
the urban dimension in the design and implementation of  relevant  EU and national 
policies?  

55 

 
 
 
In order to strengthen the urban dimension in the design and implementation of relevant 
EU and national policies, the UAEU aims to ensure that, in the words of Potjer & Hajer 
(2018): “locally, national governments can act according to the needs of their specific 
national contexts; horizontally, implementation practices are constantly compared with 
the  purpose  of  learning;  and  vertically,  the  EU  level  of  government  sets  the  policy 
framework,  but  also  revises  that  framework  based  on  experiences  coming  from 
practice.”27 To what extent has the UAEU facilitated progress towards these aims?  

The tangible impact of the UAEU on Better Regulation and Better Funding to date has 
been fairly limited. This is due to several challenges raised in section 4.1.2. Moreover, 
it  is  important  to  stress  that  it  is  most  often  too  early  to  observe  impacts  of  UAEU 
actions, as some require years of implementation, dissemination and sustained follow-
up to be effective. Hence, whether or not actions will have a concrete impact, will also 
depend on the future of the UAEU, from 2020 onwards.   

Nonetheless,  according  to  stakeholders,  the  UAEU  has  given  a  stronger  voice  to 
cities  when  designing  and  implementing  relevant  EU  policies,  programmes  and 
initiatives,  in  particular  cities  that  are  directly  involved  in  the  UAEU.  A  majority  of 
respondents to the survey specified that the UAEU has contributed to more involvement 
of cities in EU policy-making (74% agreed with this) and national policy-making (54% 
agreed with this), as well as improved policy-making on urban issues at the local level 
(60% agreed with this this).  

It is impossible to provide a full overview of all actions that might have the potential to 
contribute to strengthening the urban dimension in the design and implementation of 
relevant EU policies. Nonetheless, stakeholders pointed to some (types of actions) that 
might have a tangible impact: 

  TPs have developed actions to ease cities’ access to funding by developing 
guidelines for EU funding programmes and/or other available funding streams. 
Ideas to develop these guidelines come directly from cities involved in the UAEU 
and  other  initiatives  such  Urban  Innovative  Actions,  URBACT  and  cities 
implementing the European Regional Development Fund. These guidelines aim 
to  help  other  cities  to  access  European  funding  programmes  (i.e.  Urban 
Innovative Actions, URBACT, 5% of the  European Regional Development Fund 
dedicated to cities). For example, the Climate Adaptation TP has developed an 
action to ease urban areas’ access to LIFE funding for urban adaptation projects. 
Another example, is the ‘Air Quality guide’ developed by the city of Milan, with 
the assistance of the European Investment Bank and other members of the Air 
Quality Partnership. This guide outlines how to finance air quality investment at 
city level.  

  TPs have developed actions aimed at establishing permanent mechanisms 
to facilitate the exchange of ideas, projects and good practices related 
to EU initiatives that require local expertise. An example is the online repository 
with  good  practices  on  digital  skills  development,  developed  by  the  Jobs  and 

27 Potjer, S., & Hajer, M. (2018). Learning with Cities, Learning for Cities: The Golden Opportunity of the 

Urban Agenda for the EU. Utrecht: Urban Futures Studio. 

 56 

 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Skills  TP.  This  repository  aims  to  provide  local  level  insights  to  the 
implementation of the New Skills Agenda.  

  TPs  have  also  developed  actions  that  aim  to  influence  EU  legislation.  An 
example  is  the  paper  developed  by  the  Air  Quality  TP  on  how  to  improve  the 
implementation of air quality legislation, which identifies urban regulatory gaps 
based among others on experiences and previous work carried out by the cities 
involved in the Air Quality TP.  

Evidence of how the UAEU has contributed to the design and implementation 
of national policies, programmes and initiatives is not extensive. However, there 
is  some  evidence  that  the  UAEU  has  contributed  to  improving  or  setting  up  national 
urban policies through the participation of MS in the UAEU and through concrete UAEU 
actions that target national policies and strategies.    

The  EUKN  study  findings,  which  include  the  survey  conducted  in  early  2019  by  the 
Romanian  Presidency,  suggest  that  the  UAEU  has  led  to  changes  in  existing  or 
creation  of  new  formalised  or  informal  structures  (e.g.  urban  policy  working 
groups) in several EU countries. The survey found that around half of the Member States 
noted  substantial  changes  and  re-evaluation  of  their  urban  policies  due  to  the  UAEU 
(see  Figure  below).  The  EUKN  study  points  out  several  examples  including  the 
establishment of Partnerships in Lithuania to discuss urban policies in the draft of the 
National Urban Policy. Some Member States agreed that their involvement in the UAEU 
has  encouraged  them  to  adapt  or  enhance  their  national  or  regional  policies.  For 
example,  the  Polish  Ministry  of  Investment  and  Economic  Development  launched  in 
2017 the Strategy for Responsible Development, which comprises several instruments 
dedicated to cities. This strategy was part of the recently adopted National Urban Policy. 
Another example of the impact of the UAEU on the implementation of a concrete national 
urban policy is the Spanish Urban Agenda28, in which ten objectives reflect the themes 
covered by the UAEU TPs. 

28 http://www.aue.gob.es/agenda-urbana-espanola#AUE_-_Agenda_Urbana_Espanola. 

57 

 
 
                                                 
 Links between UAEU, national urban policy, structural changes 

Source:  Romanian  Ministry  of  Public  Administration  and  Regional  Development,  2019  (online 
survey, N=27) 

Apart from the effects on national urban policies and strategies due to the participation 
in the UAEU, stakeholders highlighted concrete UAEU actions aimed at national polices 
and strategies:  

1. Climate  Adaptation  TP:  Analysis  of  national  multilevel  urban  development  and 

planning regulations with a focus on climate adaptation.  

2. Sustainable  Land  Use  and  Nature  Based  Solutions  TP:  Better  regulation  to  boost 

Natural Based Solutions at European, national and local levels  

3. Urban  Poverty  TP:  Ending  homelessness  by  2030  through  the  reform  of  social 

inclusion strategies at national level 

Many TP members highlighted the positive impact the UAEU has had in terms of 
raising  awareness  on  the  issue  of  multilevel  governance,  thereby  bringing  “EU 
urban policy-making closer to national urban-related discussions and stakeholders.”29  

To  a  greater  or  lesser  extent,  all  TPs  made  efforts  to  reach  out  to  non-members, 
especially other cities / urban authorities. Some of the TPs referred to the transfer of 
knowledge and information to non-member cities as a key part of the rationale of many 
of  their  actions.  Stakeholders  highlighted  among  others  the  following  examples  of 
actions that aim to reach out to non-TP members: 

  The  Circular  Economy  Partnership  developed  the  Knowledge  Pact  for  cities, 
including  which  members  disseminated  through  their  own  networks  and  local 
channels.  

  The  Housing  Partnership  has  developed  an  ‘Affordable  housing  good  practice 
database’, which gathers best practices used in the social and affordable housing 
sector, in order to foster learning and knowledge exchange about the provision 

29 European Urban Knowledge Network. (2017). One Year Pact of Amsterdam. The Hague: European Urban 

Knowledge Network. 

 58 

 
 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

of  affordable  housing  in  European  cities.  This  database  was  disseminated  at 
events and meetings that members held and attended across Europe. 

  The  Inclusion  of  Migrants  and  Refugees  TP  highlighted  their  ‘Academy  in 
Integration Strategies’ as an action that successfully targets cities that did not 
take part in the TP itself.  

  The Public Procurement TP has reportedly created a “second ring” of cities who 

were involved in drafting actions, and will be key to their dissemination.  

  The Italian and Latvian members of the Jobs & Skills TP reached out to a “second 
ring” of cities in their respective countries (in the Latvian case, via the association 
of municipalities), informing them about the work of the TP on a regular basis.  

Territorial cohesion 

As  noted  in  the  Pact  of  Amsterdam,  “the  UAEU  strives  to  establish  a  more  effective 
integrated  and  coordinated  approach  to  EU  policies  and  legislation  with  a  potential 
impact on Urban Areas and also to contribute to territorial cohesion by reducing the 
socioeconomic gaps observed in urban areas and regions”. This aim was reinforced by 
the Austrian presidency, which stressed the importance of “a shift to a more process-
oriented  Territorial  Agenda  with  similar  cooperation  or  implementation  partnerships 
[which]  offer  the  opportunity  to  address  common  territorial  and  urban  issues  like 
functional  regions  including  cities  and  rural  areas  or  urban-rural  partnerships”.30 
However, the consulted stakeholders found it difficult to comment on whether the UAEU 
achieved  these  aims,  mostly  because  they  considered  the  links  of  the  UAEU  to  the 
broader  Cohesion  Policy  indirect  and  not  clearly  articulated  in  the  Action  Planning 
process.  

One way in which the UAEU sought to foster territorial cohesion was via the enhanced 
use of territorial impact assessments. However, most interviewees were either unaware 
of  progress  made  in  this  respect,  or  felt  that  the  UAEU  has  not  contributed 
impact  assessments.  Survey 
significantly  to  progress  with  territorial 
respondents were not very convinced about the Urban Agenda’s contribution to progress 
on  Territorial  Impact  Assessments  either,  with  43%  agreeing  that  the  Urban  Agenda 
contributed to TIAs to a great or some extent. 

Contribution of practical tools for policy-making 

The 'One-Stop-Shop' portal31 was launched by the European Commission, as part of 
the  UAEU,  to  be  an  online  single  point  of  entry  for  cities  and  other  stakeholders  to 
consult  information  on  EU  regulations,  funds  and  knowledge  related  to  urban 
development.  Stakeholders’  familiarity  with  the  “one-stop-shop”  for  cities 
portal was not high. About a third of the surveyed stakeholders (33%) reported  to 

30 Austrian Presidency of the Council of the European Union 2018. (2018). Austrian Presidency’s Directors 

General Seminar “Setting the Course for the Future of Territorial Urban Policies at European Level” on 13 
November 2018 in Vienna – Summary Report. Vienna: Austrian Presidency of the Council of the 
European Union 2018. 

31 https://ec.europa.eu/info/eu-regional-and-urban-development/topics/cities-and-urban-development_en  

59 

 
                                                 
have used the one-stop-shop for cities portal, with only 3% having used it extensively. 
Most  other  stakeholders  (37%)  were  unaware  about  its  existence.  The  “Futurium” 
website was used more frequently: about a fifth (21%) of stakeholders reported having 
used  it  extensively,  whereas  about  half  (49%)  used  Futurium  rarely.  Most  of  the 
interviewees  believed  that  Futurium’s  use  did  not  extend  beyond  the  UAEU’s  direct 
stakeholders. Many  stakeholders highlighted that they did not  see much of an added 
value  of  having  the  public  consultations  (which  formed  part  of  the  Action  Planning 
phase) on the Futurium website, as stakeholders (outside of the UAEU ‘bubble’) rarely 
visit this website.   

Contribution of the UAEU to international commitments 

Through  its  contribution  to  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals  (SDGs)  of  the  United 
Nations  2030  Agenda,  the  UAEU  aims  to  be  outward-looking  and  connected  to 
global challenges.32 In the stakeholder survey, more than two thirds of respondents 
(70%)  believed  that  the  Urban  Agenda  and  the  Thematic  Partnerships  indeed 
contributed somewhat or to a great extent to progress on the UN SDGs.  

 Contribution to progress on the UN Sustainable Development Goals 

Q5.1.  In  your  view,  to  what  extent  do  the  Urban  Agenda,  and  the  Thematic  Partnerships, 
contribute to… 
%; All respondents who answered question item (n=115) 
Source: Online consultation 

The monitoring data showed that the UAEU cross-cutting issues relating to the UN New 
Urban Agenda, were referred to 50 or more times in the TP’s Action Plans. In relation 
to  this,  a  few  interviewees  highlighted  that  almost  all  actions  under  the  UAEU  are 
consistent with the targets of SDG 11 on sustainable cities and communities, as well as 

32 Urban agenda for the EU Multi-level governance in action (2019), DG REGIO. 

 60 

23%46%10%9%12%In your view, to what extent do the Urban Agenda, and the Thematic Partnerships, contribute to progress on the UN Sustainable Development Goals?To a great extentSomewhatVery littleNot at allDon’t know 
 
                                                 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

with other SDGs, such as SDG13 (which calls for urgent action to combat climate change 
and  its  impacts),  and  SDG10  (which  aims  for  reduced  inequality  within  and  among 
countries). For example, the Urban Mobility TP proposed two actions that are linked to 
the  implementation  of  SDG  13  at  the  European  level,  namely:  ‘Scaling  up  innovative 
clean buses’ and ‘Promoting sustainable and active mobility behaviour’. The Housing TP 
organised  an  international  conference  “Housing  for  all”  held  in  Vienna  in  December 
2018,  which  provided  a  platform  for  raising  awareness  on  the  TP  and  its  Action  Plan 
among a large number of cities and other international stakeholders. Additionally, a few 
interviews highlighted how the UAEU could contribute more to global urban challenges. 
Suggestions  were  made  for  greater  alignment  of  the  UAEU  stakeholders  (particularly 
cities)  with  beneficiaries  of  the  International  Urban  Cooperation  (IUC)  programmes 
under the Foreign Policy Instrument (e.g. by encouraging cities involved in the UAEU to 
participate in the IUC).  

It  should  be  stressed  that  only  a  few  interviewees  were  aware  of  the  UAEU’s 
contribution  to  the  UN  SDGs  and  the  New  Urban  Agenda.  Moreover,  various 
interviewees  noted  that  establishing  whether  the  UAEU  indeed  contributed  to  the  UN 
SDGs is very difficult, among others because the SDGs are very broad (meaning that 
the  links  with  the  UAEU  are  indirect)  and  because  the  UAEU’s  contribution  to  tackle 
global urban challenges is so far limited (as noted above). 

4.1.4  MAIN DRIVERS OF EFFECTIVENESS 

Assessment  question  4:  What  are  the  main  drivers  of  the  UAEU’s  effectiveness 
(strengths, weaknesses, success factors and challenges)?  

What are the main drivers of the UAEU’s effectiveness? Below we look at both strengths 
and  weaknesses.  Considering  the  former  (strengths),  the  evidence  points  to  the 
following:   

1. Strong and active TP coordinators. The overall high level of engagement of 
the  TP  coordinators  was  considered  a  key  driver  for  the  functioning  and 
operationalisation  of  the  Agenda.  The  coordinators  played  a  vital  role  in 
inception  phase  through  to 
from  the 
developing  the  Action  Plans, 
implementation,  other  stakeholders  reported.  The  evidence  suggests  that 
coordinators  invested  substantial  time  and  own  means  in  the  TPs  (see  also 
Chapter on Efficiency). 

2. The experimental and flexible nature of the TPs. Even though the flexible 
and experimental nature of the UAEU caused some issues (see also below under 
barriers), it was also considered a key asset by stakeholders. TPs in the UAEU 
had a lot of freedom to determine their focus and remit (e.g. focusing on actions 
members  had  expertise  in),  which  allowed  them  to  take  into  account  the 
different policy areas / themes, and interests of members.  

3. Strong  support  amongst  stakeholder  groups  (particularly  cities).  As 
noted before, TPs were all stakeholders were engaged throughout the duration 
of the TP tended to believe that their work have been effective. Stakeholders 

61 

 
 
highlighted each stakeholder play a different and crucial role in the design and 
implementation  of  actions  (e.g.  Member  States  bringing  information  on 
contextual  factors)  and  their  engagement  and  contribution  to  the  TP  is  key 
enabler.  Particularly  cities  were  engaged,  noted  many  stakeholders.  Cities 
valued the opportunity to feed into EU policymaking and believed their work as 
part of the UAEU could have a ‘real impact’ on their daily work. 

4. Relevant themes covered by TPs. The majority of stakeholders highlighted 
that the 14 themes covered by the UAEU match the needs and problems faced 
by cities in the EU (see section on Relevance). The 14 themes are also expected 
to  remain  relevant  in  the  future.  The  overall  feeling  was  that  there  are  no 
important gaps in the themes covered.  

5. The  cooperation  of  all  levels  of  government  in  the  TPs.  Stakeholders 
highlighted as a key driver of the effectiveness of the UAEU that it brings various 
government  levels  around  the  table.  This  is  not  replicated  in  other  existing 
networks  and  programmes,  which  encompass  a  less  varied  group  of 
stakeholders (such as the various city networks). Other initiatives also do not 
emphasise  multi-level  governance,  but  focus  more  on  for  example  technical 
cooperation and the exchange of best practices (such as URBACT). Moreover, 
stakeholders  stressed  that  each  level  of  government  involved  in  the  UAEU 
brings  a  different  set  of  skills  and  experience  to  the  table.  Stakeholders 
emphasised that cities bring practical solutions to problems that they would like 
to  tackle,  Member  States  provide  the  context  and  delimit  the  proposed 
solutions/problems  that  cities  put  forwards,  and  DGs  bring  the  required 
knowledge of the EU policies, regulations and funding that TP members need 
to consider in their APs.  

6. The  role  and  involvement  of  “other  stakeholders”  and  particularly 
umbrella  organisations.  Stakeholders  highlighted  that  these  stakeholders 
played  a  significant  role  in  moving  forward  the  work  of  the  Partnerships,  for 
example  by  consulting  their  networks  about  actions  in  the  Action  Planning 
phase, or by providing feedback based on their own often extensive experience 
with  EU  policy-making.  Additionally,  stakeholders  believed  that  “other 
stakeholders” functioned as multipliers; their (direct or indirect) involvement in 
the TPs opened up communication and dissemination channels that facilitated 
outreach to cities across Europe. However, stakeholders didn’t provide concrete 
examples  on  how  these  stakeholders  opened  up  communication  and 
dissemination channels (see communication barrier below).   

At the same time, the research suggests there are a number of barriers to the UAEU 
reaching its full potential to date. These include:  

1. The voluntary nature of the UAEU. Stakeholders believed that the voluntary 
nature  of  the  UAEU  has  limited  the  contribution  of  certain  TP  members.  TP 
members  were  not  obliged  to  contribute  to  the  TPs  and  the  Action  Planning, 
which reportedly led to some members keeping a low profile in meetings and/or 
contributing little between meetings – in particular the latter appears to have 
been an issue in many TPs.  

 62 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

2.  The lack of formal mechanisms. The lack of formal mechanism implies that 
the  Commission  is  not  required  to  consider  the  outcomes  of  the  APs.  Many 
stakeholders  saw  the  lack  of  formal  mechanisms  as  a  main  barrier  for  the 
success  of  the  UAEU,  and  believed  that  the  UAEU  should  in  some  way  be 
formalised and be part of the policy evaluation process of the European Union. 
A few stakeholders (most others were not aware) welcomed the new European 
Urban Initiative, which is aimed at tackling the fragmentation of support offered 
to  cities  under  Cohesion  Policy  and  which  acknowledges  that  the  urban 
dimension of Cohesion Policy relies on a strategic multi-level partnership with 
local authorities and civil society as well as on the strengthening of the urban 
dimension under the post 2020 Cohesion Policy.  

3.  Limited outreach. Some notable exceptions notwithstanding, overall, TPs and 
their members have not been able to reach out to and raise awareness of the 
UAEU and their work among significant numbers of non-participating cities. This 
is evidenced inter alia by the low response rates to the consultations on draft 
Action  Plans,  as  well  as  the  online  consultation  that  was  undertaken  for  this 
study. UAEU stakeholders should put greater efforts in promoting the UAEU to 
a “second ring” of cities, and make better use of the umbrella organisations in 
this, which have a wide network of stakeholders that could be interested in the 
UAEU if made aware of it.   

4. Resources  available.  Several  TP  members  highlighted  that  resource 
constraints had a direct impact on the effectiveness of the TPs, as it affected 
the engagement of all stakeholder types. They highlighted that limited budget 
was  available  for  travel  and  for  engaging  experts.  The  latter  limited  the 
technical support available for the implementation of actions, when TP members 
did not have the expertise. However, it is important to note (see efficiency) that 
some TPs did not use all their available budget for travel and expert support. 
Many TP members faced significant opportunity costs, as they had to balance 
their  involvement  in  the  work  of  the  UAEU  with  competing  priorities  in  their 
respective organisations. According to a few TP members, resource constraints 
were  particularly  acute  for  smaller  (and  to  some  extent  Eastern  European) 
cities. 

5. Limited engagement of MS and DGs (other than DG REGIO). Even though 
all stakeholder groups showed varying levels of engagement, in particular the 
Member  States  and  European  Commission  DGs  (other  than  DG  REGIO)  were 
relatively often not very engaged, reported the stakeholders. This was mainly 
related to  weak incentives, lack of capacity, internal bureaucratic challenges, 
political  sensitivities  and,  according  to  a  small  number  of  MS  and  DGs, 
insufficient relevance of the themes.  

6. Limited  guidance  from  the  UDG/DGUM.  The  overall  governance  and 
coordination  of  the  UAEU  appears  to  have  been  somewhat  ineffective:  the 
DGUM / UDG / UATPG  were seen by many stakeholders and TP members as 
adding relatively little value. Key reasons included: 1) the DGUM / UDG were 
unable to closely follow the work of the TPs and provide detailed feedback on 
(draft) Action Plans (due to a combination of the large number of TPs and the 

63 

 
lack of in-depth thematic expertise among DGUM/ UDG members) and 2) the 
role  and  coverage  of  the  different  groups  /  fora  is  not  clearly  defined  and 
sometimes overlapping. 

7. Varying expertise in TPs. Due to the breadth of the topics covered in some 
TPs, not all TP members were reportedly fully aware of the intricate details of 
the  subjects  covered.  Stakeholders  noted  this  was  compounded  by  some 
members sending representatives to the TPs with mainly knowledge on general 
urban issues, but not with expertise in the theme of the TP. The assistance by 
the  Technical  Secretariat  appears  to  have  only  partly  addressed  this  issue, 
considering that the Technical Secretariat’s mandate is limited to assisting on 
selected  occasions,  rather  than  provide  expertise  throughout  the  duration  of 
TPs.   

Our  research  has  also  identified  some  external  factors  that  have  limited  to  a 
certain extent the performance of the UAEU since its inception. 

  The timing and process of the EU policy and funding cycles. Because these 
cycles are set, they frequently do not match the 3-years lifetime of the UAEU 
TPs. Some TPs tailored their Action Plans accordingly, other TPs did not, either 
do to a lack of awareness about the policy-cycle or varying views about what 
actions should look like and who  should implement them (i.e. should they be 
“actionable”  by  the  TP  members,  or  be  taken  forward  by  the  institutions,  see 
case study on Implementation of Actions). 

  The changes in policy priorities across different stakeholders, particularly 
national governments. According to interviewees, it has taken twenty years to 
build momentum about the need of having urban authorities more involved in 
the  EU  and  national  polices  on  urban  matters.  Thus,  if  the  benefits  of  having 
urban authorities more involved in the EU and national polices on urban matters 
are not showcased appropriately, other EU and national priorities might end up 
being prioritised to the detriment of the UAEU.  

4.1.5  CONCLUSIONS: EFFECTIVENESS 

Overall, as an innovative multi-level framework for dialogue on policy issues and 
initiatives  that  affect  urban  areas,  the  UAEU  has  turned  out  to  be  effective.  It  has 
fostered  significant  collaboration  between  Member  States,  cities,  the  European 
Commission and other EU institutions as well as other stakeholders, who have engaged 
in  discussions  and  jointly  identified  solutions  to  address  key  challenges  facing  cities 
across  a  wide  range  of  policy  areas  and  themes.  The  UAEU’s  main  method  of 
implementation, the 14 Thematic Partnerships (TPs), were valued positively by nearly 
all participants, as they provided a unique opportunity for stakeholders at all relevant 
levels to engage, better understand each other’s concerns, exchange views and ideas, 
and try to find common ground with a view to addressing issues with the design and 
implementation  of  policies  that  significantly  affect  cities.  Unsurprisingly,  urban 
authorities  themselves  tended  to  be  most  appreciative  of  the  first-hand  exposure  to, 

 64 

 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

and involvement in, discussions at EU level on an equal footing with the other levels of 
government. 

The thematic approach to the UAEU – i.e. the launch of multi-stakeholder Partnerships 
on  a  set  of  highly  relevant  priority  themes  –  has  been  conducive  to  constructive  and 
(mostly) focused collaboration, which has enabled the TPs to make concrete progress 
in the form of the development and adoption of Action Plans. The different priorities of 
participants were not always easy to reconcile (cities were typically most interested in 
solving  very  specific  problems  –  such  as  ‘why  can’t  the  EU  provide  financing  for  the 
types  of  projects  we  want  to  undertake?’  –  while  Member  States  tended  to  focus  on 
slightly  more  abstract  issues  related  to  policy  frameworks  –  such  as  ‘what  are  the 
elements  of  a  good  housing  policy?’).  However,  bringing  together  the  different 
perspectives  on  specific  topics  around  the  same  table  was  ultimately  instrumental  in 
helping  to  raise  awareness  of  key  urban  issues  and  challenges,  foster  mutual 
understanding, and identify common ground and areas for further action. Overall, it is 
clear that the UAEU brought together the ‘right’ stakeholders to pursue its objectives in 
a broadly effective format, combining the local expertise of cities, contextual knowledge 
and  experience  in  similar  initiatives  of  MS,  knowledge  about  the  EU  policy  cycle  and 
funding programmes of the Commission, and specific contributions (including networks 
and  dissemination  channels)  of  other  EU-level  organisations  into  a  ‘complete  picture’ 
(specific  issues  with  the  level  of  participation,  engagement  and  expertise  of  certain 
actors in certain TPs notwithstanding).  

The working methods adopted by the TPs were also quite effective overall, with those 
who  were  directly  involved  providing  mostly  positive  feedback  on  the  format  and 
frequency of meetings, roles played by the coordinators, phasing of the Action Planning 
process, and availability of Technical Assistance to facilitate the work and alleviate the 
administrative burden on coordinators. A key feature of the TPs (especially in the first 
and second waves) was their ‘experimental’ nature. This meant the working methods 
and  expected  outputs  were  not  defined  very  prescriptively  at  the  outset.  Instead, 
individual TPs had significant leeway to go about their work in the way that best suited 
them and the topics they intended to tackle. This flexibility was a key enabler for the 
TPs’ success, as it enabled them to take a genuinely ‘bottom-up’ approach and define 
their own remit and focus in a way that  matched the interests and  expertise  of their 
members. 

However,  the  flexible  and  informal  nature  of  the  TPs,  and  the  lack  of  more  explicit 
processes, rules, guidance and/or expectations brought with it certain challenges, the 
main ones of which were: 

  Many  TPs  suffered  from  an  initial  lack  of  clarity  regarding  the  envisaged 
aims and content of their Action Plans, including what to focus on, and how 
best to achieve objectives (in particular, what kinds of actions were eligible for 
inclusion  in  the  Action  Plans,  and  whether  TP  members  themselves  were 
expected to fully implement all actions). This led to some difficulties and delays 
in the development, adoption and implementation of most Action Plans (for more 
on the latter see below), as well as significant differences in their content and 
level of ambition.  

65 

 
  There were also some misgivings about the  lack of transparency regarding 
how TP members were selected (especially in the early waves), as well as, 
to a certain extent, the lack of clarity regarding the type and level of commitment 
to the TP process that was expected of members. 

  The  voluntary  and  informal  nature  of  the  TPs  led  to  a  heavy  reliance  on  a 
(frequently  quite  small)  ‘hard  core’  of  active  and  engaged  members, 
especially coordinators, who were the main driving force behind the progress in 
most TPs, and  often invested a  very significant amount  of their own time and 
resources, while some other members were quite passive. This was partly due 
to  a  lack  of  expertise  of  some  participants  in  the  specific  topics  and  issues 
discussed  in  their  TPs.  But  there  was  also  a  certain  degree  of  disappointment 
among members (especially cities) of some TPs about what they perceived as a 
lack of meaningful engagement from certain stakeholders, in particular: 

o  While some MS representatives participated very actively in some TPs, 
many others did not. There appears to be a sense among some MS that 
the UAEU does not offer significant benefits for them, as they are already 
involved in discussions at EU level. In some cases, there may have also 
been  a  certain  reluctance  to  engage  with  cities  on  an  equal  footing,  as 
well  as  a  lack  of  experience  with  the  multi-level,  multi-stakeholder 
approach,  and/or  a  feeling  that  the  issues  discussed  were  of  limited 
relevance for the specific ministry that represented the MS in question in 
the TP.  

o  The participation of the Commission services was also highly uneven. 
The  main  factors  that  led  to  a  lack  of  engagement  were  that  DGs 
sometimes found it difficult to position themselves in the TPs (especially 
in  terms  of  striking  the  right  balance  between  being  “just”  another 
member, and guiding the process), and that some of the issues discussed 
in TPs were not high on the priority list of participating DGs. 

  Resource constraints also had a limiting effect on the TPs, which had to rely 
primarily  on  the  time  members  were  able  to  make  available  to  progress  their 
work. Finding sufficient time for this (on top of their “day jobs”) was challenging 
for  many  members,  in  particular  (smaller)  cities.  Although  some  funding  was 
available to support TPs (in the form of technical assistance, access to experts, 
and reimbursement of travel cost), its effectiveness was limited due to both the 
small amounts available, and, in some cases, a lack of awareness of the available 
support (some TPs did not use parts of the available budget).   

  The overall governance mechanism for the UAEU was quite ineffective. 
The  extent  to  which  the  UDG  and  DGUM  were  able  to  provide  meaningful 
guidance  and  steer  for,  feedback  to,  or  coordination  between  TPs,  was  very 
limited, which was due to a lack of clarity around how the role of these for a vis-
à-vis the UAEU was defined, but also the large number and specialised thematic 
focus of TPs, which meant it would have been very challenging for UDG and/or 
DGUM members to engage with all 14 TPs and their Action Plans in any significant 
depth. Various TP members also felt that the Commission could have provided 

 66 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

more  direction  to  the  Action  Planning  process,  although  it  was  generally 
recognised that the Commission had to walk a thin line between maintaining its 
impartiality  in  the  framework  of  the  UAEU,  and  moving  the  Action  Planning 
forward. 

 

In relation to the governance of the UAEU, it should also be highlighted that the 
internal  communication  within  and  between  the  different  elements  of 
the UAEU left something to be desired. The study findings suggest the flow 
of information between key actors (in particular the European Commission, TP 
coordinators,  and  the  Technical  Secretariat),  as  well  as  from  these  to  TP 
members at large has been suboptimal. The same applies to the information flow 
from the governing bodies to the TPs. This has contributed to the perceived lack 
of transparency and awareness of key issues including the available resources 
and how they can be used, the responsibilities for and implementation status of 
actions, etc.     

These  challenges  highlight  the  difficulty  of  striking  the  right  balance  between 
enabling a high degree of flexibility on the one hand, and ensuring sufficient clarity on 
the  other.  The  UAEU  process  prioritised  the  former  and,  in  spite  of  the  difficulties  it 
created  in  some  cases,  we  conclude  this  was  the  right  decision,  as  it  allowed  TPs  to 
experiment and find their own solutions to the issues they faced (even if this sometimes 
took  considerable  time  and  effort).  As  such,  the  UAEU  has  been  highly  effective  at 
fostering  cooperation,  coordination  and  interaction  between  stakeholders  at  different 
levels,  and  has  enabled  TPs  to  make  significant  progress  in  identifying  and  defining 
actions  under  all  three  pillars  that  it  focuses  on  (Better  Regulation,  Better  Funding, 
Better Knowledge). 

However,  judging  the  extent  to  which  this  progress  has  translated  into  a  tangible 
contribution  to  strengthening  the  urban  dimension  of  policies,  as  well  as 
facilitate their uptake, ultimately leading to a more efficient and effective policy making 
and implementation process, requires a nuanced assessment. The nature and level 
of ambition of Action Plans varies considerably, and generally speaking, whether they 
will ever be fully implemented is highly uncertain. This is not to say that there are not 
plenty  of  examples  of  actions  where  implementation  is  progressing  well,  and  is 
beginning  to  generate  tangible  impacts,  including  a  few  Commission  legislative 
proposals that individual TPs have reportedly had an influence on (usually regarding EU 
funding programmes for the post-2020 period), guidelines or recommendations aimed 
at  improving  the  implementation  of  existing legislation,  as  well  as  a  large  number  of 
best  practices,  guides,  toolkits  and  roadmaps  to  contribute  to  the  generation  and 
dissemination  of  Better  Knowledge.  However,  viewed  across  all  12  TPs  that  have 
finalised their Action Plans, and in light of the large number of actions included in these, 
we can draw the following key conclusions: 

  The highest number  of  actions are under the  Better Knowledge pillar.  While 
many of these are undoubtedly relevant and important, they are typically less 
likely to have a direct and significant effect on what is arguably the key aim of 
the UAEU, namely strengthening the urban dimension of (primarily EU) policies, 
by actually changing policies, legislation and/or access to funding opportunities 
where appropriate. The prevalence  of  Better Knowledge  actions appears to be 

67 

 
primarily due to the fact that they are often targeted directly at the local level, 
and tend to be ‘easier’ to address and implement because they do not require 
legislative  changes  that  cities  have  no  direct  control  over.  This  makes  them 
perfectly acceptable (and potentially useful) actions for TPs to pursue; however, 
they  typically  appear  less  likely  to  have  as  significant  (potential)  impacts  as 
actions  under  the  other  pillars,  as  well  as  less  unique  to  the  UAEU  (seeing  as 
other  fora  for  knowledge  generation  and  exchange  on  urban  issues  already 
exist). 

  As noted above, a key part of the UAEU’s raison d’être is arguably the ability to 
influence EU and/or national policy via changes to relevant laws and/or funding 
streams. This requires not only enhancing the knowledge base on urban issues 
(see above), but also action under the pillars of Better Regulation (“the more 
effective  and  coherent  implementation  of  existing  EU  policies,  legislation  and 
instruments”, as per the Pact of Amsterdam) and Better Funding (“identifying, 
supporting, integrating, and improving traditional, innovative and user-friendly 
sources of funding for Urban Areas”). In these areas, the TP Action Plans have 
successfully  identified  and  recommended  a  significant  number  of  desirable 
actions, but actual changes to date are still few and far between. In some ways, 
this is only natural – after all, TPs and their members have no direct influence 
over the relevant policy and legislative processes. In some cases, TP members 
were cautiously optimistic that their demands  and recommendations  would be 
addressed at the appropriate stage in the policy cycle in the coming years, and 
felt  the  Action  Plans  would  continue  to  serve  as  useful  tools  in  their  lobbying 
efforts. Nonetheless, the fact remains that, even though this study was able to 
identify a few examples of policy changes at the EU as well as national level, the 
overall tangible impact of the UAEU on policy design and implementation to date 
appears relatively limited. 

 

In relation to actions under all three pillars, it should also be noted that, in many 
cases,  a  perceived  lack  of  resources  and/or  unclear  responsibilities 
related  to  the  governance  model  represent  significant  constraints  to  the 
continued implementation of actions beyond the formal end of the lifetime of TPs 
(usually three years). While individual TP members reportedly intend to continue 
to make efforts to progress these, there is a risk that progress will remain limited 
and uneven in the absence of a clear framework for follow-up, and clarity over 
the resource implications. 

Beyond the implementation of the Action Plans developed by the TPs, there are 
other ways in which the UAEU can contribute to strengthening the urban dimension in 
the design and implementation of  relevant policies at the  EU but also at the national 
level: 

  Regarding  the  EU  level,  it  is  clear  that  the  existence  of  the  UAEU  has  already 
given  a  stronger  voice  to  cities,  many  of  whom  see  it  as  an  important  first 
step towards greater involvement of cities in EU decision-making. 

  Evidence of tangible effects of the UAEU on national policies, programmes 
and  initiatives  is  limited  (partly  because  it  was  not  possible  for  this  study  to 

 68 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

undertake  a  detailed  review  of  national  policies  and  structures).  In  a  recent 
survey, less than a third of MS reported the UAEU process had influenced urban 
policy  in  their  country  as  such,  but  slightly  over  half  reported  it  had  led  to 
changes in formal or informal structures. This study identified a few examples of 
new  national  structures  that  were  inspired  by  the  UAEU,  such  as  the  recently 
launched Spanish Urban Agenda, and a Greek network of municipalities hosting 
refugees. 

  As regards  wider outreach and awareness raising,  especially among cities 
that  are  not  directly  involved,  all  TPs  share  an  ambition  to  disseminate 
information about their work and Action Plans as widely as possible. Some  TPs 
have  been  quite  successful  in  reaching  out  to  a  “second  ring”  of  cities,  based 
largely on the efforts of coordinators and EU-level organisations with large pre-
established networks. However, other TPs have been more inwards-focused, and 
it also appears that the potential for umbrella organisations (such as EUKN) to 
disseminate information on the UAEU systematically among its members was not 
fully utilised. 

  The wider (non-TP) elements of the UAEU have been relatively ineffective. 
Progress  with  territorial  impact  assessments  has  been  limited,  and  familiarity 
and use of the 'One-Stop-Shop' portal and the ‘Futurium’ website seems to not 
have extended beyond the UAEU’s direct stakeholders. 

69 

 
 
 
 
4.2 Efficiency 

This chapter explores two main elements of the UAEU’s efficiency: 1) the extent to which 
the  UAEU’s  governance,  coordination,  management  and  administrative  structures 
ensure the UAEU is implemented  efficiently, and 2) the degree to which the financial 
and other resources invested by the EU and other stakeholders are proportionate to the 
benefits. 

4.2.1  OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY OF THE THEMATIC PARTNERSHIPS 

Assessment  question  5:  To  what  extent  do  the  UAEU’s  governance,  coordination, 
management  and  administrative  structures  ensure  the  UAEU  is  implemented 
efficiently? 

Stakeholders’  feedback  on  the  overall  operational  efficiency  of  the  Thematic 
Partnerships was fairly positive. When asked about the efficiency of the Urban Agenda 
and  in  particular  the  Thematic  Partnerships,  a  clear  majority  of  stakeholder  (61%) 
agreed or strongly agreed that the meetings organised for the TPs and the Action Plans 
were  delivered  in  a  cost  efficient  and  timely  manner  (see  Figure  below).  A  similar 
proportion  of  respondents  (57%)  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  the  Action  Plans  were 
delivered in a cost efficient and timely manner. Opinions were more divided regarding 
the cost efficiency and timeliness of the public feedback for the Action Plans, as well as 
the  activities  implementing  the  final  Action  Plans.  Less  than  half  of  the  surveyed 
stakeholders  (40%-48%)  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  latter  elements  were 
delivered  in  a  cost  efficient  and  timely  manner.  It  should  be  added  that  for  all  four 
elements relating to the TPs operational efficiency in the figure below, the proportion of 
respondents “strongly agreeing” was low, varying between 4% and 7%.  

 Operational efficiency 

Q4.1a.  Thinking  about  the  Urban  Agenda,  do  you  agree  or  disagree  that  the  following  actions 
were delivered in a cost efficient and timely manner? 
%; All respondents who are familiar with a Partnership and who answered question item (n=81-
83) 
Source: Online consultation 

 70 

4547364354542228161416611872151515160102030405060708090100The public feedback for the Action Plans for the ThematicPartnershipsThe actions / activities implementing the final Action PlansThe development of the Action Plans for the ThematicPartnershipsThe meetings organised for the Thematic PartnershipsDo you agree or disagree that the following actions were delivered in a cost efficient and timely manner?Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree nor DisagreeDisagreeStrongly DisagreeDon’t know 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

The  survey  findings  broadly  align  with  the  qualitative  feedback  obtained  through  the 
interviews. The organisation of the TP meetings was generally viewed positively. In most 
TPs,  the  coordinator  /  TP  management  team  organised  weekly  meetings  (conference 
calls) to coordinate the day-to-day activities. In some TPs, these meetings were held 
monthly. In addition, the Partnerships organised face-to-face meetings, bringing the TP 
members  together.  The  latter  meetings  were  usually  organised  around  every  three 
months. By and large, TP members felt that meetings were well prepared and organised 
and appreciated the opportunities to liaise with other members. Face-to-face meetings 
were valued, but also added to the travel costs for TP members, which caused issues 
for some participants (see below). No substantial negative feedback was given on the 
timeliness or appropriateness of meeting materials such as agendas, presentations or 
minutes. The atmosphere in meetings appears to have been positive and constructive 
in most TPs, with members talking for instance about a “fun experience”. Collaborative 
relations were formed and TP members generally felt that they could voice their opinion 
/ that their opinions were listened to during the meetings.  

In line with the survey results displayed in the figure above, opinions were more divided 
regarding the efficiency of the public feedback consultations for the Partnerships, hosted 
on  Futurium.  While  the  theoretical  added  value  of  these  consultations  as  a  tool  for 
collecting  feedback,  and  reaching  out  beyond  the  TPs  was  not  disputed,  many  TP 
members felt that the added value of the public feedback consultations for the Action 
Planning was not proportionate with the efforts required. A reason for this appears to 
have been that the overall response to the consultations was quite low.  

More in general, stakeholders noted that progressing through the often-packed meeting 
agendas for the Action Planning was no easy task. The format of the TPs appears not 
always to have been conducive to efficient working. TPs encompassed a diverse set of 
members  with  sometimes  widely  diverging  opinions,  areas  of  interest,  resources, 
expertise and experience with similar processes, making it challenging to make progress 
in meetings. Moreover, some coordinators appear to have been more experienced with 
presiding  over  such  meetings  than  others.  Although  overall,  coordinators  were 
considered to have done a good job in term of getting to a finalised Action Plan, in a few 
TPs, some members noted that a stronger / more experienced coordinator might have 
been able to provide more direction to the Action Planning process and broader TP. This 
could,  for  example,  have  helped  when  boiling  down  a  plethora  of  good  ideas  to  an 
actionable  Action  Plan  in  a  reasonable  amount  of  time  –  something  that  proved 
challenging in numerous TPs. 

A lot of time was spent in the TPs on discussing, consolidating, and detailing the actions 
and how to implement them. Most TPs experienced delays during the Action Planning 
process  (see  also  case  study  on  Action  Planning  and  chapter  on  Effectiveness).  This 
apparent  lack  of  efficiency  in  the  Action  Planning  process  was  certainly  not  blamed 
exclusively,  or  even  at  all,  on  coordinators.  Stakeholders  pointed  towards  various 
difficulties  inherent  in  the  Action  Planning  process,  including  the  (too)  limited  time 
foreseen for the Action Planning process. In addition, it was felt by significant numbers 
of stakeholders that certain elements of the UAEU’s governance and support structures 
were  detrimental  to  the  efficiency  of  the  Action  Planning  process  and  broader  UAEU, 
including the following (all discussed in the section below):  

71 

 
1.  a perceived lack of guidance provided to the TPs; 

2.  limitations in the technical expertise in TPs and the technical support provided; and 

3.  limits to the funding provided.  

Operational efficiency of the governance and support structures 

In relation to the first point above, many stakeholders believed that the Action Planning 
process could have been more efficient if more guidance had been provided to the 
TPs on the processes to follow and steps to take, as well as on the expected outcomes 
of the Action Planning. It was noted by stakeholders that the Pact of Amsterdam was 
not detailed on the Action Planning process and the implementation of Actions, and that 
the  DGUM/UDG  and  the  Commission  provided  /  were  able  to  provide  only  limited 
guidance  and  steering.  For  example,  it  was  reported  that  the  DGUM/UDG  lacked  the 
capacity and/or know-how to follow-up all 14 Action Plans in detail. The Commission felt 
it could not play a more central role during the later stages of the Action Planning, as it 
needed to maintain a neutral position (see Chapter on Effectiveness). This provided the 
TPs and coordinators with  ample room for own  initiative, which was valued by TP 
members, taking into account the UAEU’s experimental nature. However, at the same 
time, in at least some TPs, the absence of steering appears to have went hand in hand 
with a lack of direction in the Action Planning process. Several TP members also felt 
themselves that they could have used more steer. Coordinators mentioned for example 
that  they  would  have  welcomed  more  feedback  from  the  Commission  on  their 
orientation or scoping papers, before moving on to preparing the draft Action Plan.  

Overall, the support that was provided by the Technical Secretariat (TS) was 
seen  as  beneficial  to  the  efficient  implementation  of  the  UAEU.  Stakeholders 
were  especially  positive  regarding  the  logistical  support  for  organising  meetings  and 
coordination. Stakeholders recognised that this support was a crucial factor for efficient 
Action  Planning,  especially  because  it  was  instrumental  in  keeping  the  members 
engaged  in  the  TPs’  calls  and  meetings.  Stakeholders  rated  the  day-to-day 
administrative  support  offered  by  the  TS  positively  as  well.  The  TS  was  described  as 
generally  responsive.  Coordinators  noted  that  its  assistance  helped  them  to  perform 
their role more efficiently, allowing them to focus on the more strategic parts of their 
tasks, like preparing the actions. This support could, for example, take the form of the 
TS  assisting  with  launching  a  survey  among  TP  members  in  order  to  identify  priority 
actions. Coordinators who were less accustomed to EU projects (as was notably the case 
for  some  smaller  cities)  found  the  support  of  the  TS  particularly  useful.  Several 
interviewees  believed,  moreover,  that  the  TS  fostered  cooperation  between  the  TP 
members and the European Commission, as it played the role of intermediary.  

Availability / sufficiency of resources 

As noted in section 2.6.4, the budget allocated to the UAEU technical support Framework 
Contract (FWC) amounted to € 4.8 million, of which circa €4.2 million was allocated to 
the technical assistance to all 14 Partnerships. This means the available budget for each 
TP was about €250,000 for two years (for more information on the technical assistance 
budget, please refer to section 2.6.4).  

 72 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Notwithstanding the available resources, some concerns were raised by stakeholders 
regarding the technical assistance provided to the TPs. This was for the most part linked 
to  perceived  limitations  to  the  TS’  mandate  and  funding.  Some  stakeholders 
praised  the  involvement  of  the  TS  in  for  example  drafting  the  Action  Plan  and  other 
more technical elements, but others had the feeling that the TS could mainly provide 
administrative and organisational support. And the latter stakeholders felt that this had, 
to some extent, a negative impact on the efficiency of the Action Planning. For example, 
it  was  noted  by  some  TP  members  that  it  would  have  had  a  positive  impact  on  the 
efficiency  the  Action  Planning  if  more  external  technical  experts  could  have  been 
involved through the TS. In relation to this, a Member noted for instance that the single 
external expert on his / her TP was not knowledgeable on all facets of the TP theme and 
that  they  had  favoured  involving  someone  else33.  Members  from  other  TPs  reported, 
however, to be quite happy with the work of the external expert on their TP.  

There  was  also  a  feeling  that  the  TS  in  theory  could  have  done  more  in  terms  of 
communication and outreach to third parties. As noted in section 2.6.5, the number 
of page views of the TP specific landing pages on the Futurium website, as well as the 
number of Twitter followers of the UAEU account, was not especially high, for instance 
compared  to  the  URBACT  Twitter  account.  However,  it  is  unclear  whether  more 
communication activities would have fitted in the TS’s current mandate.  

The divergence in opinions on the level of support of the TS appears to have been partly 
related to a lack of clarity or awareness about the role of the TS and the support it 
could provide. It appears that it was not always communicated very well by the TS itself 
or the  coordinators what the TS could do. Several TP members noted that they were 
not  fully  aware  about  what  kind  of  support  they  could  get  from  the  TS.  A  few 
stakeholders also noted that it was not clear to them how the TS budget was spent. 

A lack of funding for the TPs and their members was perceived as a problem 
by  stakeholders.  As  noted  above,  through  the  TS,  approximately  €250,000  was 
available  per  TP  for  support,  expertise,  outreach  and  communication,  travel 
reimbursements, and support to the European Commission. Nonetheless, TP members 
had to invest substantial own means (see also section 4.2.2 below).  This might have 
had  a  negative  impact  on  the  efficiency  of  the  Action  Planning  process,  as  some  TP 
members  reduced  their  involvement,  in  particular  in  between  meetings.  With  the 
extension of the duration of TPs (see below), these issues appear to have become more 
pressing, especially during the implementation stage, with some  members  effectively 
stopping their involvement in the TP. 

In  particular  the  limited  funding  available  for  travel  was  frequently  raised  as  an 
issue (a little over €3,000 per year, as mentioned above). TP members reported that 
this was sometimes not sufficient, due to the high number of stakeholders involved in 
the TPs. It should be added that, based on the final reports of the Amsterdam TPs, it 
appears that the budget allocated to travel reimbursements of TP members was almost 
completely spent in only two of the four TPs that were part of this wave (Inclusion of 
Migrants and Refugees and Air Quality, see table below), while most wave two TPs spent 

33 In relation to this, it should be noted that in principle TPs decided on the basis of consensus on the experts to 
involve, but that the coordinator could make the decision if no agreement could be reached. 

73 

 
                                                 
very  little.  The  divergence  between  TPs  in  term  of  travel  budget  spent  might  be 
explained  by  different  needs  and  planning  in  the  TPs.  However,  some  members  also 
noted that the lack of awareness on the funding possibilities (as mentioned previously) 
played a role. This again appears to have been an issue of communication. It was part 
of  the  coordinators’  and  the  Secretariat’s  role  to  inform  members  about  funding 
possibilities, but nonetheless some TP members appear not to have been aware about 
the possibilities for reimbursement of travel.  

Table 7 :  Technical assistance budget spent (travel and technical expertise) 

Wave  

Partnership  

% travel 
budget spent 

No. of thematic & techn. 
expertise days used  

Wave 1 
(Amsterdam) 

Inclusion of migrants and 
refugees  

Wave 2 
(Bratislava) 

Housing  

Urban poverty 

Air quality  

Jobs & Skills  

Circular Economy 

Urban Mobility  

Digital Transition 

98.5% 

78.5% 

73.1% 

96.9% 

0 

16.8% 

23.6% 

76.6% 

70  

68 

70 

70 

68 

87.5 

81.5  

53  

Source: Technopolis Group based on the Final reports of the Amsterdam (Wave 1) and Bratislava 
(Wave 2) Partnerships 

Some  stakeholders  also  noted  that  the  fact  that  no  funding  was  provided  for  the 
implementation of actions, including for Action Leaders, hampered the implementation 
process,  partly  explaining  the  limited  progress  with  achieving  Better  Regulation  and 
Better  Funding,  in  particular.  In  relation  to  this,  it  should  be  mentioned  that  every 
Partnership  received  funding  for  two  years  through  the  TS  which  could  be  used  for 
implementation. With most TPs being extended beyond the initially foreseen timeframe, 
this means that limited or no technical support is available during the later stages of the 
TPs,  although  targeted  support  was  made  available  for  TPs  that  were  not  receiving 
general TS support anymore34. 

34 The support for TPs that no longer receive TS support is provided in the form of 1 to 15 days of expert work. The 
experts are selected based on individual requests and in cooperation with the Action Leader. In a pilot phase, 
up to two actions per Partnership can benefit from support services, if they meet certain criteria (e.g. the TP 
has decided to continue its activities, the action reflects the commitment of different TP members and involves 
multiple levels of governance (city, national, EU, etc.) and relevant stakeholders, etc.). See: ‘Amsterdam 
Partnerships', Urban Agenda for the EU (11 February 2019).  

 74 

 
 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

4.2.2  PROPORTIONALITY OF COSTS AND (PERCEIVED) BENEFITS 

Assessment question 6: To what extent are the financial and other resources invested 
by the EU and other stakeholders proportionate to the benefits? 

The  coordinators  themselves  reported  that  the  Action  Planning  process  constituted  a 
heavy  burden  for  them.  As  noted  in  the  Chapter  on  Effectiveness,  the  coordinators 
played a crucial role in moving the Action Planning process forward, due to a variety of 
reasons, including the limited involvement and expertise  of  some  other TP  members, 
the limited guidance provided, and the limitations in the technical support provided (see 
above). In practice this meant that coordinators did a lot of work. Notwithstanding the 
overall positive opinions on the support offered by the TS (see above), this reportedly 
included more practical tasks such as drafting articles for the Futurium website. Most 
coordinators  appear  to  have  taken  their  task  very  seriously.  For  example,  in  the 
Inclusion  of  Migrants  and  Refugees  TP,  one  of  the  two  coordinators  (the  city  of 
Amsterdam) reported having had someone working on the project full time for the entire 
three years of the TP, with multiple people in a supporting role. While this may not be 
representative  for  all  coordinators,  it  does  show  that  coordinators  needed  to  invest 
substantial own means in the Action Planning process.  

The feedback suggests that the same was also the case for many other members of the 
TPs. It appears that active TP members typically invested substantial own means in 
the UAEU. A national-level government ministry noted, for  example, to have paid for 
moderators,  travel  for  other  partners  etc.  In  the  stakeholder  survey,  TP  members 
(including  coordinators)  reported  on  average  to  have  invested  0.78  FTE  on  the  TP  in 
2018. This figure varied between 0.02 and 4 FTE (excl. zeros)35. Members’ self-declared 
average resources invested in the TP in 2018 amounted to 18,826 EUR on average; an 
amount  which  would  be  substantially  higher  if  disregarding  some  very  low  amounts. 
Despite the fact that these figures could not be verified with other data, meaning that 
they should be interpreted with care, they do point to a substantial commitment in terms 
of time and resources by TP members.  

Did the TP members believe that the investments they made for the UAEU, in terms of 
time and resources committed, were proportionate to the costs? Also in relation to this, 
the  feedback  received  was  usually  positive.  Most  interviewees  noted  that  the 
resources invested by their organisation in the UAEU/TPs were in line with, or 
were outweighed by, the benefits. In the stakeholder survey, only about one in ten 
surveyed stakeholders (12%) felt that they spent too much time on the Urban Agenda 
(see Figure below). A relative majority of surveyed stakeholders  (37%) reported that 
they had spent less time than they would have liked on the UAEU. The latter figure was 
substantially higher for cities and urban entities: half (50%) of city-level respondents 
reported that they spent less time than they would have liked on the UAEU.  

35 1 zero was excluded 

75 

 
                                                 
 Opinions on the amount of time committed to the UAEU 

Q4.2.  Thinking  about  the  number  of  working  hours  your  organisation  commits  to  the  Urban 
Agenda and the benefits the Urban Agenda generates, would you say you… 
%; All respondents who are familiar with the Urban Agenda / cities and urban entities that are 
familiar with the Urban Agenda (n=99 / 32) 
Source: Online consultation 

To  a  certain  degree,  the  figure  above  contradicts  the  finding  that  the  TPs  so  far  had 
limited success with implementing actions, in particular ‘Better Regulation’ and ‘Better 
Funding’ actions, especially because many stakeholders considered these Actions to be 
a vital success factor for the UAEU (see for example Chapter on EU Added Value). An 
explanation  for  this  apparent  paradox  is  that  stakeholder  based  their  opinion  on  the 
time they committed to the UAEU on the expected  long term impacts, as the UAEU 
was often seen first and foremost as a stepping stone towards greater involvement of 
cities in EU decision-making. 

4.2.3  CONCLUSIONS: EFFICIENCY 

In view of the diverse and often intangible effects, as well as the unclear total costs to 
all stakeholders, the cost-effectiveness ratio of the UAEU cannot be robustly quantified. 
However, based on the feedback from those involved, the TPs operational efficiency 
–  in  terms  of  the  extent  to  which  its  governance,  coordination,  management  and 
administrative structures have helped to ensure its efficient implementation – seems to 
have been fairly high. The atmosphere in most TPs appears to have been collaborative, 
and members felt able to freely voice their views and opinions. The majority also agreed 
(albeit  not  strongly)  that  both  TP  meetings  and  the  Action  Planning  process  were 
delivered in a cost-efficient and timely manner. This was facilitated in large part by the 
critical work of the coordinators, as well as the availability of support from the Technical 
Secretariat. The latter provided a wide range of support, which was seen as beneficial, 
especially  the  logistical  support  for  organising  meetings  and  coordination,  allowing 
coordinators to focus more on strategic aspects of their role. 

 76 

16%13%22%50%17%12%33%37%Don’t knowSpend more time than you would like to on the Urban AgendaSpend about the right amount of time on the Urban AgendaSpend less time than you would like to on the Urban AgendaAll respondentsCities and urban entities 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

It would be wrong to conclude from the above that the  Action Planning process of 
most TPs was efficient in the strict sense of the word. It appears to have been difficult 
for TP members to boil down ideas and agree on concrete actions. The Action Planning 
process  often  took  longer  than  participants  had  anticipated  and  those  involved 
sometimes felt that there was limited overall direction. This was linked to a multi-level 
governance format and experimental nature of the TPs. The fact that Partnerships bring 
together such a diverse group of members, with varying degrees of expertise, previous 
experience, perspectives and expectations, meant it was often challenging to agree on 
where to focus efforts and progress from the initial exchanges of ideas and priorities to 
the  definition  and  filtering  of  concrete  actions.  The  evidence  suggests  that  this  was 
further  exacerbated  by  the  limited  guidance  and  steer  available  to  the  TPs  from  the 
DGUM, UDG and/or DG REGIO, as well as the perceived limited ability to draft in more 
relevant technical expertise via the Technical Secretariat (which appears to have been 
to  a  large  extent  a  communication  problem  –  as  coordinators  and  the  Technical 
Secretariat appear not to have been able to explain to all members the support that was 
available). These factors / gaps made the role of the coordinators even more crucial, 
and  resulted  in  an  especially  heavy  burden  on  them  in  terms  of  time  and  resource 
investment. 

But the need to invest substantial own resources extended to all TP members, not just 
coordinators. The findings suggest that the burden for TP members’ involvement in the 
UAEU  in  terms  of  time  and  opportunity  costs  was  sometimes  heavy.  Nonetheless, 
almost all were happy to make this commitment, also the UAEU is seen as a long-
term  investment  on  the  way  to  a  better  representation  of  cities,  and  a  better 
consideration  of  urban  concerns,  in  EU  decision-making.  Nonetheless,  the  limited 
availability  of  financial  resources  did  have  a  negative  impact  on  the  work  of  TPs, 
especially  the  action  Planning  and  implementation.  A  particular  issue  was  the  limited 
funding for travel, which caused some TP members to limit their participation or even 
(in a few cases) drop out entirely whereas every TP had a budget available, which was 
unfortunately not always fully used. Also the fact that technical support largely stopped 
before the end of the TPs appears to have been detrimental to the implementation of 
actions, if only because TP members had the  feeling that they were  left to their own 
devices. 

77 

 
 
 
4.3 Relevance 

This  section  aims  to  assess  the  extent  to  which  the  key  objectives  of  the  UAEU  are 
aligned with the current societal needs and urban challenges the initiative is intended 
to address. It is important to understand whether the objectives of the UAEU correspond 
with the most pressing needs of stakeholders and citizens, and are therefore appropriate 
to tackling the most significant underlying problems and barriers. We focus the analysis 
of relevance on the main features of the UAEU, i.e. its approach to streamlining urban 
concerns into policy via facilitating cooperation between stakeholders at different levels 
from across the EU, and the main pillars, themes and issues on which the UAEU seeks 
to make progress.  

4.3.1  RELEVANCE OF THE MULTI-LEVEL AND MULTI-STAKEHOLDER 

COOPERATION APPROACH 

Assessment question 7: To what extent is the UAEU’s approach of multi-level and multi-
stakeholder cooperation relevant for strengthening the urban dimension in EU policy? 

The  JRC’s  2019  “Future  of  cities”  report36  highlights  a  growing  trend  at  global  level 
towards  emphasising  urban  governance  and  the  role  of  cities  in  tackling  societal 
challenges  (JRC,  2019),  with  a  series  of  recent  reports  by  EU  and  international 
organisations  outlining  similar  point  (EU  and  UN-HABITAT,  2016).  In  February  2019, 
the  Seville  Commitment  was  adopted  by  representatives  of  the  United  Nations  (UN), 
national, regional and local governments, civil society, private sector and academia to 
emphasise the need to involve local and regional governments in implementing the UN 
2030 Agenda and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN, 2019).  

As it currently stands, the EU-level governance set-up by default foresees a very limited 
role for cities, as national governments remain the main contact points and negotiation 
partners  for  the  Commission  (Purkathofer,  2019).  The  Urban  Agenda  for  the  EU 
distinguishes  itself  from  its  predecessors  (e.g.  the  Leipzig  Charter  of  2007,  Toledo 
Declaration of 2010 and the Riga Declaration of 2015) by being “the first to translate 
the  recognition  of  the  cities’  role  in  EU  and  national  policies  into  concrete  actions” 
(Potjer, 2017). This is also acknowledged and appreciated by the Mayors of EU capital 
cities, who are positive about the UAEU and its implications (Mayors of the Capital Cities 
of EU, 2018).  

Broadly speaking, views from the academic community confirm that the UAEU can be a 
tool  that  responds  to  the  gradual  trend  towards  a  new  type  of  governance:  (Potjer, 
2017)  and  (Hajer,  2018)  describe  the  UAEU  as  “promising”  (providing  significant 
opportunities for  cities  to have an impact on  EU policy-making) but also “vulnerable” 
(since it is an informal and voluntary method), with a strong need to demonstrate its 
own success “by delivering concrete results”. 

In its 2018 opinion, the European Committee of the Regions (CoR) acknowledged the 
potential of the UAEU, and welcomed its “ground-breaking working methods”, but also 
raised some concerns around (1) a possible “lack of ownership” (due to the voluntary 

36 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/future-cities 

 78 

 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

profile  of  the  overall  governance  structure,  the  passiveness  on  the  part  of  certain 
Members States and some internal organisation issues), and (2) the lack of resources 
(particularly  to  cover  the  costs  of  participation  of  small  and  medium  cities,  see  also 
section 4.2.1. on for example the reimbursement of travel). The CoR highlighted that 
the UAEU should not be “restricted to a mere networking exercise”, which, in the view 
of the CoR, may require a “more binding political commitment” as well as consideration 
of a “specific financial mechanism” (CoR, 2018).37 

The stakeholders surveyed as part of this assessment study attached great importance 
to the key objectives of the Urban Agenda. Improved access of cities and urban areas 
to  EU  funding was rated as most important (rated 8.8 out of 10, in which 10 is very 
important).  This  was  followed  by  having  Better  Knowledge  and  data  on  urban  issues 
(8.6  out  of  10),  more  cooperation  with  cities  and  urban  areas  in  other  European 
countries (8.5 out of 10), increasing the influence of cities and urban areas on national 
or  regional  policy-making  (8.4  out  of  10),  and  increasing  the  influence  of  cities  and 
urban areas on EU policy-making (8.3 out of 10), see figure below.  

 Importance attached to key aims Urban Agenda 

Q2.2. Thinking about the current situation in your country / the EU, how important do you think 
it is to… 
Please answer using the scale in which 10 is “very important” and 0 is “not important at all”. 
Score out of 10; All respondents who answered question item (n=115 to 117) 
Source: Online consultation 

Another key finding is that 61% of the stakeholders surveyed in the context of this study 
were of the opinion that there are not enough ways for cities to influence EU policy 
on  urban  matters  without  the  Urban  Agenda.  This  underlines  the  perceived 
necessity for a forum such as the UAEU for cities to be more integrated in the EU-level 
policy cycle and influence agendas at EU, national or local levels across EU.  

37 European Committee of the Regions (2018): Opinion - Implementation assessment of the Urban Agenda 

for the EU, COTER-VI/037 

79 

7.38.38.48.58.68.8012345678910have the EU involved in coordinating and supporting urbanpolicy making at the national and local levels?increase the influence of cities and urban areas on EUpolicy-making?increase the influence of cities and urban areas on nationalor regional policy-making?have more cooperation with cities and urban areas in otherEuropean countries?have better knowledge and data on urban issues?improve the access of cities and urban areas to EU funding?How important do you think it is to… (Score out of 10) 
 
                                                 
 
Following the experience of the first 2.5 years of implementation of the UAEU, the views 
of the stakeholders interviewed as part of this study support the idea that the UAEU 
approach  to  promoting  cooperation  across  multiple  governance  layers  is 
generally relevant and needed, with a view to making cities’ voices better heard at 
EU level. In its report published one year after the launch of the Pact of Amsterdam, 
EUKN found that the UAEU had reinforced the focus on co-ordination of urban topics at 
EU level both horizontally (within and between relevant EU institutions) and vertically 
(by building “bridges” between cities, Member States and EU institutions) (EUKN, 2017). 
In  a  joint  meeting  of  the  European  Commission’s  DGs  involved  in  the  UAEU  TPs 
organised in February 2019, the participants agreed that “the multi-level governance is 
key to the achievements of the Urban Agenda”.38 However, as pointed out by the Mayors 
meeting at the 2019 Mayors Summit in London, “there is still a considerable discrepancy 
between  the  impact  of  Mayors  on  the  citizens’  lives  and  the  level  of  involvement  by 
Mayors in European and national policy making” (EU Capital City Mayors, 2019).   

Nevertheless, specific points for improvement were raised. Notably, the UAEU multi-
level cooperation  approach is  not considered equally  relevant  by  all types of 
stakeholders  involved.  As  explained  in  more  detail  in  the  sections  below,  city 
representatives generally find it a relevant means to channel their concerns to the EU 
level, and the  Commission especially appreciates the  opportunities to  understand  the 
urban  implications  of  EU  legislation  implementation  and  enforcement  and  to  have  a 
direct dialogue with the local level. The Member State representatives consulted for this 
study, on the other hand, on average found the UAEU somewhat less relevant to their 
own interests.  

Relevance of the UAEU approach to the Commission 

Discussions  at  the  DGs  meeting  in  2019  assessing  the  experiences  of  Commission 
representatives participating in UAEU39 suggest that, to the European Commission, the 
UAEU multi-level cooperation method is the most important achievement of the initiative 
to  date.  Its  relevance  is  considered  generally  important  especially  for  the 
Commission to understand enforcement and implementation issues related to 
EU policies. Furthermore, as confirmed by interviews, Commission representatives find 
it important that through being involved in the UAEU, they can obtain a clearer picture 
of the realities on the ground and have the opportunity to explain EU policies to the TP 
members.  

As highlighted in other sections of this report, the role of the Commission may also be 
somewhat conflicting when it comes to the Commission DGs’ engagement in TPs. On 
the one hand, the Commission can be an equal member in UAEU Partnerships and allows 
the  bottom-up  development  of  ideas  and  actions  within  the  TPs;  on  the  other  hand, 
based on the interviews and case studies, TP participants expect the Commission to act 
on  the  recommendations  resulting  from  the  Action  Planning  work.  In  the  stakeholder 
survey performed for this study, 26% of TP participants believed that the lack of support 

38 Based on minutes of the EC meeting taking stock of EC DGs’ involvement with UAEU shared by the EC 

with the assessment team 

39 Based on minutes of the EC meeting taking stock of EC DGs’ involvement with UAEU shared by the EC 

with the assessment team  

 80 

 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

from Commission DGs (other than DG REGIO) is one of the main barriers to the UAEU 
realising  its  full  potential.  Commission-level  stakeholders  noted  that  the  Commission 
position in TPs is to a certain extent a balancing act. Especially when involved in an EU 
legislative  process  on  a  particular  topic,  the  Commission  needs  to  take  into  account 
different views beyond the ones expressed in the TP on that topic, and its role should 
not  necessarily  be  expected  to  be  to  influence  or  endorse  the  positions  by  the 
Partnerships or their members.40 

The consensus among the DGs is that the UAEU cooperation approach should be better 
structured, especially when working within TPs. The EU Capital City Mayors proposed as 
a solution to nominate a Commission Vice-President for Urban Affairs, and hand over 
the coordination of Commission’s involvement in the Urban Agenda to the Secretariat 
General of the European Commission (EU Capital City Mayors, 2019)41. Moreover, they 
are  of  the  opinion  that  the  Urban  Agenda  activities  should  be  included  in  the 
Commission’s Annual Work Programme (ibid).  

Relevance of the UAEU approach to the MS  

The governance framework of the UAEU, which considerably relies on UDG and DGUM 
meetings,  provides  a  space  for  vertical  cooperation  between  national  and  European 
governance levels. Based on interviews performed in the inception phase of the present 
assessment study and desk review, the role of the MS and Council Presidencies was key 
in  promoting  the  UAEU  at  EU  level.  Many  participating  MS  reportedly  highlight  the 
positive impact that the UAEU governance and cooperation model has had in terms of 
raising  awareness  to  the  issue  of  multilevel  governance,  thereby  bringing  “EU  urban 
policy-making  closer  to  national  urban-related  discussions  and  stakeholders  (EUKN, 
2017).” According to the survey performed by the 2019 Romanian Presidency among 
MS participating in the UAEU, the main benefits to MS include: Exchanges with other 
countries  on  urban  issues;  Updated  information  on  urban  policy  at  European  level; 
exchange  of  best  practices,  networking;  learning  on  how  to  better  integrate  urban 
concerns in national policies (Romanian Presidency of the EU Council , 2019).  

However,  this  type  of  benefits  may  be  insufficient  for  some  MS  to  ensure  proactive 
engagement in the UAEU. Based on the  survey with UAEU stakeholders performed in 
this study, one of the top bottlenecks to the UAEU realising its full potential is 
the lack of interest and involvement from MS (according to 31% of the TP members 
and coordinators surveyed). The EUKN report assessing the UAEU after one year from 
the Pact of Amsterdam also highlights that this unbalanced engagement from the side 
of  the  MS  can  be  one  bottleneck  related  to  the  cities’  voice  being  sufficiently  heard 
through  the  UAEU  (EUKN,  2017).  This  finding  is  confirmed  by  interviews  and  case 
studies performed within this assessment. 

As stated in the minutes of the European Commission DGs’ meeting on tacking stock of 
Commission’s experiences with engaging in the UAEU from February 2019, there is an 

40 Based on minutes of the meeting of EC DGs on experiences on UAUE, shared by the EC with the 

assessment team. 

41 EU Capital City Mayors. (2019). Joint declaration by the Mayors of the 28 EU Capital Cities, 25 June 2019. 

8th EU Capital City Mayors Meeting. London. 

81 

 
                                                 
impression  among  the  DGs  that  the  benefits  of  participation  in  the  UAEU  seem 
limited for the Member States, and therefore the representatives involved in the TPs 
may place less importance on their involvement.  

Some of the reasons mentioned for the low MS participation relate, on the one hand, to 
the  fact  that  the  Member  States’  participation  in  the  EU-level  inter-institutional 
legislative process through the EU Council provides them with an important forum for 
representation  and  formally  influencing  EU  policy.  On  the  other  hand,  the  topics 
developed within the UAEU TPs might not always be sufficiently relevant to the 
MS. Some stakeholders (in particular MS representatives) believed that issues related 
to national implementation of EU rules, national legislation or national implementation 
processes  would  be  more  interesting  to  MS  and  potentially  ensure  their  increased 
engagement.  

In addition, according to findings from this assessment’s case studies, further factors 
may hamper the MS’ active participation:  

  Relevance of the ministries involved: the Ministries involved in the TPs have 
been  perceived  as  less  relevant  in  a  large  share  of  TPs;  in  many  cases, 
representatives  from  the  Ministries  of  Regional  and  Urban  Development  were 
involved, which were not as knowledgeable of the topic discussed or  were not 
always individuals who were considered to be best placed within their MS to open 
doors  and  start  conversations  with  other  MS.  Several  interviewees  considered 
that representatives of line Ministries dealing with the specific topic would have 
been better suited to take part in the TP.  

  Cultural  issues:  there  might  be  a  reluctance  to  get  involved  in  multi-level, 
multi-stakeholder initiatives such as UAEU from the side of MS, as they might 
not  be  used  to  working  in  this  type  of  environment.  Based  on  the  case  study 
findings, this might have had an impact on their initial decision to join the TP, 
but  also  on  their  involvement  throughout  the  TP,  as  at  least  a  third  of  the 
Partnerships noted that the engagement of MS had starkly decreased over time.   

  Resource constraints and skills gap, including time constraints, opportunity 

costs for participation, lack of suitable or English-speaking staff.     

Based on the 2019 survey with MS representatives performed by the Romanian Council 
Presidency, there were several ideas on how MS’ participation, or the relevance of UAEU 
to their needs could be increased. These ideas relate to: 

  Facilitating  the  translation  of  UAEU  TP  results  into  nationally  relevant issues  – 
e.g.  by  “fostering  linkages  and  reports  of  national  urban  policies  and  feeding 
them  into  the  Action  Planning”  /  “synthesising  local  outcomes  into  strategic  / 
national approaches”; “Linking the results closely to the national circumstances 
and  communicate  them  to  cities”;  “Establishing  national  focal  points  for  the 
Urban Agenda, linked to URBACT and EUKN focal points”. 

  Clarifying more the role of the MS and stronger involvement of line ministries in 

TPs.  

 82 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

 

Improving funding to UAEU e.g. by promoting financial opportunities for MS to 
develop  actions  under  UAEU,  or  requiring  national  funding  for  financing  UAEU 
actions. 

Relevance of the UAEU approach to cities  

According  to  case  study  interviewees,  cities  are  a  key  stakeholder  in  the  multi-
governance,  multi-stakeholder  approach  adopted  by  the  UAEU,  and  they  were 
considered as critical actors in the Thematic Partnerships. The representation of cities 
in  most  Partnerships  was  described  as  excellent,  and  generally  well-balanced  across 
sizes and locations. Across the TPs considered for this study, cities have generally been 
engaged  actors,  as  they  valued  the  opportunity  to  feed  into  EU  policymaking  and 
believed their work as part of the UAEU could have a ‘real impact’ on their daily work. 
Nevertheless, there were also examples of cities that were not engaged (e.g. because 
they  lacked  the  financial  and/or  human  resources),  as  noted  by  the  coordinators 
interviewed.  

Generally, the city representatives interviewed as part of the case studies found it useful 
to engage in TPs in order to find or develop practical solutions to their local challenges, 
e.g. through:  

a)  increasing  their  knowledge  on  specific  aspects  within  the  theme  they  were 

working on, exchange experiences, share good practices;  

b)  trying to influence policy at the EU level in the particular thematic area, especially 
with  a  view  to  obtaining  more  EU  funding  for  the  urban  level  or  decrease  the 
bureaucracy in accessing the EU funding; and to a lesser extent, adjust the EU 
regulatory frameworks on some issues, which were perceived as not reflecting 
the local experiences.  

Not  all  types  of  cities  manage  to  get  engaged  in  UAEU.  Several  sources  including  TP 
members’ interviews performed for case studies, as well as the Romanian Presidency’s 
assessment of the UAEU (Romanian Presidency of the EU Council , 2019) point to the 
fact  that  there  are  unequal  opportunities  for  cities  of  smaller  or  medium  sizes  to  get 
involved, as well as for cities in lagging regions, due to the lack of resources (financial 
or staff resources) to participate. It appears that larger cities and capital cities are the 
most 
representation  (or 
‘overrepresentation’, in the view of some stakeholders) of larger cities in TPs is further 
amplified by the participation of associations such as Eurocities, which is a network of 
large cities. 

in  TPs.  The  strong 

types  of  cities 

represented 

Key barriers and bottlenecks in making cities’ concerns heard at EU level 
through the UAEU 

While  the  UAEU  represents  a  new  approach  to  multi-level  cooperation  at  EU  level  by 
increasing  the  voice  of  cities,  there  is  uncertainty  surrounding  the  question  of  how 
precisely to incorporate cities in the governance model, which points to the need to pay 
specific attention to methodological processes (see (Hajer, 2018)). There are therefore 
still particular issues in the UAEU cooperation model that need calibration in the future.  

83 

 
In sum, as specified earlier, the following issues still need to be addressed in order to 
remove barriers to cities’ more concrete involvement at EU level through the UAEU:  

  Alignment of expectations between the stakeholders participating in the TPs and 
the governance bodies, for example with regard to the lack of clarity in terms of 
the roles of the Commission, the low participation of MS and the relatively less 
strong participation of cities of small sizes;   

  The  perceived  lack  of  appropriate  resources  for  (especially  medium  to  small) 

cities to contribute to the TPs. 

  Clarification  of  incentives  for  the  participants  to  engage  in  UAEU  activities, 
especially  when  it  comes  to  the  participation  of  MS  representatives  and 
Commission DGs. 

4.3.2  RELEVANCE OF THE PILLARS, THEMES AND CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES 

Assessment question 8: To what extent are the pillars, themes and cross-cutting issues 
defined in the Pact of Amsterdam conducive to addressing the main needs and priorities 
of urban areas in the EU? 

Based on the stakeholder consultation performed in this study, the  relevance of the 
11 cross-cutting themes of the Urban Agenda was rated high. Stakeholders rated 
the cross-cutting themes overall with an 8.4 out of 10. This score varied between 8.9 
for “sound and strategic urban planning” to 7.9 for the “international dimension” (see 
figures overleaf). However, many interviewees argued that the cross-cutting issues 
included in the Pact of Amsterdam are not being considered systematically by 
UAEU stakeholders. UAEU TP coordinators generally considered cross-cutting issues 
as an important element of the Partnerships’ work, as they are embedded in the Pact of 
Amsterdam; however, they highlighted the need for more methodological guidance on 
how to better address these issues through the Action Plans.42  

In terms of the UAEU Partnership themes, the stakeholders consulted perceived the 
relevance of the themes of the 14 Thematic Partnerships as high. On average 
the Thematic Partnerships themes were rated with an 8.4 out of 10, in which 10 is very 
relevant.  Stakeholders  rated  the  ‘climate  adaptation’  and  ‘urban  mobility’  themes  as 
particularly relevant (rated 9.0 and 9.1 out of 10, respectively). The ‘security in public 
spaces’  and  ‘culture  and  cultural  heritage’  themes  (both  of  which  were  addressed  by 
wave  4  Partnerships)  were  seen  as  less  relevant  (rated  7.3  and  7.7  out  of  10, 
respectively),  although  differences  are  relatively  minor  (see  figures  below).  A  survey 
performed by CEMR, an EU-wide association representing local authorities shows as well 
that the Partnerships’ themes are still relevant.43 

42 Minutes of the UAEU TP Coordinators’ meeting, March 2018, shared with the assessment team by the EC 

43 Based on the presentation of an assessment of UAEU performed by CEMR and presented at the UAEU 

Coordinators’ meeting, February 2019 

 84 

 
 
  
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

 Relevance Urban Agenda themes 

Q2.4. How relevant do you consider to be the following themes of the Urban Agenda for cities and 
urban areas in your country / the EU? (Link to more information on themes) 
Score out of 10; All respondents who answered question item (n=114 to 117) 
Source: Online consultation 

 Relevance Urban Agenda ‘cross-cutting’ issues 

Q2.5. How relevant do you consider to be the following ‘cross-cutting’ issues for urban policy-
making in your country / the EU? (Link to more information on ‘cross-cutting’ themes) 
Score out of 10; All respondents who answered question item (n=113 to 117) 
Source: Online consultation 

Overall, the stakeholder consultation performed  for this study provided evidence that 
the  themes  and  pillars  of  UAEU  are  in  line  with  the  needs  and  the  problems 
faced  by  the  cities,  as  well  as  with  the  key  challenges  for  sustainable  urban 
development covered by the New Urban Agenda. Moreover,  stakeholders interviewed 
also mentioned that the UAEU themes are in line with the ESPON evidence for future 
development trends in different social, economic and environmental policy fields. The 
themes  seem  to  remain  relevant  as  also  shown  by  the  2019  Future  of  Cities  Report, 
where affordable housing, climate action, mobility, social segregation are mentioned as 
key future challenges (JRC, 2019). The only other challenge mentioned by the report 

85 

7.37.78.08.18.38.48.48.58.68.68.88.99.09.1012345678910Security in public spaceCulture and cultural heritageInnovative and responsible public procurementInclusion of migrants and refugeesDigital transitionJobs and skills in the local economyUrban povertyHousingCircular economySustainable use of land and nature-based…Air qualityEnergy transitionClimate adaptationUrban mobilityHow relevant do you consider the following themes… (Score out of 10)7.98.28.28.38.48.48.68.68.68.78.9012345678910International dimensionImpact on societal change, including behavioural changeChallenges and opportunities of small- and medium-sized cities and…Adaptation to demographic change and in- and out migrationInnovative approachesProvision of adequate public services of general interestUrban regenerationGovernance across administrative boundaries and inter-municipal…Effective urban governanceIntegrated and participatory approachSound and strategic urban planningHow relevant do you consider the following ‘cross-cutting’ themes… (Score out of 10) 
 
 
and not covered by the TPs is ageing. The JRC (2019) report highlights, nevertheless, 
some cross-cutting themes where cities can be take more action, acting towards more 
resilience,  sustainability,  fostering  innovation  and  involvement  of  citizens,  as  well  as 
improve urban governance (ibid). Interviewees consulted during this assessment also 
mentioned  that  some  of  the  cross-cutting  themes  not  sufficiently  covered  by  TPs  are 
‘accessibility’ and ‘environmental friendly basic infrastructure in cities’. 

At an overall level, the stakeholders surveyed (from all levels of governance) felt that 
policy-makers at EU, national and regional level make efforts to take the priorities and 
needs of the cities and urban areas into account, however, not to a great extent. Most 
city-level  respondents  (54%)  felt  that  their  needs  and  priorities  are  only  somewhat 
taken into account by policy-makers at EU-level, while 14% believed that their needs 
and priorities are taken into account to a great extent. With regard to policy-makers at 
the  national  or  regional  level,  these  figures  were  quite  similar  (57%  and  19%, 
respectively).  

Interviewees,  particularly  representatives  of  European  organisations,  highlighted  that 
cities’  needs are very broad  and  diverse,  thus  the  UAEU  should  only focus on 
those where a coordinated and integrated intervention is needed (e.g. reduce 
air  pollution,  create  opportunities  for  circular  businesses).  This  is  also  one  of  the 
conclusions of the joint meeting of the representatives of Commission services involved 
in  UAEU  TPs  organised  in  2019:  there  should  be  more  focus  on  cross-sectoral  issues 
(e.g. how to deal with the impacts of the sharing platform economy on the liveability of 
the cities).44   

Interviewees  also  mentioned  that  the  clustering  of  the  TPs  and  cross-cutting  issues 
themes is creating silos and that a better clustering could be arranged. An interviewee 
suggested  to  split  the  cross-cutting  themes  into  enablers  -  such  as  the  Internet  of 
things, connectivity and physical and digital infrastructure - and TP themes or as stated 
by interviewee “vertical themes” into themes with commercialisation purpose - such as 
industry, mobility, food etc. 

The UATPG input paper for the UDG’s discussion on the future of UAEU45 analysed the 
current TPs’ Action Plans and clustered the actions in two alternative ways:   

A.  Clusters identified under the three main strands of the UAEU: Better Regulation, 

Better Funding and Better Knowledge.  

B.  Clusters based on the cross-thematic issues 

The clusters identified under the three main strands of the UAEU are: 

  Actions  intended  to  affect  better  regulation.  This  encompasses  30+  actions 
identified under the better  regulation strand, as well as several better funding 

44 Minutes of the meeting of the EC DGs involved in UAEU TPs (February 2019) 

45 Internal document shared with the assessment team by the EC services (August 2019) 

 86 

 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

related  actions.  This  can  be  sub-divided  into  further  sub-groups:  better 
implementation, changes to existing legislation, new legislation; 

  Actions  intended  to  contribute  to  better  funding.  The  25+  actions  under  this 
header  can  be  categorised  as  1)  action  that  make  suggestions  for  areas  of 
investment or new forms of investment mechanisms to institutions such as the 
EU institutions and local governments, and 2) actions that seek to disseminate 
information  among  different  actors  regarding  funding  mechanisms  or  their 
development; 

  Actions (50+ in total) intended to contribute to knowledge creation and sharing, 
which includes actions form the Better Knowledge and Better Funding strands. 
These  can  be  sub-divided  into  further  sub-groups:  better  governance  as  a 
specific topic for knowledge, data and indicators, and knowledge production (best 
practices, guides, toolkits and roadmaps). 

The clustering based on the cross-thematic issues was approached in two ways: 

1.   Clustering based on the cross-cutting issues identified in the Pact of Amsterdam 
(notably land-use planning, digitalisation and the city and digital innovation in 
cities); and 

2.   Clustering  based  on  wider  integrative  themes  (for  example  green  city  related 

actions). 

Following the proposed ways of clustering actions, the document highlights the fact that 
there are opportunities for, for example (ibid): 

  Reinforcing  synergies  by  sharing  contacts  of  partners  involved  in  the  different 
TPs and by combining upcoming events, focussing events on clusters of actions;  

  Discussing  common  approaches  to  tackle  the  challenges  under  the  better 

regulation strand; 

  Reinforcing linkages between urban matters and territorial cohesion; 

  Etc. 

All in all, there is consensus that, while the themes selected for the Partnerships’ work 
remain  relevant,  some  horizontal  and  cross  cutting  issues  that  require  an 
integrated approach are not fully covered by the UAEU. Nevertheless, achieving 
more  cross-sectoral cooperation within UAEU  may also prove difficult, due to the low 
resources allocated to the initiative and the need for enhanced coordination across the 
different sectors from all participants.  

4.3.3  CONCLUSIONS: RELEVANCE 

Overall, the relevance of the UAEU and its approach (multi-level and multi-stakeholder 
cooperation) was high, in the sense that it addresses what stakeholders perceive as the 

87 

 
 
clear  need  to  enhance  the  ways  for  cities  to  influence  EU  policy  on  urban 
matters.  It  also  reflects  a  growing  trend  at  global  level  towards  emphasising  urban 
governance and the role of cities in tackling societal challenges. Stakeholders believed 
the UAEU provides a significant and important (even “ground-breaking” according to the 
European  Committee of the Regions) new way for cities to influence  policy  at the EU 
level – “the first to translate the recognition of cities’ role in EU and  national policies 
into concrete actions” – although this new approach still needs to demonstrate it can 
consistently deliver concrete results (see above). Improved access of cities and urban 
areas to EU funding was rated as most important. However, there are some differences 
between how the three main groups perceive the relevance of the UAEU: 

  Unsurprisingly,  the  UAEU  was  seen  as  most  relevant  for  cities  and  urban 
authorities,  both  by 
themselves  and  by  other  stakeholders.  City 
representatives  frequently  described  the  UAEU  as  a  crucial  opportunity  to 
engage with and feed into EU policy-making, and saw strong potential for this 
to have a tangible impact on their daily work. The Urban Agenda also has the 
merit  of  being  a  concrete  initiative  /  framework.  For  example,  a  stakeholder 
described  the  UAEU  as  “the  best  we  have”.  However,  not  all  types  of  cities 
manage  to  engage  in  UAEU.  The  survey  from  the  Romanian  presidency  has 
pointed out that there are unequal opportunities for cities of smaller or medium 
sizes as well for cities in lagging regions. 

  European Commission: the UAEU multi-level cooperation method is the most 
important achievement of the initiative to date. The UAEU is seen as the unique 
governance method that makes UAEU different from many other initiatives. Its 
relevance  is  considered  as  important  for  the  Commission  to  understand 
enforcement and implementation issues related to EU policies. Obtaining a clear 
picture of the  realities  on the ground and have the  opportunity to  explain EU 
policies to the TP members are seen as important.    

  Member  States  provided  a  more  mixed  picture  –  while  the  relevance  of  the 
UAEU  was  also  recognised  by  practically  all  representatives  of  national 
authorities consulted for this study, they were often less clear on the benefits 
to them  specifically (as they are more interested in issues related to  national 
implementation  of  EU  rules,  national  legislation  or  national  implementation 
processes).  This  might  also  explain  MS  somewhat  lower  overall  levels  of 
engagement and involvement, notable exceptions notwithstanding. Some ideas 
on  how  MS’  participation,  or  the  relevance  of  UAEU  to  their  needs  could  be 
increased  are:  facilitating  the  translation  of  UAEU  TP  results  into  national 
relevant issues; clarifying more the role of MS and stronger involvement of line 
ministries  in  TPs  and  improving  finding  to  UAEU  (promoting  financial 
opportunities  for  MS  to  develop  actions  under  UAEU,  or  requiring  national 
funding for financing UAEU actions). 

Regarding  the  relevance  of  the  UAEU’s  themes,  pillars  and  aims,  and  cross-cutting 
issues  (as  defined  in  the  Pact  of  Amsterdam),  the  available  evidence  points  to  the 
following: 

 88 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

  The themes of the 14 Thematic Partnerships are highly relevant and are in line 
with  the  ESPON  evidence  for  future  development  trends  as  well  as  with  the 
Future of Cities report (2019), with exception of ageing (although slightly less so 
for the two TPs of Wave 4, based on stakeholder feedback), as they align with 
the key needs and the problems faced by cities.  

  The three pillars (Better Regulation, Better Funding and Better Knowledge) were 
all considered very important by stakeholders.  The survey results confirm that 
the same applies to the key aims of more cooperation with cities and urban areas 
in other European countries, increasing the influence of cities and urban areas 
on national or regional policy-making, and increasing the influence of cities and 
urban areas on EU policy-making.  

  Although  the  cross-cutting  issues  were  found  as  relevant  by  survey 
respondents, the interviews suggest they only played a minor role in practice 
in the work of the TPs. They may have been taken into account implicitly in 
the Action Planning process to some extent. 

  Many stakeholders highlighted the importance of focusing on those themes 
where a coordinated and integrated intervention is needed. In this sense 
there  should  be  more  focus  on  cross-sectoral  issues  (taking  an  “integrated 
approach”). 

  A better clustering could be arranged to avoid creating silos as well. This could 
be  through  creating  synergies  between  TPs  work  and/or  addressing  the  most 
recurring issues that have been raised by a majority of Partnerships’ Action Plans 
in a coordinated way. 

In summary, expecting the UAEU to duly consider all three dimensions equally in their 
work may have been unrealistic. As the UAEU’s main delivery mechanism (the TPs) were 
organised  along  thematic  lines,  this  ended  up  being  the  main  focus,  with  the  cross-
cutting issues much less of a priority. It may be worth considering whether, in the next 
phase of the UAEU, this balance should be redressed in order to take a more integrated 
and participative perspective which is the backbone of the urban dimension of Cohesion 
Policy.  

89 

 
 
 
 
4.4 Coherence 

In this chapter, we look at both the internal and external coherence of the UAEU. Section 
4.4.1 elaborates on to what extent the different elements of the UAEU, including the 14 
Thematic Partnerships, complement and reinforce each other. Section 4.4.2. discusses 
to what degree the UAEU is coherent with other urban policy initiatives at international, 
EU and national level. 

4.4.1  INTERNAL COHERENCE OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE UAEU 

Assessment question 9: To what extent do the elements of the UAEU (including the 
12 Thematic Partnerships) complement and reinforce each other? 

Cross-Partnership collaboration 

To  what  extent  did  the  UAEU  Thematic  Partnerships  in  the  Urban  Agenda  collaborate 
with  each  other?  The  available  evidence  suggests  that  there  was  room  for 
improvement in this area. In the stakeholder survey, cross-TP collaboration was not 
rated highly. Only about a third of respondents (32%) strongly agreed or agreed that 
the  TPs  collaborate  well  amongst  each  other.  Moreover,  a  substantial  share  of 
respondents (20%) did not know whether the TPs collaborate well, which might hint at 
a lack of attention for cross-TP collaboration in the Action Planning process (see Figure 
below).  

 Collaboration with other UAEU Thematic Partnerships 

Q3.7. Thinking about the Thematic Partnership(s) you know best, do you agree or disagree that 
this / these Partnership(s)… 
%; All respondents who are familiar with a Partnership and who answered question item (n=82) 
Source: Online consultation 

 90 

4%28%27%17%5%20%Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree nor DisagreeDisagreeStrongly DisagreeDon’t knowThinking about the Urban Agenda’s thematic Partnership(s) you know best, would you agree or disagree that this / these Partnership(s) collaborate(s) well with other Urban Agenda Partnerships? 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

At least some TPs appear to have developed strong bilateral ties with one or more other 
TPs. Stakeholders reported this was done with the aim to share best practices and to 
prevent overlap in themes covered. There have been relatively strong ties between, for 
example, the Urban Poverty and Housing Partnerships. However, this kind of cross-TP 
cooperation appears to have been largely ad-hoc. Cross-TP cooperation seems not to 
have  been  ‘institutionalised’  or  ‘mainstreamed’  in  the  framework  of  the  UAEU, 
notwithstanding some efforts in this direction, such as the yearly  coordinators (of the 
TPs) meetings organised by the European Commission. Cross-TP cooperation was likely 
not helped by the general lack of guidance on the Action Planning process, as reported 
by stakeholders (see Chapter on Effectiveness and Action Planning case study).  

As was the case with the broader UAEU and TPs, much appears to have depended on 
the individual coordinators and other leading TP members, such as – depending on the 
TP – Commission DGs, Members States, URBACT or the EIB, who needed to explore and 
point to opportunities for collaboration and to prevent potential overlaps. It should be 
added that the Pact of Amsterdam specified “cooperation with the other Partnerships, 
when deemed of added value” as a responsibility of the coordinators. 

It seems reasonable to assume that more cross-TP collaboration could have been helpful 
for TP members and could have led to more cross-TP fertilisation, at least for the TPs 
with  themes  that  have  certain  overlaps  with  the  themes  of  other  TPs  (see  below). 
However, the lack of cooperation among TPs was not judged to be a major issue by 
stakeholders,  including  TP  members.  In  the  stakeholder  survey,  only  13%  of 
respondents  indicated  that  a  lack  of  cooperation  across  the  different  Thematic 
Partnerships was a significant barrier to the UAEU reaching its full potential46. This figure 
was similarly low (14%) when focussing on the responses from TP members only.   

Remit of Thematic Partnerships and overlaps 

As noted in the Chapter on Relevance, the stakeholders consulted for this study were 
generally  very  positive  about  the  themes  of  the  TPs.  Stakeholders  believed  that  the 
crucial themes for cities are covered and were generally not in favour of adding more 
themes / TPs. On the other hand, overlap between the themes of the TPs and the Action 
Plans  seems  to  have  been  an  issue.  In  the  stakeholder  survey,  less  than  half  of 
respondents (48%47) strongly agreed or agreed that the Action Plans of the Thematic 
Partnerships  prevent  overlap  in  themes  covered,  of  which  less  than  one  in  ten  (8%) 
strongly  agreed  (see  Figure  below).  This  compared  to,  for  example,  eight  in  ten 
respondents (79%) who in the same question strongly agreed or agreed that the Action 
Plans are relevant to the actual needs of the cities in the EU.  

46 This question was only asked to the slightly more than half (58%) of respondents who perceived a significant 

barrier to the UAEU reaching its full potential.   

47 48%, not 47%, due to rounding. 

91 

 
                                                 
 Action Plans and overlap 

Q3.2. For each of the thematic Partnerships of the Urban Agenda an Action Plan was developed. 
Do you agree or disagree that these Action Plans?  
%; All respondents who are familiar with a Partnership and who answered question item (n=84) 
Source: Online consultation 

Limited  feedback  was  obtained  from  the  TP  members  and  other  actors  on  why  this 
overlap  in  themes  of  the  TPs  /  Action  Plans  occurred.  It  is  likely,  however,  that  the 
limited cooperation among Partnerships played an important role (see above), as did 
the shortcomings in the governance of the UAEU and the limited guidance for the TPs. 
A certain overlap in themes and the remit of TPs might also have been ingrained in the 
setup of the UAEU. As noted in the case study on the Implementation of Actions, many 
TP themes were very broad and multifaceted. Demarcating the topics during the Action 
Planning process proved challenging for many TPs, among others due to the variety of 
stakeholders and opinions represented in the TPs. Moreover, as specified in the Pact of 
Amsterdam, the UAEU had to come to an integrated approach towards urban challenges, 
making overlap of themes desirable to a certain extent, insofar as this led to cross TP-
collaboration and fertilisation (for the latter there is, however, only limited evidence, as 
discussed above). 

Considering the cross-cutting themes listed in the Pact of Amsterdam, most Thematic 
Partnerships members appear to have been aware of these and noted that these had 
been  taken  into  account  during  the  Action  Planning  to  a  greater  or  lesser  extent.  As 
noted in the Relevance  chapter, the themes were also considered relevant. However, 
there is no tangible evidence that the cross-cutting issues had an important impact on 
fostering cross-TP cooperation and convergence.    

Stakeholders  were  markedly  less  aware  about  the  elements,  or  ‘actions’,  part  of  the 
UAEU  other  than  the  Thematic  Partnerships,  such  as  the  enhanced  use  of  territorial 
impact assessments (TIAs) and the ‘one-stop-shop’ for cities portal. Hence they often 
found it difficult to comment on whether these elements were aligned to the broader 
UAEU. As noted in the chapter on Effectiveness, most interviewees who were aware, felt 
that the UAEU has not contributed significantly to progress with the TIAs. This feedback 

 92 

8%39%30%18%1%4%Do you agree or disagree that the Action Plans prevent overlap in themes covered?Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree nor DisagreeDisagreeStrongly DisagreeDon’t know 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

was confirmed by the stakeholder survey: 43% of survey respondents agreed that the 
UAEU contributed to TIAs to a great or some extent. Awareness about the ‘one-stop-
shop’  was  similarly  low.  In  the  survey,  only  about  a  third  of  the  stakeholders  (33%) 
reported  having  used  the  ‘one-stop-shop’,  with  only  3%  having  used  it  extensively. 
While this limited awareness and use of the TIAs and the one-stop-shop does not imply 
that both elements were not coherent with the broader UAEU, it does suggest that the 
focus in the UAEU was strongly on the TPs (as was confirmed by various interviewees), 
perhaps to the detriment of other elements / actions.  

4.4.2  EXTERNAL COHERENCE WITH OTHER URBAN POLICY INITIATIVES 

Assessment question 10: To what extent is the UAEU coherent with other urban policy 
initiatives at international, EU and national level? 

The UAEU, in the European Commissions’ own words, “constitutes the common frame 
for urban policy initiatives” at EU level48. This means among other things that other EU 
programmes, policies and initiatives relating to urban policy should be aligned as much 
as possible to the topics of the TPs of the UAEU and that the UAEU and its TPs should 
make  use  of  /  contribute  to  existing  European  policies,  instruments,  platforms  and 
programmes  where  possible.  The  Pact  of  Amsterdam  refers  specifically  to  Cohesion 
Policy,  including  its  sustainable  urban  development  strand,  Urban  Innovative  Actions 
(UIA),  URBACT,  ESPON,  the  ‘Covenant  of  Mayors’,  Civitas  2020,  the  Reference 
Framework  for  Sustainable  Cities,  EUKN  and  the  European  Innovation  Partnership 
‘Smart Cities and Communities’49. In addition, the Pact  of Amsterdam  states that the 
UAEU should foster coherence between urban matters and territorial cohesion, as set 
out in the Territorial Agenda 2020. The Pact of Amsterdam also outlines a number of 
actions for the UAEU to bring about ‘coherence’ with other EU programmes, policies and 
initiatives, including in actions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.50  

48 European Commission. (2017). Report from the Commission to the Council on the Urban Agenda for the EU. 

Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/reports/2017/report-from-
the-commission-to-the-council-on-the-urban-agenda-for-the-eu 

49 See Dutch Council Presidency. (2016). Urban Agenda for the EU. Pact of Amsterdam. Retrieved from:  

50 Action 2 calls for “a) Mapping the urban related Commission initiatives in the selected Themes of the [UAEU] with 
a view to identifying gaps, overlaps and synergies, and b) Identifying the main actors, networks and platforms 
within the selected themes with a view to streamlining cooperation and exchange of good practice”; action 4 
calls for “alignment of the Urban Innovative Actions with the selected Themes for the [UAEU] by the European 
Commission”; action 5 calls for “Contribution of URBACT to the Priority Themes with its activities of exchange 
and learning through transnational networking, capacity building, capitalisation & dissemination of urban 
knowledge and know-how”; action 6 calls for “Alignment of the work of the Urban Development Network (UDN) 
of the European Commission to the framework of the [UAEU] by the European Commission”; action 7 notes that 
“The scientific work and solutions developed by the Joint Programming Initiative Urban Europe in the area of 
research and innovation will be used to promote and exchange evidence based proposals for urban policy and 
urban projects”; action 8 calls for the “Contribution of specific research activities of the European Observation 
Network, Territorial Development and Cohesion (ESPON) to the selected Themes, where deemed relevant.” See 
Pact of Amsterdam (2016). 

93 

 
 
                                                 
Alignment of the UAEU with other initiatives  

As noted in the case study on Action Planning, as part of the Action Planning process, 
all TPs (at least in theory) considered how their proposed actions could align with, and 
contribute to, existing programmes, policies and initiatives. For waves 1-3 of TPs, the 
Commission performed a mapping of EU policies and initiatives linked to the topic of the 
TP. 

In  the  Urban  Poverty  TP,  for  example,  two  experts  with  URBACT  experience  were 
contracted by the Dutch Presidency to prepare scoping documents and to support the 
development of the Action Plan51. As part of the same scoping exercise, the Commission 
(DG  for  Regional  and  Urban  Policy  and  DG  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion) 
performed a mapping of EU policies and initiatives linked to urban poverty issues and 
people  in  a  situation  of  poverty.  For  each  of  the  actions  in  the  Urban  Poverty  Action 
Plan, it was described how existing EU policies / legislations / instruments contribute.  

Were these efforts by TPs sufficient to align the UAEU with other existing programmes, 
policies  and  initiatives  related  to  urban  policy?  The  consulted  stakeholders  could  be 
qualified as cautiously positive in this regard, although some important concerns were 
voiced, and overall awareness about the alignment with specific programmes was low 
(see further below).  

In  the  stakeholder  survey,  more  than  half  (58%)  of  respondents  agreed  to  a  great 
extent or somewhat that the Urban Agenda and the Thematic Partnerships contribute 
to  better  alignment  with  other  relevant  EU  programmes  and  policy  instruments. 
Similarly,  slightly  more  than  half  (56%)  of  respondents  in  the  stakeholder  survey 
strongly agreed or agreed that the Action Plans developed for the Thematic Partnerships 
are well aligned to other EU policies. Moreover, only 14% of respondents disagreed with 
this statement (see the figures below and overleaf). 

51 Action Plan Urban Poverty Thematic Partnership. (2017). Retrieved from: 

https://urbact.eu/sites/default/files/annex_1_eu_urban_agenda_upp_action_plan_171221_final.pdf 

 94 

 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

 Alignment with other relevant EU programmes and instruments 

Q5.1. In your view, to what extent do the Urban Agenda, and the Thematic Partnerships, 
contribute to… 
%; All respondents who answered question item (n=115) 
Source: Online consultation 

 Alignment Action Plans with other EU policies  

Q3.2. For each of the thematic Partnerships of the Urban Agenda an Action Plan was developed. 
Do you agree or disagree that these Action Plans…  
%; All respondents who are familiar with a Partnership and who answered question item (n=85) 
Source: Online consultation 

Likewise,  just  16%  of  respondents  in  the  survey  found  that  a  lack  of  alignment  with 
other relevant EU programmes and policy instruments was a significant barrier to the 

95 

21%37%19%5%17%In your view, to what extent do the Urban Agenda, and the Thematic Partnerships, contribute to better alignment with other relevant EU programmes and policy instruments?To a great extentSomewhatVery littleNot at allDon’t know14%42%22%14%7%Do you agree or disagree that the Action Plans are well aligned to other EU policies?Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree nor DisagreeDisagreeStrongly DisagreeDon’t know 
 
 
 
UAEU  reaching  its  full  potential52.  This  figure  was  lower  still  for  TP  members  and 
coordinators (7%). This compared to, for instance, 76% of Partnership members and 
coordinators who perceived a lack of funding for the TPs as a significant barrier to the 
Urban Agenda realising its full potential. 

It should be added that in the view of many stakeholders the alignment of the UAEU 
with other EU policy initiatives, even if desirable, should not be an end in itself. Various 
stakeholders  mentioned  that  because  the  UAEU  is  ‘unique’  in  terms  of  its  multi-level 
governance approach, it does not need to align fully with other programmes, or at least 
not to a much greater extent than is currently the case, perhaps with the exception of 
URBACT (see below).  

Notwithstanding  the  cautiously  positive  opinions  noted  above,  a  substantial  group  of 
stakeholders voiced concerns about the limited alignment between the UAEU and other 
relevant  EU  programmes  and  policy  instruments.  Two  key  reasons  were  provided  for 
these concerns: 

1)  A lack of overall coordination of EU policy initiatives related to urban policy 

2)  A divergence in the planning and timing schedules of the different mechanisms 

With regard to point 1, some stakeholders noted that the current EU initiatives related 
to urban policy (during the 2014-2020 programming period) are fragmented, with highly 
heterogenous  governance  structures,  as  also  acknowledged  by  the  European  Urban 
Initiative proposed for the post-2020 period. Moreover, the various EU initiatives related 
to urban policy are spread across different Commission departments. Some interviewees 
noted  that  this  leads  to  working  in  silos,  with  limited  coordination,  or  even  some 
competition, between the various actors responsible.  

Stakeholders also noted that the various EU initiatives do not align because they do not 
follow the same time schedule / planning and funding cycle (point 2 above). This was 
reportedly especially an issue with regard to the UAEU’s coherence with URBACT, as the 
latter programme’s current planning period (called URBACT III) runs from 2014-2020. 
The fact that URBACT III was already in place before the inception of the UAEU, made 
alignment  between  both  programmes  challenging.  This  was  considered  a  particular 
problem because the UAEU and URBACT have clear overlaps. As part of the ‘URBACT 
method’,  URBACT  works  directly  with  cities  and  other  stakeholders  across  the  EU 
through  the  so  called  ‘URBACT  Local  Groups’  and  does  a  lot  to  promote  knowledge 
sharing  between  cities  and  other  levels  of  government.  A  stakeholder  noted,  for 
example, that in his / her view some of the existing city partnerships established through 
URBACT could have been taken forward by the UAEU, but this was apparently not done 
due to the fact that the calls of URBACT were not aligned with the TPs work. 

Complementarity of the UAEU with other initiatives  

Stakeholders often viewed the UAEU as complimentary to other initiatives because 
it is unique. The key reason provided for this was the UAEU’s emphasis on multi-level 

52 This question was only asked to around half (58%) of respondents who perceived a significant barrier.  

 96 

 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

governance, providing cities a ‘seat at the table’ with EU and Member State officials as 
equals (see also Chapters on Relevance and EU Added Value). Notwithstanding some 
reported  overlaps with  other  EU programmes,  notably with URBACT (see above), the 
unique ‘collaboration mechanism’ of the UAEU is not replicated in other initiatives, noted 
several stakeholders. It should also be noted that the “Better Knowledge” pillar of the 
UAEU was considered less unique than the other pillars (Better Regulation and Better 
Funding),  as  some  TP  members  reported  the  existence  of  extensive  alternative 
opportunities for knowledge sharing, inter alia through city networks.   

Several  stakeholders  also  felt  that  the  UAEU  is  complimentary  to  other  initiatives 
because  it  has  increasingly  become  the  framework  for  urban  policy making  in 
the EU, as was intended by the Commission (see above). This view is supported by the 
fact that the themes for the calls for Urban Innovative Actions (UIA) are based on those 
of the UAEU53. Moreover, some of the Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2018-2020 topics 
that are linked to cities and urban development are based on the themes of the UAEU.  

Practical coherence  

It is important to add to the above that the case studies and general interviews delivered 
limited feedback on the actual coherence of the UAEU with other specific initiatives. For 
instance,  interviewees  had  little  to  say  on  the  level  of  mutual  support  the  UAEU  and 
other  initiatives  related  to  urban  policy  lend  each  other,  or  the  extent  to  which 
transferable best practices are shared between initiatives. This was, first of all, because 
many stakeholders admitted being insufficiently aware about other EU programmes, 
policies and initiatives related to urban policy. From this, it could perhaps be deduced 
that  external  coherence  was  not  a  main  focus  during  the  Action  Planning  process, 
although  this  was  seldom  explicitly  stated  by  consulted  TP  members  and  cannot  be 
validated with information from the Action Plans. It should also be noted that as part of 
the  Action  Planning  process,  for  Waves  1-3  of  TPs,  the  Commission  performed  a 
mapping of EU policies and initiatives linked to the topic of the TP. 

Stakeholders  did  note  that  the  alignment  of  Action  Plans  with  other  urban  policy 
initiatives  at  international,  EU  and  national  level  was  facilitated  by  including 
representatives of certain organisations as members in the TPs: Commission DGs other 
than  DG  REGIO,  Member  States,  URBACT  representatives,  EIB  representatives,  etc. 
Whether these actors indeed played an important role in aligning the Action Plan with 
existing  policy  initiatives  seems  to  have  varied  depending  on  the  TP,  but  anecdotal 
evidence suggest that this was indeed the case in at least some TPs.  

4.4.3  CONCLUSIONS: COHERENCE 

The internal coherence of the UAEU (i.e. the extent to which its elements complement 
and reinforce each other) is not especially pronounced. It appears there has been 
relatively  limited  collaboration  between  TPs;  although  some  bilateral  collaboration 

53 See for example on the website of the UIA: https://www.uia-initiative.eu/en/initiative/uia-topics-better-urban-

environment 

97 

 
 
                                                 
amongst certain TPs (those with strong thematic links)  was  established, this was not 
‘institutionalised’ in the framework of the UAEU, but depended almost entirely on the 
initiative of leading TP members, in particular coordinators. Similarly, there was limited 
awareness among stakeholders (including TP members) of the other (non-TP) elements 
of the UAEU (such as territorial impact assessments or the one-stop-shop portal), and 
even more limited evidence of any significant complementarities or reinforcing effects. 
However,  the  lack  of  greater  coherence  between  TPs,  and  with  other  UAEU 
elements,  was  not  considered  a  major  barrier  to  the  UEAU  reaching  its  full 
potential and may well have been another consequence of the flexible, experimental 
approach taken to the TPs, with relatively broad themes and a general interest in cross-
fertilisation that has not been fully put into practice yet.  

There is reason for cautious optimism regarding the UAEU’s external coherence and 
alignment with other EU urban policy initiatives. The evidence suggests that the 
UAEU had to some extent become the common frame for urban policy initiatives at EU 
level, as intended; this is corroborated e.g. by the fact that Urban Innovative Actions 
are based on the UAEU themes. However, stakeholders could provide limited concrete 
feedback on possible synergies between the UAEU’s TPs and other initiatives, suggesting 
alignment was not prioritised during the  Action Planning, although it should be noted 
that  the  Commission  and  Action  Plans  did  pay  attention  to  external  coherence.  
However, there was some feedback suggesting that the relevant EU initiatives work in 
silos; the UAEU’s alignment with URBACT in particular seems to have been a problem, 
due to its different planning periods and the overlap between both initiatives. There is 
clearly  room  for  improving  the  way  the  UAEU  interacts  with  other  relevant 
initiatives, which was recognised by the Commission in its proposal for the European 
Urban Initiative-post 2020. 

 98 

 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

4.5 EU Added Value 

This chapter  explores whether the UAEU created value that is additional to the value 
that would have been otherwise created by Member States alone. Section 4.5.1 answers 
this question from the perspective of the importance of EU involvement. Section 4.5.2 
looks at to what extent the effects of the UAEU would be sustained if EU support for the 
UAEU was discontinued. 

4.5.1  IMPORTANCE OF THE EU INVOLVEMENT 

Assessment  question  11:  To  what  extent  does  the  UAEU  generate  value  that  is 
additional  to  the  value  that  would  have  resulted  from  interventions  initiated  at 
regional or national levels? 

The Pact of Amsterdam was devised based on the recognition that cities and urban areas 
play a key role in preparing, designing, financing and implementing EU policies, but lack 
a  formal  role54  or  strong  voice  in  the  institutional  framework  of  the  EU.  As  noted  in 
Chapter 2, this recognition was not new. Already in 1997 the Commission mentioned 
the  need  for  an  “urban  agenda”,  a  call  which  was  repeated  by  several  political 
declarations. This included the Leipzig Charter in 2007, the Toledo Declaration in 2010 
and  the  Riga  Declaration  in  201555.  During  this  period  the  EU  also  strengthened  the 
urban  dimension  of  its  policies,  as  demonstrated  for  example  by  the  European 
Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities (launched in 2012), the Urban 
Community Initiative (URBAN I & II), the inclusion of sustainable urban development in 
the ERDF (Article 7), the Urban Development Network, Urban Innovative Actions, the 
European  Capital  of  Culture,  European  Green  Capital  and  European  Capital  of 
Innovation, and the Covenant of Mayors56. 

It  was  the  Urban  Agenda,  however,  that  first  provided  cities  and  urban  areas  with  a 
‘seat  at  the  table’  with  the  European  institutions  and  Member  States,  based  on 
partnership and equality. Even though there is undeniably some overlap of the Urban 
Agenda  with  other  EU  programmes  (see  chapter  on  Coherence),  the  sui  generis  and 
innovative  nature  of  the  Urban  Agenda  was  recognised  by  most  of  the  stakeholders 
consulted  for  this  study.  The  Urban  Agenda  was  regularly  described  in  terms  like 
“different”  and  “unique”.  Most  of  the  consulted  stakeholders  perceived  this 
‘uniqueness’ as a key added value. Because of this, the consulted stakeholder also 
gave the Urban Agenda a lot of credit for its theoretical added value, even if not always 
fully living up to expectations (see below). The Urban Agenda was often described as 
an important, even if perhaps ‘experimental’ and / or ‘imperfect’, first step towards a 
larger role of cities and urban areas in the institutional framework and decision-making 
of the Union.  

This positive basic attitude of stakeholders vis-à-vis the Urban Agenda can be explained 
first of all by the fact that many stakeholders perceived a strong need for greater 

54 Except through cities’ representatives in the Committee of the Regions, which has an advisory role. 

55 Urban future studios report. 

56 EP report on the role of cities in the institutional framework of the Union (2017/2037(INI)). 

99 

 
                                                 
involvement of cities and urban areas in EU policy-making. For instance, when 
asked whether the needs and priorities of cities and urban areas are taken into account 
by  policy  makers  at  the  EU-level,  half  of  respondents  (50%)  to  the  survey  answered 
with “somewhat”, whilst more than a quarter of respondents (28%) answered with “very 
little” or “not at all” (see Figure below).  

 Needs and priorities taken into account by EU-level policy-makers 

Q2.1b. Thinking about the current situation in your country / the EU, to what extent are the needs 
and priorities of cities and urban areas taken into account by policy makers at EU level? 
%; All respondents (n=116) 
Source: Online consultation 

Stakeholders generally also believed that more involvement of cities and urban areas in 
EU policy-making is necessary and that the Urban Agenda addresses this issue. In the 
survey,  six  in  ten  stakeholders  (61%)  strongly  disagreed  or  disagreed  with  the 
statement  that  “Also  without  the  Urban  Agenda  there  are  enough  ways  for  cities  to 
influence EU policy on urban matters”, whilst only 13% agreed or strongly agreed with 
this statement (see Figure below).  

 100 

17%50%26%2%5%To a great extentSomewhatVery littleNot at allDon’t knowThinking about the current situation in your country / the EU, to what extent are the needs and priorities of cities and urban areas taken into account by policy makers at EU level? 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

 Need for Urban Agenda 

Q2.3. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements… 
%; All respondents who answered question item (n=117) 
Source: Online consultation 

The  reasons  provided  by  stakeholders  for  the  (theoretical)  added  value  of  the  Urban 
Agenda  echoed  to  a  large  degree  the  motives  for  setting  up  the  Urban  Agenda,  as 
described  in  the  Pact  of  Amsterdam.  The  three  pillars  of  Better  Regulation,  Better 
Funding and Better Knowledge were generally considered as relevant (see also section 
on Relevance). Stakeholders noted, for example, that EU legislation is to a large degree 
implemented in urban areas and as such has direct and indirect implications for urban 
authorities, meaning that EU legislation should consider and anticipate its impact at city-
level. City representatives praised the opportunity the Urban Agenda provides to liaise 
directly  with  EU  and  (in  some  countries)  national-level  policy-makers.  European 
Commission  representatives  valued  the  chance  to  obtain input  directly  from  the  city-
level on how EU policies impact local circumstances.  

Stakeholders also recognised that funding is of crucial importance for cities and urban 
areas and that accessing EU funding is sometimes difficult due to administrative barriers 
and lack of awareness about funding possibilities among cities. It was  widely felt that 
there is a need for improved accessibility and coordination of existing EU funding options 
and that the Urban Agenda can play a vital role in this through its Better Funding pillar.  

Somewhat less certain is the added value of the ‘Better Knowledge’ pillar in the Urban 
Agenda.  City  networks  like  Eurocities  and  CEMR  do  provide  a  platform  to  cities  for 
knowledge sharing and the exchange of best practices. In line with this, some Thematic 
Partnership members noted that a significant amount of data already existed in the area 
of the topic covered by their Partnership. The large number of Better Knowledge actions, 
moreover, can be linked to the relative ease of implementing these actions, compared 
to  the  Better  Funding  and  Better  Regulation  actions,  not  to  their  perceived  greater 
usefulness (see Section on Effectiveness and case study on Implementation of Actions). 

Nonetheless, the opportunities offered by the Urban Agenda for cities from across the 
EU  and  of  different  sizes  to  learn  from  each  other  and  share  knowledge  and  good 

101 

1%12%20%38%23%7%Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree nor DisagreeDisagreeStrongly DisagreeDon’t know“Also without the Urban Agenda there are enough ways for cities to influence EU policy on urban matters” 
 
practices  were  widely  recognised  as  an  important  added  value  of  the  UAEU. 
Stakeholders  noted  for  example  that  the  Urban  Agenda  offers  a  platform  to  spread 
solutions throughout the EU and prevents cities having to ‘re-invent the wheel’. This is 
particularly important because many solutions to challenges cities are facing germinate 
at the local level, it was reported. The cross-cutting and cross-border nature of many of 
the challenges cities deal with, for example in areas such as digital transition, circular 
economy and environmental policies, was often mentioned as an additional reason for 
the  added  value  of  the  Urban  Agenda.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  multi-level 
cooperation of the Urban Agenda brings together actors from various government levels, 
policy fields and countries to an extent that does not happen in other EU initiatives.  

The Pact of Amsterdam stresses the importance of subsidiarity and proportionality 
and specifies that the Urban Agenda should “refrain from taking action when Member 
States  can  better  achieve  the  same  objectives”.  Generally,  stakeholders  felt  that  the 
Urban  Agenda  adhered  to  this  aim.  Some  stakeholders  underlined  the  importance  of 
subsidiarity, especially those stakeholders representing the Member States, but virtually 
none believed that the Urban Agenda exceeded the competences attributed to it. To the 
contrary:  many  stakeholders  believed  that  the  Urban  Agenda  was  a  cautious  step 
towards greater involvement of cities in the institutional framework of the Union. After 
all, the Urban Agenda does not fundamentally alter EU decision-making and the role of 
cities  in  this  process.  The  latter  was  regretted  by  some  stakeholders,  who  felt  that  a 
more institutionalised role of cities in EU policy-making and/or direct role of the EU in 
urban policy-making in EU countries as part of the Urban Agenda could have increased 
its added value. However, it was also recognised that more substantial changes to the 
EU decision-making process would have been unrealistic for the Urban Agenda, among 
others due to urban policy remaining a Member State competence.  

Does  the  above  suggest  that  the  added  value  of  the  Urban  Agenda  can  be  taken  for 
granted?  This  would  be  too  simplistic.  Even  if  there  is  broad  consensus  about  the 
theoretical added value of the Urban Agenda, there is less conclusive evidence for 
its practical added value so far. As noted in the chapter on effectiveness, significant 
reservations  exist  about  the  Urban  Agenda’s  performance  since  2016,  in  particular 
concerning the UAEU’s ability to have a tangible impact on better legislation and funding 
through the implementation of actions. It was generally agreed that the Urban Agenda 
would have limited added value if it turned out to be a mere “networking exercise” (in 
the  words  of  a  stakeholder).  Moreover,  the  coherence  with  other  EU  policies  and 
programmes  touching  on  urban  matters  was  not  always  judged  very  positively  (see 
chapter on Coherence). A substantial number of stakeholders felt that even though the 
Urban Agenda should maintain its unique character, it should be better integrated in the 
overall EU policy framework and be better aligned to other EU programmes (see also 
below). Because of these factors, many stakeholders reserved their final judgement on 
the added value of the Urban Agenda, noting that this depends on the future direction 
the UAEU will take, as discussed in the following section. 

 102 

 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

4.5.2  CONTINUATION OF THE URBAN AGENDA 

Assessment question 12: To what extent would the effects of the UAEU be sustained 
if EU support for the UAEU was discontinued? 

There was broad consensus among the stakeholders that the Urban Agenda should be 
continued in some form. This is partly because stakeholders had positive opinions on 
what  has  been  achieved  so  far.  Some  stakeholders  were  impressed  by  the  progress 
made, when considering that the entire UAEU started only three years ago and now 14 
Thematic Partnerships are set up and running. Other stakeholders were less enthusiastic 
about progress made, but noted that the Urban Agenda at the very least has the merit 
of  being  a  concrete  initiative  /  framework.  For  example,  a  stakeholder  described  the 
UAEU as “the best we have”, taking also into account the long time it took to come to 
an initiative that allows for a greater role of cities in EU policy-making, as noted in the 
introduction to this chapter.  

Furthermore, the added value of the UAEU was often seen as primarily linked to its long-
term impact and it was frequently considered too early to tell if the Urban Agenda is a 
definite success.57 If the ‘plug were pulled’ from the UAEU now, however, much of the 
efforts made  would certainly have been in vain, according to many  stakeholders. For 
instance,  whilst  Partnership  members  were  generally  positive  about  the  collaborative 
relationships established with other members, they feared that this collaboration would 
not survive a potential end of the Urban Agenda. In the survey, more than half (55%) 
of  respondents  strongly  disagreed  or  disagreed  that,  if  the  Urban  Agenda  would  be 
discontinued, the established collaboration between stakeholders would likely continue 
(see Figure below). It was also felt that a discontinuation of the UAEU would jeopardise 
the implementation of the actions, notwithstanding the relatively limited progress that 
has been made with implementation and the uncertainty about the future of the Urban 
Agenda (see section on Effectiveness and case study on the Implementation of Actions).  

57 This was confirmed by the findings from the survey of the Romanian presidency.  

103 

 
                                                 
 Likelihood of continuation of cooperation without Urban Agenda 

Q2.3. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements… 
%; All respondents who answered question item (n=117) 
Source: Online consultation  

The fact that most stakeholders supported the continuation of the Urban Agenda does 
not imply that most stakeholders were in favour of continuing the UAEU in its current 
form.  Most  stakeholders  agreed  that  increasing  the  number  of  Thematic  Partnerships 
would not bring added value, as the most important topics are already covered with the 
current 14 Partnerships. And many felt that the  existing Partnerships  in their current 
format had more or less ‘run their course’, now most Action Plans are finalised. Some 
interviewed TP members believed for example that the implementation of actions was 
largely outside their TPs’ control, and that the Commission should take the Action Plans 
forward.  

Only  roughly  a  quarter  of  respondents  in  the  survey  (27%)  felt  that  the 
duration/continuation of  Thematic Partnerships  should be  extended using broadly the 
same approach and/or format. A majority of surveyed stakeholders (51%) believed that 
the Partnerships should be extended beyond the three years originally envisaged, but 
in  a  significantly  changed  format.  The  figure  was  even  higher  (59%)  when 
considering only the responses of cities and urban areas, as the primary target group 
of the Urban Agenda. Only 4% of respondents felt that a continuation of the Partnerships 
would  not  provide  additional  benefits.  This  figure  was  more  or  less  similar  for  the 
different groups of stakeholders (taking into account that for some groups only a limited 
number completed the survey).  

 104 

16%18%43%12%11%Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree nor DisagreeDisagreeStrongly DisagreeDon’t know“If the Urban Agenda would be discontinued, the established collaboration between stakeholders would likely continue” 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

 Need to continue Thematic Partnerships 

Q3.8a. Thinking about the Thematic Partnership(s) you know best, do you think that there is a 
need to extend its / their duration beyond the 3 years originally envisaged? 
%; All respondents who are familiar with a Partnership / cities and urban entities that are 
familiar with a Partnership (n=84 / 29) 
Source: Online consultation 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, considering the variety of the stakeholders the Urban Agenda 
brings together, there was less agreement on  what the future “significantly changed” 
UAEU should look like. Many stakeholders felt insufficiently aware of the discussion on 
the  future  of  the  UAEU  to  be  able  to  provide  detailed  comments.  A  smaller  group  of 
stakeholders  had  taken  note  of  the  discussions  surrounding  the  proposal  for  the 
European Urban Initiative (EUI) for the post 2020 period, published by the Commission 
in  March  201958.  A  few  of  these  stakeholders  provided  opinions  on,  for  example,  the 
role of the Commission and Member States in the management of the UAEU, the need 
for indirect versus direct governance of the EUI, or the up- and downsides of bringing 
together the various relevant EU policies under one roof. Although it is not possible to 
generalise too much based on this limited number of comments, it should be noted that 
most stakeholders who expressed an opinion were in favour of a more harmonised EU 
approach  to  urban  policy  and  supported  bringing  together  the  various  EU  initiatives 
relating  to  urban  policy-making  under  one  roof,  although  it  was  also  felt  that  such  a 
‘harmonisation’ should take into account the unique nature of the UAEU.  

Stakeholders did generally feel that the Urban Agenda would bring more added value if 
more guidance was offered to the members of the Partnerships. As noted in the Chapter 
on Effectiveness, many Partnerships struggled with the Action Planning process and the 
implementation of  actions. As a solution, it was frequently suggested  to  enhance the 
role of the UDG and DGUM, making a clearer differentiation between the strategic and 
operational roles of DGUM and UDG. According to stakeholders, this could be done, for 
example, by organising these bodies differently, so as to allow the UDG and DGUM to 
follow individual Partnerships more closely, and by expanding their involvement in the 

58 Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/newsroom/news/2019/03/20-03-2019-european-

urban-initiative-post-2020-the-commission-proposal 

105 

14%7%21%59%18%4%27%51%Don’t knowNo, a continuation of the Thematic Partnership(s) wouldnot provide additional benefitsYes, using broadly the same approach and / or formatYes, but the approach and / or format should besignificantly changedAll respondentsCities and urban entities 
                                                 
 
implementation of actions. A couple of stakeholders also believed that it is essential to 
improve the representation of cities in the UDG and DGUM, including with regard to the 
discussion around the continuation / successor programme of the Urban Agenda. Cities 
complained about not being involved in these discussions.  

There also was a certain level of support among stakeholders for a stronger role of the 
European Commission in guiding the successor of the Urban Agenda. It was suggested 
that this could be achieved,  for  example, through a dedicated Commissioner  or Vice-
President  (as  suggested  in  the  Joint  declaration  by  the  Mayors  of  the  28  EU  Capital 
Cities59) responsible for urban matters, or an expanded role of the Technical Secretariat, 
which could potentially play a bigger role in the implementation of actions. Importantly, 
various  stakeholders  saw  the  need  for  an  “institutionalisation”  of  the  UAEU  in  EU 
policy-making. This would entail moving away from the UAEU’s current voluntary nature 
and making it obligatory for the EU institutions to, for example, consult the Partnerships 
and/or consider regulatory proposals from the Action Plans.  

It should be stressed that most stakeholders were certainly not in favour of a European 
Commission that steers the Urban Agenda directly. In Thematic Partnerships where the 
European  Commission  played  a  pivotal  role,  for  example  as  Action  leader,  some 
Partnership  members  tended  to  regret  this  (in  their  view)  “overbearing”  Commission 
role, even if many acknowledged that the Commission must walk a thin line between 
impartiality on the one hand, and moving the Partnerships forward on the other. The 
bottom-up nature of the UAEU was valued by cities and urban areas and other actors 
alike and was seen as an important success factor of the programme. The same applied 
to the more neutral role of DG REGIO, which was generally seen as a plus. 

Broad agreement existed on the need for more funding for the Urban Agenda to realise 
its  potential  added  value.  As  noted  in  the  chapter  on  Effectiveness,  in  almost  all  the 
Partnerships  at  least  some  members  struggled  with  a  lack  of  resources  and  this 
hampered the development and implementation of actions. Moreover, a lack of funding 
had a negative impact on the representativeness of certain Partnerships. If the Thematic 
Partnerships  were  prolonged,  this  would  only  become  a  more  pressing  issue.  Less 
feedback  was  obtained  from  stakeholders  on  where  this  funding  should  come  from, 
although there appears to be some level of support for giving the successor programme 
of the UAEU its own budget, as the Commission proposes for the EUI. 

4.5.3  CONCLUSIONS: EU ADDED VALUE 

The key aspect  of the  UAEU’s added value is its  uniqueness in terms of bringing all 
different  levels  and  stakeholders  together  and  how  it  addresses  the  clear  need  for 
greater involvement  of  cities in EU policy-making on issues  that have  a strong urban 
dimension.  In  spite  of  some  of  its  shortcomings  to  date  in  terms  of  for  example  the 
implementation of actions (see section of Effectiveness), the UAEU is widely appreciated 
as  a  very  important  first  step  towards  giving  cities  a  “seat  at  the  table”  in  order  to 

59 Joint declaration by the Mayors of the 28 EU Capital Cities (June 2018). Retrieved at: 

https://www.ccre.org/bibliotheques/getFile/ffeb4f7b078e7244db2e88e0ac1a413ccde17f1b 

 106 

 
 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

mainstream  urban  concerns  into  relevant  EU  policies.  This  is  especially  true  for  the 
pillars of Better Regulation and Better Funding, while the added value of action under 
the  Better  Knowledge  pillar  is  less  significant,  as  other  platforms  /  mechanisms  for 
knowledge generation and sharing already exist (although the UAEU also does provide 
some added value compared with these, mainly because of the involvement of different 
government levels). 

It  is  important  to  reiterate  the  fact  that  urban  policy  remains  a  competence  of  the 
Member States; the UAEU is an attempt to facilitate collaboration and action at EU level 
while respecting the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality. This attempt has 
been successful overall; there are  no  significant concerns about the UAEU potentially 
infringing  on  the  national  prerogative  in  this  field,  although  (as  noted  previously) 
Member  States  on  average  have  embraced  the  UAEU  somewhat  less  enthusiastically 
than the other stakeholder groups, which may be due to a desire to ensure it does not 
infringe on their competences. 

There was near consensus among stakeholders that, in order for the achievements 
of the UAEU to date to be sustained, it needs to be continued in one form or 
another. Most stakeholders agreed that the Partnerships should be extended beyond 
the  three  years  envisaged  but  in  a  changed  format.  It  was  felt  that  increasing  the 
number of TPs would not bring added value, as the most important topics are already 
covered.  However,  it  was  generally  felt  that  the  continuation  of  Partnerships  and  the 
broader UAEU would only be fruitful if a number of changes to the UAEU are effectuated, 
including by:  

  Striving  for  a  more  harmonised  EU  approach  to  urban  policy  and  bringing 
together  the  various  EU  initiatives  relating  to  urban  policy-making  under  one 
roof, taking into account the unique nature of the UAEU; 

  Enhancing the role of UDG/DGUM, allowing these bodies to (1) follow individual 
TPs more closely and expand their involvement in the implementation of actions, 
and  (2)  provide  more  strategic  guidance  so  there  is  a  clearer  differentiation 
between the strategic and operational roles of DGUM and UDG; 

 

Improving the representation of cities in UDG/DGUM, allowing cities to be more 
involved in the future of the UAEU; 

  Maintaining the bottom-up nature of the UAEU, which was valued as an important 

success factor; 

 

Increase funding for the UAEU to realise its potential added value. There appears 
to be support for giving the successor programme of the UAEU its own budget, 
as the Commission proposes for the EUI. 

The UAEU has clearly been valuable and useful as an experiment, or “proof of concept”, 
to highlight the importance of the multi-level multi-stakeholder approach, demonstrate 
how it can work in practice, and illustrate its benefits. However, it also appears clear 
that the current approach (based primarily on a series of TPs operating more or less in 
isolation) has outlived its usefulness to some extent, and the majority of stakeholders 
favour a different approach going forward. This is based on a recognition that, although 

107 

 
there is a need to follow up and build on the work of the current TPs, it is probably time 
to end the initial “experimentation phase” and move on and consider how the results 
achieved and lessons learned to date can be used to address key urban challenges 
(in particular as regards the implications of EU regulations and funding opportunities) 
more systematically. A substantial number of stakeholders felt that even though the 
UAEU  should  maintain  its  unique  character,  it  should  be  better  integrated  in  the 
overall EU policy framework and be better aligned with other EU programmes. 
Most  of  the  stakeholders  noted  that  their  final  judgement  on  the  added  value  of  the 
UAEU depends on the future direction the UAEU will take. 

 108 

 
 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

5.   Overarching Conclusions  

Based  on  the  findings  of  the  study  obtained  via  the  various  research  methods  and 
sources (as described in the previous chapter), we conclude that the Urban Agenda for 
the  EU  (UAEU)  has  been  a  qualified  success,  and  there  is  a  strong  case  for  its 
continuation  (albeit  not  necessarily  in  the  exact  same  form).  It  has  been  widely 
welcomed by the key stakeholders it is meant to serve, and has generated a number of 
important  benefits.  Having  said  this,  there  are  areas  and  aspects  where  the  UAEU’s 
functioning  and  progress  towards  its  objectives  has  been  hampered  by  certain 
challenges and obstacles. The following pages provide a summary overview of the main 
strengths and achievements of the UAEU to date, as well as its main weaknesses and 
issues that need to be addressed to ensure its future success.   

Key strengths and achievements  

Since  its  formal  launch  in  2016,  the  UAEU  has  contributed  to  establishing  a  more 
effective  integrated  and  coordinated  approach  to  EU  policies  and  legislation  with  a 
potential impact on urban areas. By far the most important vehicle for achieving this 
are the 14 Thematic Partnerships (TPs) that have been launched. The main strengths 
and achievements to date can be summed up as follows:  

1.  The UAEU’s added value stems primarily from its multi-level, multi-stakeholder 
approach. This innovative and (in the eyes of many) ground-breaking feature has 
fostered significant collaboration between cities, the European Commission, Member 
States,  other  EU  institutions,  and  other  stakeholders,  who  have  engaged  in 
discussions  and  jointly  identified  solutions  to  address  key  challenges  facing  cities 
across a wide range of policy areas and themes.  

2.  By implementing this approach, the TPs have provided a unique opportunity for 
stakeholders  at  all  relevant  levels  to  enter  into  dialogue,  better  understand  each 
other’s  concerns,  exchange  views  and  ideas,  identify  issues  with  the  design  and 
implementation of policies with a strong urban dimension, and try to find common 
ground  and  instigate  actions  to  address  these.  Cities  in  particular  valued  the 
opportunity  to  have  a  seat  at  the  “EU  table”  for  the  first  time,  and  saw  it  as  a 
significant first step towards a greater involvement in future EU policy making. 

3.  The  Thematic  Partnership  approach  has  enabled  the  UAEU  to  identify  specific 
issues and bottlenecks for cities, and develop concrete Action Plans to address these. 
All of the themes (ranging from Housing, to Digital Transition, to Climate Adaptation, 
to  name  but  a  few)  were  highly  relevant.  Similarly,  the  three  pillars  (Better 
Regulation, Better Funding, and Better Knowledge) were highly relevant, and helped 
to orient TPs towards relevant areas for action. 

4.  The flexible, ‘experimental’ nature of the TPs was a key enabler for their success. 
It allowed them to take a genuinely ‘bottom-up’ approach and define their own remit, 
focus  and  working  methods  in  a  way  that  matched  the  interests  and  expertise  of 
their  members.  This  helped  bridge  and  reconcile  the  sometimes  significantly 
different perspectives and priorities of participants, and address the very wide range 
of themes in a broadly effective way. Although this process was frequently difficult 
and time-consuming, the overall level of engagement among participants was high, 

109 

 
and most (especially cities) were happy to be involved in what many viewed as a 
longer-term investment in better urban policy making processes.  

5.  The  12  Action  Plans  that  have  been  finalised  contain  a  total  of  114  actions, 
representing a wide range of types, target audiences, and levels of ambition. Among 
these  are  numerous  actions  where  implementation  is  progressing  well,  and  is 
beginning to generate tangible impacts, including a few Commission legislative 
proposals  that  individual  TPs  have  reportedly  had  an  influence  on,  guidelines  or 
recommendations aimed at improving the implementation of existing legislation, as 
well as a large number of best practices, guides, toolkits and roadmaps to contribute 
to the generation and dissemination of Better Knowledge. 

6.  Thus, the UAEU is beginning to exert a certain, albeit limited influence in terms of 
strengthening the urban dimension in the design and implementation of EU as 
well as certain national policies. This includes the creation of new national structures 
that  were  inspired  by  the  UAEU,  as  well  as,  more  generally,  the  attempts  (more 
successful  in  some  TPs  than  in  others)  to  reach  out  to  and  raise  awareness  of 
relevant issues among non-participating cities. 

7.  Overall,  stakeholder  feedback  suggests  the  UAEU  is  increasingly  living  up  to  the 
ambition of becoming the “common frame” for urban policy initiatives at EU 
level,  with  other  EU  programmes,  policies  and  initiatives  relating  to  urban  policy 
being aligned to the topics of the TPs of the UAEU, as was called for in the Pact of 
Amsterdam. For example, the calls for Urban Innovative Actions are based on the 
UAEU  themes  and  some  of  the  Horizon  2020  Work  Programme  2018-2020  topics 
that are linked to cities and urban development are based on the themes of the TPs  

Key weaknesses and issues to be addressed 

The  strengths  and  achievements  summarised  above  provide  proof  of  the  strong 
potential  of  the  UAEU  to  build  on  its  early  successes  and  continue  to  increase  its 
influence over relevant policy processes. A clear majority of the stakeholders consulted 
for  this  study  supports  the  continuation  of  the  UAEU.  However,  this  study  has  also 
identified a number of challenges, weaknesses and shortcomings that have limited 
the effectiveness of the UAEU so far. In order to build on and learn from the experience 
to  date,  and  maximise  its  future  usefulness,  influence,  and  attractiveness  for 
stakeholders, the following key issues will need to be addressed:   

1.  The  implementation  of  many  actions  is  uncertain.  In  spite  of  the  positive 
examples  alluded  to  above,  overall,  there  are  serious  doubts  about  the  extent  to 
which  TP  members  (or  other  stakeholders)  are  able  to  fully  implement  their 
respective Action Plans, and therefore there is a risk that the UAEU will ultimately 
fail to have the desired impacts. The reasons for this are manifold; many are related 
to  the  issues  listed  below,  and  include  a  lack  of  clarity  about  who  is  ultimately 
responsible, a lack of resources, and a lack of direct control by TP members over the 
policy and/or legislative processes that would be  required to achieve  the ultimate 
objectives of actions. 

2.  Relatively few actions focus on Better Regulation or Better Funding (the first 
two pillars of the UAEU), compared with Better Knowledge (the third pillar), which 

 110 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

accounts  for  nearly  half  of  all  actions,  and  whose  share  has  grown  from  wave  to 
wave  of  TPs.  Although  many  of  the  Better  Knowledge  actions  are  undoubtedly 
relevant  and  important,  their  prevalence  raises  questions  about  the  TPs’  level  of 
ambition  and  ultimate  impacts.  Arguably,  Better  Knowledge  actions  tend  to  be 
‘easier’ to formulate and implement (because they do not require legislative changes 
that cities have no direct control over). However, they are also less likely to have as 
significant  (potential)  impacts  as  actions  under  the  pillars  of  Better  Regulation  or 
Better Funding, as well as less unique to the UAEU. In these areas, the TP’s Action 
Plans  have  successfully  identified  and  recommended  a  significant  number  of 
desirable actions, but actual changes to EU legislation or funding programmes are 
still few and far between. 

3.  The high degree of flexibility and experimentation that characterised the first phase 
of the UAEU was necessary to get the TPs “off the ground” and enable the mix of 
stakeholders  represented in them to begin to cooperate and find common ground 
(see  above).  However,  it  also  had  drawbacks.  The  widely  felt  lack  of  clear  and 
transparent  processes,  requirements  and  specific  objectives  (in  particular 
regarding  the  envisaged  aims  and  content  of  their  Action  Plans,  as  well  as  with 
regard to who is  responsible for the implementation and follow up of  the actions) 
also led to challenges, inefficiencies and delays in the Action Planning process. For 
the next phase of the UAEU, the balance needs to shift towards greater clarity and 
transparency, even if this is at the expense of a certain amount of flexibility.  

4.  The level of engagement of stakeholder in and with the UAEU was uneven. 
The progress of the TPs relied heavily on a relatively small ‘hard core’ of active and 
engaged  members,  especially  coordinators.  Some  other  members  were  quite 
passive, for a variety of reasons including both a lack of strong interest and a lack 
of specific expertise. Notable exceptions notwithstanding, the two groups that drew 
significant criticism from stakeholders (in particular city representatives) due to their 
perceived  lack  of  engagement  where  (1)  Member  States  and  (2)  Commission 
services (other than DG REGIO). 

5.  The outreach to stakeholders who are not directly involved in the UAEU has 
been limited. Although some TPs have been reasonably successful in reaching out 
to  and  disseminating  information  about  their  work  to  a  “second  circle”  of  cities 
(based largely on intense efforts by active and committed coordinators and EU-level 
organisations with large pre-established networks), others have been more inwards-
focused. Overall, the profile and visibility of the UAEU remains quite low.  

6.  Resource constraints were a challenge for the TPs, which had to rely primarily 
on the time members  were able to make available (on top of their “day jobs”) to 
progress their work. Although funding was available to support TPs, its effectiveness 
was limited due to both the relatively small amounts available, and, in some cases, 
a lack of awareness (some TPs did not use parts of the available budget).   

7.  The governance mechanism for the UAEU is not effective. The UDG and DGUM 
were  only  able  to  provide  a  limited  extent  of  meaningful  guidance  and  steer  for, 
feedback to, or coordination between TPs. This was partly due to the large number 
and specialised thematic focus of TPs; it clearly would have been very challenging 
for UDG and/or DGUM members to engage with all 14 TPs and their Action Plans in 

111 

 
any significant depth. Various TP members also felt that the Commission could have 
provided  more  direction  to  the  Action  Planning  process,  although  it  was  generally 
recognised  that  the  Commission  had  to  walk  a  thin  line  between  maintaining  its 
impartiality in the framework of the UAEU, and moving the Action Planning forward. 

8.  Internal communication within and between the different elements of the 
UAEU has been lacking. The study results suggest the flow of information between 
key  actors  (in  particular  the  European  Commission,  TP  coordinators,  and  the 
Technical Secretariat), as well as from these to TP members at large, and from and 
to the governing bodies, has been suboptimal. This has contributed to the perceived 
lack of transparency and awareness of key issues including the available resources 
and  how  they  can  be  used,  the  responsibilities  for  and  implementation  status  of 
actions, etc.     

9.  The internal and external coherence of the UAEU is low. Internally, the extent 
to  which  its  elements  (including  both  the  14  TPs  and  other  elements,  such  as 
territorial  impact  assessments  or  the  “one-stop-shop”  portal)  complement  and 
reinforce each other is not especially pronounced. Externally, the alignment between 
the UAEU and its TPs, and other relevant EU initiatives (such as timing of URBACT 
calls for proposals) was limited. This results in a certain amount of “working in silos”. 
There  is  room  for  improving  the  way  the  UAEU  interacts  with  other  relevant 
initiatives, which was recognised by the Commission in its proposal for the European 
Urban Initiative-post 2020. 

 112 

 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

6.   Considerations for the future of the UAEU 

In this final chapter of the report, we consider specific ways in which the Urban Agenda 
for the EU could be updated and adapted, in order to build on the results achieved to 
date, address some of the key challenges and weaknesses identified, and try to ensure 
the  UAEU  functions  as  effectively  as  possible  as  it  moves  into  the  next  phase  of  its 
existence, within the changed framework of urban policy, in particular the proposed new 
European Urban Initiative (EUI). In doing so, we looked at how the key weaknesses of 
the UAEU identified in this report (see conclusions in Chapter 5) could be addressed by:  

1.  Enhancing  the  implementation  and  impact  of  actions  (relating  to  key  weaknesses 

1,2 and 3); 

2.  Improving  the  engagement  of  stakeholder  in  and  with  the  UAEU  (relating  to  key 

weaknesses 4, 5 and 6); and 

3.  Refining the UAEU’s governance mechanisms, internal communication, and place in 

the wider policy / institutional framework (relating to key weaknesses 7, 8 and 9). 

The ways in which many of these issues can best be addressed depends inter alia on 
the  overall  strategic  approach  to  the  future  UAEU.  Broadly  speaking,  a  choice  will 
need  to  be  made  between  a  continuation  and  deepening  of  the  current  “thematic” 
approach,  which  relies  primarily  on  the  individual  TPs  to  formulate  and  implement 
actions, or a shift towards a more “holistic / integrated” approach, which would focus 
more on the elements that are common to, or cut across, the different priority themes. 
Therefore, when looking at the first two groups of issues listed above, a distinction is 
made between two options that reflect this fundamental choice. Under each option, we 
list  a  number  of  measures  that  could  be  taken  to  address  the  main  weaknesses 
identified, and are aligned with the chosen approach. It is important to note that options 
A  and  B  are  not  necessarily  scenarios  or  models  to  be  implemented  wholly;  different 
elements  could  be  combined,  and  not  all  aspects  listed  under  different  options  are 
mutually  exclusive  (i.e.  it  could  be  possible  to  find  a  “middle  ground”  and  choose  to 
address some aspects by following or more thematic, and other via a more horizontal 
approach). The aim of the options is to serve as an inspiration for how to address the 
issues  the  UAEU  is  dealing  with  and  to  highlight  possible  ways  forward,  whilst 
considering the political context / support needed.  

1. Enhancing the implementation and impact of actions 

As noted in the conclusions, the implementation of many actions defined by the TPs is 
uncertain. Moreover, the fact that relatively few actions focus on Better Regulation or 
Better Funding raises questions about the TPs’ level of ambition and ultimate impacts. 
Below we outline measures that can be taken to enhance the implementation and impact 
of actions.  

Option A: Continuation and deepening of the thematic approach 

Under Option A, we look at ways to enhance the implementation and impact of actions 
by means of finetuning the current, primarily thematic approach to the UAEU, adjusted 
by: 

113 

 
  Prolonging working on the current 14 TPs. It could be considered to prolong 
the current TPs. After all, the 14 themes were considered to be relevant and the 
multi-level collaboration within the TPs was seen as fruitful. Members established 
good working relationships and noted that these will be endangered if the TPs 
were  stopped.  Moreover,  many  members  recognised  that  three  years  was  not 
enough to come to definitive results, as shown by the fact that many actions are 
still in the early implementation phase. During the extension (potentially by up 
to  another  two  or  three  years),  TPs  could  in  the  first  instance  focus  on 
implementing the current actions, while at a later stage it could be decided to 
add new actions, if deemed beneficial. It should be recognised that this approach 
would necessitate looking at ways to maintain or refresh momentum in the TPs, 
including by taking some of the measures to foster engagement outlined below. 

  Stimulate amendments to current actions – Many actions are currently on 
hold.  Instead  of  considering  these  actions  as  ‘lost’,  it  could  be  considered  to 
encourage TPs to make amendments to actions included in the finalised Action 
Plans,  in  order  to  make  them  more  “implementable”  (which  could  entail,  for 
example, revisiting the specific objectives to ensure they relate to issues that TP 
members  can  realistically  do  something  about).  Revisiting  the  actions,  taking 
into  account  lessons  learned  during  the  implementation  phase  (including  by 
other TPs) and the current policy context, would allow to improve the feasibility 
and actionability of actions.  

  Formulating clear and transparent processes, requirements and specific 
objectives  for  TPs  –  Whilst  it  is  recognised  that  important  steps  have  been 
taken  in  this  area,  notably  for  the  fourth  wave  of  TPs,  more  could  be  done  to 
clarify the aims and objectives of the Action Planning process. This could entail 
providing  to  TP  members  more  specific  guiding  materials  (as  well  as  ensuring 
existing  materials  are  used  and  disseminated  among  TP  members),  training 
sessions and opportunities for the exchange of best practices with other TPs.  

  Promoting  cross-Partnership  collaboration  –  So  far,  the  TPs  of  the  UAEU 
appear  to  have  worked  to  a  substantial  degree  in  silos,  with  limited  cross-TP 
interaction (some bilateral collaborations between specific TPs notwithstanding). 
The  Commission  could  explore  options  to  expand  on  the  current  coordinators’ 
meetings,  in  order  to  promote  inter-TP  learning  with  an  eye  on  the 
implementation  of  actions.  ‘Core’  TP  members  from  various  TPs  could  work 
together on developing plans for implementing the actions and discuss common 
approaches and best practices (even if the TP members would remain responsible 
for their ‘own’ actions, taking into account the substantial differences between 
topic areas).  

  Improving  information  on  the  status  of  actions  –  Better  communication 
around  the  status  and  progress  of  actions  (which  would  necessitate  improved 
monitoring  of  progress)  would  facilitate  inter-Partnership  collaboration  and,  in 
particular, the outreach to stakeholders outside of the Partnerships.  

 114 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Option B: Shift towards a more holistic / integrated approach 

Under Option B, we suggest a way to enhance the implementation and impact of actions 
by  means  of  a  holistic  approach  to  the  implementation  of  the  actions,  based  on  the 
understanding  that  the  implementation  of  actions  benefits  from  a  more  coordinated, 
integrated approach that goes beyond prolonging or deepening the collaboration in the 
TPs. Instead, this approach would entail ending the TPs (see below) and making use of 
commonalities in terms of cross-cutting themes and desired results to implement the 
actions, together with actors from across the different TPs. As such, this approach builds 
on  the  recent  (June  2019)  paper  on  the  continued  implementation  of  UAEU  from  the 
Urban Agenda Technical Preparatory Group (UATPG). It could entail: 

  Ending the Partnerships in their current format – This recognises that the 
current TPs have in a way ‘run their course’ and that with the current TP format 
it would be very hard to maintain momentum and engagement.  

  Setting up an alternative transversal / integrated working method – The 
former ‘core’ TP members would work together (on a strictly voluntary basis) on 
implementing the actions. Such an approach would allow to realise the ‘cross-
cutting’  aim  of  the  UAEU,  and  to  harness  synergies  between  TPs  –  two  areas 
where  the  UAEU’s  performance  so  far  has  left  something  to  be  desired.  In 
practical  terms,  we  envisage  that  this  working  method  could  consist  of  the 
following steps: 

in  consultation  and  cooperation  between 

o  Stocktaking phase – This would entail a systematic identification of lessons 
learned, challenges and potential solutions identified across all 14 TPs in order 
to use these to further prove the importance of tackling urban concerns and 
challenges 
the  different 
administrative  levels,  maintain  and  raise  the  profile  of  the  UAEU,  and 
determine  key  priorities  for  future  action,  as  well  as  ways  and  means 
(including sources of funding, but also key legislative and policy processes) 
to facilitate their achievement. 
Identification of promising actions – The ‘core’ TP members and an external 
actor (DGUM/UDG or the  Commission) would together make a  selection  of 
actions  perceived  as  having  a  potentially  high  impact  and  a  reasonable 
chance  of  implementation.  The  latter  would,  for  example,  entail  excluding 
actions  that  do  not  align  to  the  policy-making cycle  –  but  would  not imply 
discarding actions that are considered hard to implement in the current TP 
approach.   

o 

o  Formation of main working group – A main working group would be formed, 
consisting of coordinators and other active TP members from all former TPs. 
The main aim of this working group would be to cluster the selected actions, 
taking  into  account  their  functional  area  (e.g.  “reduce  air  pollution”)  and 
goals (e.g. Better Regulation, Better Funding, etc.), with the aim to establish 
where  actions  from  different  TPs  align  and  where  synergies  can  be  found. 
Sub-working groups could also be formed to focus on the holistic aspects / 
functional areas identified.  

115 

 
o  Recommendations would be formulated, based on the work of  the working 
groups.  The  end  result  would  be  a  joint  proposal  for  implementation, 
combining and building on the original actions. 

2. Improving the engagement of stakeholders in and with the UAEU 

As highlighted in the conclusions, the performance of the UAEU so far was hampered by 
the uneven level of engagement of stakeholder in and with the UAEU,  and its limited 
visibility  and  profile  beyond  the  “inner  circle”  of  participants,  which  was  caused  by  a 
number of factors including resource constraints. Below we outline actions that could be 
taken to enhance the engagement of stakeholders in and with the UAEU. 

Option A: Continuation and deepening of the thematic approach 

Under Option A, we look at possibilities to improve the engagement of stakeholders in 
and with the UAEU by means of finetuning the current, primarily thematic approach to 
the UAEU, adjusted by: 

  Allow for a greater role of cities in the composition of Partnerships –This 
would entail moving away from the current selection process of members, which 
was  perceived  as  lacking  transparency,  to  a  model  where  the  TP  members 
themselves play a pivotal role in the composition of the TPs. This would entail 
building on the adjustments to the  selection process that have been  made for 
the wave 4 Partnerships. 

  Ensure all TP members have sufficient relevant thematic expertise –Part 
of the reason for the sometimes limited engagement of members (in particular 
Member States) with the TPs has been that some of their representatives lacked 
in-depth knowledge and expertise in the specific issues that were discussed. If 
the existing TPs are prolonged, it should be clarified further that all participants 
are  expected  to  have  significant  experience  in  the  specific  policy  area  the  TP 
focuses on (rather than “just” urban policy experience), in order to ensure they 
are  in  a  position  to  contribute  constructively  to  the  Action  Planning  and 
implementation  process.  Thematic  expertise  could  also  be  sought  outside  the 
core TP members, for instance via outreach to other non-participating cities and 
stakeholders.  

  Ensure  adequate  resources  for  TPs  –  Members,  and  in  particular 
coordinators, noted to  have invested substantial own means in the TPs.  While 
most appear to have been happy to do so, the lack of funding did have a negative 
impact  on  the  participation  in  TPs,  a  problem  that  aggravated  over  time  and 
would  become  more  pressing  if  the  TPs  were  prolonged.  This  has  a  particular 
impact  on  smaller  cities  with  less  own  human  and  financial  resources.  More 
funding  for  expertise,  procedural  /  administrative  support  and  travel  could 
ensure more balanced engagement in the TPs.  

  Strengthen the relations of the TPs with relevant institutions – Within the 
TPs  this  could  be  achieved  by  stimulating  more  active  participation  of  the  TPs 
members representing the EU institutions and MS, for example by making them 
(co-)responsible for the implementation of actions (where this is not already the 

 116 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

case)  or  by  designating  EU  institutions  and  MS  as  co-coordinators.  To  ensure 
outreach to relevant institutions that are not represented in the TPs, more could 
also be invested in the communication of actions to the relevant actors. 

  Reach out to external actors – in line with the point above, more should be 
done to engage actors not directly involved in the TPs. This should encompass 
increased  outreach  and  dissemination  of information  about  the  work  of  TPs  to 
the  “second  circle”  of  cities  which  are  not  involved  in  TPs.  This  would  likely 
necessitate increasing the communication efforts and budget.  

Option B: Shift towards a more holistic / integrated approach  

Under Option B, we identify ways that could help ensure the engagement of stakeholders 
in and with the UAEU when opting for a more holistic / integrated approach to the UAEU, 
in  which  the  TPs  in  their  current  format  would  be  disbanded  and  more  integrated 
structures created (see above). 

  Expand on format of coordinators’ meetings – To safeguard the continued 
engagement of the core members of the former TPs, the format of the annual 
coordinators’ meeting could be prolonged and expanded upon. This would entail 
regular meetings of the core former TP members with high-level representatives 
of  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  to  discuss  the  progress  of  the 
implementation of actions.  

  Active engagement in thematic working groups – As described above, the 
horizontal  /  transversal  approach  under  option  B  would  involve  setting  up 
working  groups,  with  the  aim  to  cluster  actions,  taking  into  account  their 
functional area and goals, in order to establish where actions from different TPs 
align and where synergies can be found. These working groups should also serve 
as a platform to actively engage the former core TP members, for example by 
ensuring  that  these  working  groups  serve  as  a  platform  for  multi-level 
cooperation with the institutions as well as knowledge exchange and sharing of 
best-practices. The working groups could also seek to ensure outreach to other 
non-participating stakeholders and cities.  

  Ensure  adequate  resources  for  engagement  in  holistic  /  integrated 
approach – It is clear that also a holistic / integrated approach to the UAEU and 
the  implementation  of  actions  would  necessitate  making  available  sufficient 
resources  for  the  stakeholders  to  participate,  as  this  approach  would  place  a 
heavy responsibility on former core TP members.  

3. Refining the UAEU’s governance mechanisms, internal communication, and 
place in the wider policy / institutional framework 

As noted in the conclusions, the performance of the UAEU to date was hindered by an 
ineffective  governance  mechanism,  suboptimal  internal  communication,  and  low 
internal  and  external  coherence.  In  this  section,  we  included  measures  that  could  be 
taken to refine the UAEU’s governance mechanisms and coherence. These are largely 
independent of the options discussed previously (i.e. could be envisaged under either a 
more  thematic  or  a  more  holistic  approach).  Many  of  these  are  ambitious  measures, 

117 

 
which would be hard to implement in the current model of the UAEU and are dependent 
on broader policy developments. Nonetheless, if buy-in from the relevant actors could 
be  ensured,  the  following  changes  and  enhancements  could  help  to  address  the 
weakness in this area: 

  Improved  guidance  from  the  DGUM/UDG,  including  the  Commission  – 
Stakeholders singled out the lack of guidance from the DGUM/UDG and from the 
Commission during the Action Planning and implementation phase as one of the 
key impediments to the UAEU reaching its full potential. The DGUM/UDG could 
look at ways to provide more support to TPs (or their successor structures), for 
example by expanding the role of the Urban Agenda Technical Preparatory Group 
(UATPG).  The  specific  roles  of  the  DGUM,  UDG  and  UATPG  could  be  better 
defined, with a clearer division of labour between notably the DGUM and UDG. 
Regarding the Commission, it is worth exploring whether it can improve its role 
in coordinating and facilitating the Action Plan implementation, without upsetting 
the bottom-up approach of the UAEU. This could entail better communication by 
the Commission to the TPs regarding the processes to follow and about what is 
expected  from  them.  More  in  general,  transparent  and  effective  internal 
communication  should  be  part  of  an  improved  governance  model,  notably 
between the governance bodies and the TPs.  

  Enhance the links between the UAEU and the decision making processes 
and policy cycles – While we are conscious that full-scale changes to the EU 
decision-making  process  are  unrealistic,  we  would  suggest  looking  at  ways  to 
make  it  required  to  consider  the  Action  Plans  as  more  than  just  ‘another 
stakeholder opinion’. This could potentially be done by specifying and formalising 
the  role  /  position  of  the  UAEU  and  the  Action  Plans  in  the  stakeholder 
consultation process for e.g. the European Commission's regulatory fitness and 
performance (REFIT) programme.  

  Enhancing  the  representation  of  cities  in  relevant  decision-making  / 
governance bodies at EU and national level  – This would first of all entail 
improving  the  representation  of  cities  in  the  UAEU’s  own  governance 
mechanisms, the UDG and DGUM. The representation of cities in the governance 
bodies of the  European Urban  Initiative-post 2020 should also be safeguarded 
(we  note  that  the  Commission  talks  in  its  proposals  about  an  “EUI  Steering 
Group”  in  which  cities  would  be  represented).  In  addition,  the  European 
Parliament, the European Committee of the Regions and Member States  could 
seek to better represent cities and give them a voice in relevant decision-making 
processes  and  in  EU  and  national  policy  frameworks.  For  Member  States, 
applying the UAEU method at national level could be an option worth considering. 

  Improve the alignment with Cohesion Policy programmes and other EU 
initiatives  –  This  could  be  done  in  the  framework  of  the  European  Urban 
Initiative-post  2020,  which  would  also  allow  to  link  the  UAEU  directly  with 
Cohesion  /  ERDF  funds  after  2020.  The  EUI  should  also  stimulate  the 
implementation  of  UAEU  actions.  Including the  Urban  Agenda  in  the  European 
Urban  Initiative  work  programme  could  be  a  first  step  in  this  direction.  As  for 

 118 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

other EU initiatives, ensuring stronger links with the UAEU should take place in 
their inception phase.  

119 

 
 
Annexes 

Annex A: UAEU Consultation Synopsis report  

1. Introduction   

As part of the assessment of the Urban Agenda for the EU, the study team undertook 
three types of direct consultation activities: 1) an online consultation, 2) interviews with 
key  stakeholders,  and  3)  case  studies  that  included  interviews  with  members  of  the 
Thematic Partnerships. The results of the case studies are not covered in this Synopsis 
report, but are included in Annex B of the Draft Final Report.  

The online consultation was open to all interested parties, but targeted mainly key UAEU 
stakeholders, namely: cities and urban authority representatives, other public authority 
representatives (international, EU, national and regional), as well as other stakeholders 
including  civil  society  organisations,  NGOs,  businesses,  academic 
research 
organisations, and experts.  

The interviews were conducted with stakeholders who have been directly or indirectly 
involved  in  the  design,  operationalisation  and  implementation  of  the  UAEU:  EU 
institutions,  Member  States  representatives  at  the  EU  bodies,  European  and  national 
organisations working on urban and regional policy, civil society and cities. 

The  combined  online  consultation  and  interviews  results  are  an  important  source  of 
evidence for all five assessment criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence 
and  EU  added  value)  and  most  assessment  questions,  as  formulated  for  the  broader 
assessment study (see Annex C).  

2. Online consultation  

Overview of the participants 

Between 1 April and 30 June 2019, 118 stakeholders completed the survey (which was 
promoted  via  the  Futurium  website  and  various  other  channels).  This  included 
respondents based in 24 different EU Member States. Most respondents were based in 
Belgium (22), followed by Portugal (12), the Netherlands (12), Germany (11), Italy (9) 
and Spain (6).  

Table 1: Country of respondents 

Austria 

# 

3 

% 

3% 

Germany 

Belgium 

22 

19% 

Greece 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

2 

0 

0 

1 

Denmark  2 

Estonia 

1 

2% 

0% 

0% 

1% 

2% 

1% 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

# 

11 

2 

2 

2 

9 

2 

0 

% 

9% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

8% 

2% 

0% 

1% 

Poland 

# 

4 

% 

3% 

Portugal 

12 

10% 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

3 

1 

2 

6 

3 

5 

3% 

1% 

2% 

5% 

3% 

4% 

Luxembourg  1 

 120 

 
 
  
  
  
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Finland 

# 

4 

% 

3% 

Malta 

# 

0 

% 

0% 

Iceland 

France 

4 
Source: Online consultation 

3% 

Netherlands  12 

10% 

Norway 

# 

0 

2 

% 

0% 

2% 

Most respondents (31%) who completed the consultation belonged to a city or urban 
public entity. A further one fifth belonged to either a regional (10%) or national (11%) 
public  entity.  Other  well  represented  groups  of  respondents  were  those  from  non-
governmental organisations (8%) and those responding as a private individual (12%).  

A  majority  of  respondents  (53%)  noted  to  be  directly  involved  in  the  Urban  Agenda, 
whilst most of the remainder (32%) indicated to be familiar with the Urban Agenda, but 
not  directly  involved.  Roughly  two-thirds  (65%)  of  respondents  who  were  directly 
involved in the Urban Agenda, were replying as a Coordinator or a Member of a Thematic 
Partnership (including Participants, Observers and Stakeholders). 

Respondents’ familiarity with Thematic Partnerships of the Urban Agenda was spread 
fairly  evenly,  ranging  from  10%  of  respondents  for  the  Security  in  Public  Space 
Partnership,  to  28%  for  the  Urban  Mobility  and  Jobs  and  Skills in  the Local  Economy 
Partnerships60. 

Effectiveness 

Impact on cooperation, coordination and interaction between stakeholders  

Opinions  on  the  formation  /  composition  of  the  Thematic  Partnerships  of  the  Urban 
Agenda  were  typically  positive.  Most  surveyed  stakeholder  (54%)  agreed  or  strongly 
agreed that the Partnerships of the Urban Agenda are composed of a balanced set of 
members. One fifth of respondents (20%) neither agreed nor disagreed, whilst a similar 
proportion (22%) disagreed or strongly disagreed.  

Those respondents who disagreed that the Thematic Partnerships of the Urban Agenda 
are  composed  of  a  balanced  set  of  members  felt  that  the  main  issues  regarding  the 
composition of the Partnerships are: 1) a lack of participation of organisations from civil 
society  or  research  /  academia,  2)  a  lack  of  geographical  balance  among  the  cities 
and/or EU Member States included as members, and 3) a lack of balance in the size of 
cities and urban areas included as members (33%-36% of stakeholders indicated these 
to be the main issues). 

Regarding the working methods and arrangements of Thematic Partnerships, opinions 
were mixed. On the one hand, the views on the internal functioning of the Partnerships 
were mainly positive. Seven out of ten respondents (69%) strongly agreed or agreed 
that the Thematic Partnerships’ coordinators effectively fulfil their role. Close to six out 
of  ten  respondents  (56%-58%)  strongly  agreed  or  agreed  that  the  Thematic 
Partnership(s)  meetings  are  well  organised  and  that  the  Thematic  Partnerships’ 
members are generally involved / participate well. On the other hand, only about a third 
(32%-33%) of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the Thematic Partnerships 

60 Only respondents who noted to be directly involved or familiar with the Urban Agenda were asked about 

their familiarity with Partnerships.   

121 

 
  
  
  
                                                 
receive sufficient support from Commission DGs other than DG REGIO, receive adequate 
administrative or technical support, and that the governing bodies of the Urban Agenda 
(Directors-General Meeting on Urban Matters, Urban Development Group) provide clear 
guidance. 

Action plans and implementation of actions 

Opinions on the Action Plans developed by Thematic Partnerships were overall positive. 
About eight out of ten surveyed stakeholders (79%) agreed or strongly agreed that the 
Action Plans are relevant to the needs of the cities in the EU. Stakeholders agreed as 
well  that  the  Action  Plans  are  ambitious  in  terms  of  goals,  sufficiently  reflect 
stakeholders’  opinions  and  input,  comprise  a  clear  plan  for  implementation,  are  well 
aligned to other EU policies, and encompass concrete and measurable objectives (54%-
64%  agreed  or  strongly  agreed).  Respondents  were  somewhat  less  convinced  about 
whether the Action Plans are realistic in terms of their aims (49% agreed or strongly 
agreed).  

As regards the continuation of Thematic Partnerships, only roughly a quarter (27%) felt 
that  the  Partnerships  should  be  extended  using  broadly  the  same  approach  and  /  or 
format.  A  majority  of  surveyed  stakeholders  (51%)  believed  that  the  Partnerships 
should be extended beyond the three years originally envisaged, but in  a significantly 
changed  format.  Only  4%  of  respondents  felt  that  a  continuation  of  the  Partnerships 
would not provide additional benefits.  

Contribution to strengthening urban dimension in EU and national policies 

Overall opinions on the contribution of the UAEU to strengthening the urban dimension 
in EU and national policies were positive. Most surveyed stakeholders indicated that the 
Urban Agenda contributed to a great or some extent to: 

1.  improved  networking  and  collaboration  on  urban  issues  with  other  stakeholders 

(80%); 

2.  more cooperation with cities and urban areas in other European countries (77%); 

3.  more involvement of cities and urban areas in EU policy-making (74%);  

4.  progress on the UN Sustainable Development Goals (70%);  

5.  improved policy-making on urban issues at the local level (60%); and 

6.  more involvement of cities and urban areas in national policy-making (54%).  

Stakeholders were less convinced about the Urban Agenda’s contribution to progress on 
Territorial Impact Assessment; with 43% agreeing that the Urban Agenda contributed 
to TIAs to a great or some extent.  

Concerning the three pillars of EU policy-making and implementation, which the UAEU 
focusses  on  (i.e.  Better  Funding,  Better  Knowledge  and  Better  Regulation), 
stakeholders’ opinions diverged somewhat. Eight of ten surveyed stakeholders (79%) 
felt that the Urban Agenda contributed to a great or some extent to “better knowledge 

 122 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

and  data  on  urban  issues”.  The  comparable  figures  for  “Better  Funding”  and  “Better 
Regulation” were notably lower, although still mainly positive. Slightly less than two-
thirds of respondents (64%) agreed that the  Urban Agenda contributed to a great or 
some extent to “EU funding that is better adapted to cities and urban areas. A similar 
proportion (61%) agreed that the Urban Agenda contributed to a great or some extent 
to “EU regulation that is better adapted to cities and urban areas”.  

Stakeholders’ familiarity with the “one-stop-shop” for cities portal, as a tangible tool of 
the Urban Agenda that is meant to facilitate a more effective approach to policy-making, 
was not high. About a third of the surveyed stakeholders (33%) reported having used 
the  “one-stop-shop”  for  cities  portal,  with  only  3%  having  used  it  extensively.  Most 
other  stakeholders  (37%)  were  unaware  about  its  existence.  The  “Futurium”  website 
was used more frequently: about a fifth (21%) of stakeholders reported having used it 
extensively, whereas about half (49%) used Futurium rarely. 

Main barriers to effectiveness 

Slightly more than two thirds of surveyed stakeholders (69%) perceived barriers to the 
Urban  Agenda  reaching  its  full  potential61.  A  lack  of  funding  was  mentioned  most 
frequently as a barrier (47% of respondents who perceived a barrier mentioned this), 
followed by a lack of alignment with the EU regulatory / financing cycle and processes 
(40% of respondents mentioned this). Other important perceived barriers to the Urban 
Agenda reaching its full potential were a lack of support of European Commission DGs 
(other than DG REGIO), completed Action Plans not being followed up and implemented, 
a  lack  of  interest  or  involvement  of  cities  and  regions,  and  a  lack  of  interest  or 
involvement  of  EU  Member  States.  Between  21%  and  26%  of  respondents  who 
perceived a barrier mentioned these barriers. 

Efficiency 

Efficiency  of  governance,  coordination,  management  and  administrative 
structures 

Regarding  the  operational  efficiency  of  the  Urban  Agenda,  majorities  of  stakeholders 
(61%-57%)  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  meetings  organised  for  the  Thematic 
Partnerships and the Action Plans were delivered in a cost-efficient and timely manner. 
Opinions were more divided concerning the cost-efficiency and timeliness of the public 
feedback  for  the  Action  Plans  as  well  as  the  activities  implementing  the  final  Action 
Plans.  Less  than  half  of  the  surveyed  stakeholders  (40%-48%)  agreed  or  strongly 
agreed that the latter elements were delivered in a cost-efficient and timely manner. 

Proportionality of costs and perceived benefits  

Members of Partnerships, including coordinators, spent substantial time and resources 
on the Partnerships. On average, members estimated having committed 0.78 FTE over 
2018,  excluding  those  who  did  not  commit  any  time.  The  average  (self-declared) 
resources  invested  in  2018  amounted  to  18,826  EUR;  an  amount  which  would  we 

61 This question was only asked to those respondents who indicated to be familiar with the Urban Agenda, or 

who were directly involved. 

123 

 
                                                 
substantially  higher  if  deducting  some  very  low  amounts.  Nonetheless,  a  relative 
majority of surveyed stakeholders (37%) felt that they had spent  less time than they 
would have liked on the Urban Agenda; this figure was substantially higher (50%) for 
cities and urban entities. Only about one in ten surveyed stakeholders (12%) felt that 
they spent too much time on the Urban Agenda62.   

Relevance 

Relevance of multi-level and multi-stakeholder cooperation 

Roughly three quarters of stakeholders (76%) felt that the needs and priorities of cities 
and  urban  areas  are  taken  into  account  (to  a  great  extent  or  somewhat)  by  policy 
makers at national or regional level. This compared to two thirds of respondents (67%) 
who felt that the needs and priorities of cities and urban areas are taken into account 
by policy makers at EU level. Does this suggest that stakeholders saw no need for more 
involvement of cities and urban areas in national / regional and EU level policy-making? 
Not per se, as only 16%-17% of stakeholder felt that the needs and priorities of cities 
and urban areas are taken into account to a great extent by policy makers at national / 
regional or EU level. 

The surveyed stakeholders attached great importance to the key objectives of the Urban 
Agenda.  Improved access  of cities and urban areas to  EU funding was rated as most 
important (rated 8.8 out of 10, in which 10 is ‘very important’). This was followed by 
having better knowledge and data on  urban issues (8.6 out of 10), more cooperation 
with cities and urban areas in other European countries (8.5 out of 10), increasing the 
influence of cities and urban areas on national or regional policy-making (8.4 out of 10), 
and increasing the influence of cities and urban areas on EU policy-making (8.3 out of 
10). The surveyed stakeholders attached somewhat less importance to having the EU 
involved in coordinating and supporting urban policy making at the national and local 
levels (rated 7.3 out of 10). 

Relevance of pillars, themes and cross-cutting issues  

The stakeholder perceived the relevance of the themes of the 14 Thematic Partnerships 
as high. On average, the Thematic Partnerships were rated with an  8.4  out of 10, in 
which  10  is  very  relevant.  Stakeholders  rated  the  ‘climate  adaptation’  and  ‘urban 
mobility’ themes as particularly relevant (rated 9.0 and 9.1 out of 10, respectively). The 
‘security in public spaces’ and ‘culture and cultural heritage’ themes (both of which were 
addressed by wave 4 Partnerships) were seen as less relevant (rated 7.3 and 7.7 out of 
10, respectively), although differences are relatively minor. 

The relevance of the 11 cross-cutting themes of the Urban Agenda was rated equally 
high. Stakeholders rated the cross-cutting themes overall with an 8.4 out of 10. This 
score  varied  between  8.9  for  “sound  and  strategic  urban  planning”  to  7.9  for  the 
“international dimension”.  

62 This question was only asked to those respondents who indicated to be familiar with the Urban Agenda, or 

who were directly involved. 

 124 

 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Coherence 

Complementarities, reciprocal linkages, synergies 

More than two thirds (69%) of surveyed stakeholders agreed or strongly agreed that 
the  Thematic  Partnerships  have  established  strong  collaborative  relationships  among 
their members. Opinions were more divided when it comes to reaching out beyond the 
Partnerships. Slightly less than half of the stakeholders (46%) agreed or strongly agreed 
that  the  Partnerships  have  actively  involved  associations  /  city  network  beyond  their 
members. Only about a third (32%) of stakeholders agreed or strongly agreed that the 
Urban Agenda Partnerships collaborate well with other Urban Agenda Partnerships.  

Duplications, overlaps, incompatibilities 

Stakeholders were overall not convinced about whether the Action Plans prevent overlap 
in  themes  covered  (48%  agreed  or  strongly  agreed).  The  proportion  of  surveyed 
stakeholders  who  felt  that  the  Action  Plans  align  to  other  EU  policies  was  also  not 
particularly high (56%). 

EU added value  

Most surveyed stakeholders felt that the UAEU generate value that is additional to the 
value that would have resulted from interventions initiated at regional or national levels. 
Notably,  six  in  ten  stakeholders  (61%)  strongly  disagreed  or  disagreed  with  the 
statement  that  “Also  without  the  Urban  Agenda  there  are  enough  ways  for  cities  to 
influence  EU  policy  on  urban  matters”.  Similarly,  more  than  half  (55%)  of  surveyed 
stakeholders  strongly  disagreed  or  disagreed  that,  if  the  Urban  Agenda  would  be 
discontinued, the established collaboration between stakeholders would likely continue.  

3. Stakeholder interviews    

indirectly 

The  study  team  carried  out  a  total  of  26  interviews  with  EU-level  and  other 
stakeholders  who  have  been  directly  or 
in  the  design, 
operationalisation and implementation of the UAEU (see the table below). The aim of 
the  general  interviews  was  to  collect  information  on:  the  effectiveness  of  the  UAEU, 
particularly  on  the  horizontal  and  vertical  cooperation  and  interaction  amongst  UAEU 
stakeholders;  the  benefits  achieved  relative  to  the  resources  invested  by  the  EU  and 
other stakeholders (efficiency), the alignment of UAEU objectives with the needs of cities 
and  urban  areas  in  the  EU  (relevance);  the  complementarity  of  UAEU  with  other  EU 
initiatives (coherence) and the added value of having the UAEU (EU added value).  

involved 

Table 2: General interviews conducted 

Stakeholder type 

EU institutions 

Member State representatives at EU bodies 

International and European organisations working on urban and regional 
policy 
Civil society  

125 

No. of 
interviews  
7 

9 

7 

1 

 
 
Stakeholder type 

Cities  

Total 

Effectiveness  

No. of 
interviews  
2 

26 

When asked generally about the governance of the UAEU, interviewees noted that the 
multi-level governance approach of the UAEU is its main achievement. They felt 
it works well, because it brings together organisations from different governance levels 
that  do  not  usually  interact  with  each  other  and  it  allows  UAEU  stakeholders  to 
operationalise  their  ideas  to  tackle  urban  challenges  as  well  as  establishing  political 
coordination through the DGUM and the UDG.  

Despite the positive views on the multi-level governance structure of the UAEU, most 
interviewees were not entirely satisfied with the role of DGUM. Stakeholders believed 
the DGUM role is limited; even if it does discuss them and provide feedback on the 
Thematic  Partnerships’  Action  Plans,  interviewees  see  room  for  improvement  in  the 
translation  of  actions  into  policy.  Cities  highlighted  that  they  would  like  to  be 
better informed by DGUM and UDG about the overall development of the UAEU, 
and how different TPs are progressing in terms of Better Knowledge, Better Funding and 
Better Regulation, as they felt slightly isolated from what is happening in these political 
bodies. Interviewees acknowledged that the DGUM had to engage with too many TPs in 
the first years, which also made it difficult for this body to provide detail feedback on 
the Action Plans. They questioned how effective it is to have DGUM approving Actions 
Plans.  According  to  feedback,  Action  Plans  are  normally  approved  during  DGUM 
meetings,  which  follow  the  Council  presidency  schedule,  meaning  that  some 
Partnerships might not get feedback for months, which delays their work. 

It was also emphasised that too many stakeholders participate at DGUM meetings, 
which hinders participants’ ability to have meaningful discussions. Besides, interviewees 
(particularly cities representatives) mentioned that these discussions continue to have 
an  intergovernmental  nature  rather  than  having  more  “multi-level”  discussions. 
Additionally,  Member  States  representatives  highlighted  that  the  same  ministry 
representatives tend to attend both DGUM and UDG meetings, thus these bodies end 
up having similar roles and participants tend to discuss the same topics. Despite these 
obstacles,  interviewees  pointed  out  that  some  stakeholders,  such  as  CoR,  Eurocities, 
CEMR  and  EUKN  contribute  to  the  advancement  of  informal  cooperation  to  address 
current  and  future  challenges  faced  by  urban  areas.  Several  interviewees  highlighted 
that  these  stakeholders  have  extensive  experience  in  urban  issues  and  have  the 
potential to significantly support the discussions at EU level.  

Interviewees, particularly city representatives, emphasised two recommendations to 
potentially  improve  the  roles  of  UDG  and  DGUM  within  the  UAEU.  Firstly,  city 
representatives  should  be  involved  at  the  UDG  meetings  to  ensure  the  political  and 
strategic  coordination  is  more  “multi-level”,  boosting  multi-level  discussions  at  these 
meetings. Secondly, DGUM should provide more strategic guidance so there is a clearer 
differentiation between the strategic and operational roles of DGUM and UDG. 

When  asked  about  the  role  of  Urban  Agenda  Technical  Preparatory  Group 
(UATPG), only a few interviewees (mainly MS representatives) knew about this body 

 126 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

and those who did, described its role differently. Some believed it is a subgroup of the 
UDG  that  was  set  up  to  address  issues  coming  out  during  the  implementation  of  the 
TPs, which are not covered by the Pact of Amsterdam. Others thought that the role of 
UATPG is to prepare the agenda and discussions for the DGUM and UDG meetings. Even 
though interviewees described the UATPG’s role differently, they agreed that timing of 
UATPG meetings and their coverage is subject to the Council’s presidency, which tend 
to  define  the  role  of  this  body  and  the  discussions  participants  will  have  at  UATPG 
meetings.    

The  process  of  selecting  Partnership  members  was  considered  political  and  non-
transparent  by  most  of  the  stakeholders  interviewed  (except  MS  representatives). 
Interviewees  acknowledged  that  the  selection  of  partners  in  the  first  wave  of 
Partnerships was experimental; the selection process was less structured because of its 
novelty and the fact that no real selection criteria were applied to participants, beyond 
that of the timing of their application. Some described it as “first come first served basis” 
approach. Interviewees considered that the selection of partners for the other three 
waves  of  TPs  was  more  structured.  Stakeholders  representing  urban  areas  and 
cities, as well as Member States, could propose partners to get involved in Partnerships 
taking into consideration their expertise, and then DGUM representatives would discuss 
and  decide  on  the  final  list  of  partners.  It  was  the  decision  on  the  final  list  of 
partners  that  city  representatives  and  other  organisations  considered  non-
transparent, and some also  considered it highly politicised. They highlighted that in 
situations  where  stakeholders  proposed  two  organisations  from  the  same  country  to 
participate  in  a  Partnership,  there  was  a  lack  of  clarity  on  why  one,  or  both,  were 
selected  (some  Partnerships  have  a  ministry  and  city  from  the  same  Member  State). 
Interviewees  argued  that  there  should  be  clearer  guidance  on  what  happens  when 
two organisations from the same Member State are put forward by any of these entities: 
CEMR, Eurocities, COR or a Member State. Likewise, it was unclear to them under what 
criteria organisations are being left out. 

Interviewees described the UAEU’s working methods (of having Thematic Partnerships 
to  prepare  Actions  Plans),  as  “quite  a  practical  and  pragmatic  approach”,  the 
effectiveness  of  which  depends  strongly  on  how  active  TP  members  are.  Particularly 
important for the effective operationalisation of the UAEU is the role of the coordinator, 
in particular how involved the  coordinator is in the organisation of work and  tracking 
progress. Moreover, interviewees raised some aspects regarding the operationalisation 
and working arrangements that they believed are worth noting after three years since 
the UAEU was launched.  

1.  Variety of actions. The actions put forward are very varied, which has a direct 
effect  on  the  feasibility  and  length  of  their  implementation.  Some  actions  are 
short-term  while  other  actions  require  years  of  implementation,  meaning  that 
some  short-term  actions  can  be  implemented  during  the  three  years  a  TP  is 
active,  whilst  others  will  require  more  time  and  additional  funding.  Moreover, 
there are also actions that are outside of the control of TP members to implement, 
mainly because these require the Commission to change regulation.  

2.  Connected  to  the  first  point,  it  was  also  highlighted  that  due  to  the  lack  of 
resources and time needed to implement actions targeting Better Regulation 

127 

 
and Better Funding, most of the actions put forward by TPs targeted the Better 
Knowledge pillar. The reviewed monitoring data (Section 2.1.2) also shows that 
the pillar covered by most actions is the Better Knowledge pillar.  

3.  Broadness of themes. Interviewees highlighted some of the TP themes can be 
very broad and that there are many initiatives covering the UAEU themes. Thus, 
EU institutions’ representatives mentioned that TP members needed to focus and 
tailor their work in a coherent way to avoid duplication. 

In addition to the three implementation aspects raised, interviewees also pointed out 
several uncertainties that have hindered the operationalisation of the UAEU to date.  

1.  Voluntary  nature  of  the  UAEU.  Member  States,  Commission  DGs  and  other 
UAEU stakeholders are not obliged to provide feedback on the proposed Action 
Plans, thus some TPs might not obtain information on their Action Plans and might 
not  get  the  support  needed  to  implement  the  actions.  A  few  interviewees 
highlighted that they invested time and efforts on drafting the APs, but did not 
receive feedback nor political recognition to ensure the take-up of actions. 

2.  Ownership of actions. According to the interviewees, it is unclear who should 
be in charge of the implementation of Action Plans. TP partners are frequently not 
clear whether their role includes the implementation of actions, or simply stops 
at the drafting of the Action Plan. Many interviewees pointed to the Urban poverty 
Partnership  as  an  example  where  most  actions  have  not  been  implemented, 
because a lack of clarity of who should implement the actions.  

3.  Some of the actions put forward by the TPs require more resources than those 
currently  available. They also mentioned that the  Commission could point to 
available  and  existing  sources  of  funding  to  be  used  for  the  implementation  of 
actions (e.g. Urban Innovation Actions).  

4.  Some  interviewees,  particularly  MS  and  city  representatives,  mentioned  that 
greater steering from the Commission is needed, particularly in those TPs 
where members struggle to decide on actions and/or to navigate the EU decision 
making process.  

Interviewees were also asked to provide tangible examples of the benefits of the multi-
level structure of the UAEU, namely what they considered the main achievement of the 
UAEU to be. They highlighted the following actions being finalised or executed by the 
TPs:  

1.  Circular  City  Funding  Guide  to  assist  cities  in  accessing  funding  for 
circular economy projects. The European Investment Bank (EIB) developed an 
e-book (guide) with help of the cities involved in the circular economy Partnership 
that explains the funds available for circular economy projects at city-level. This 
guide,  according  to  interviewees,  was  a  good  tool  for  knowledge  sharing  on 
circular economy financing at city level, but they were unsure of the sustainability 
of the guide.  

 128 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

2.  Financial  Blending  Facilities  for  Cities,  Migrants  and  Refugees63.  The 
Inclusion of Migrants and Refugees Partnership looked into how the next multi-
annual framework funds, targeting integration and inclusion of migrants, namely 
the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and the European Social Fund 
(ESF),  could  be  adjusted  to  set  the  general  conditions  for  funding  (including 
allowing an inclusion blending facility for cities) after 2020.  

3.  The city of Milan is developing an air quality guide for how to finance air quality 
investment  at  city  level  with  assistance  of  the  European  Investment  Bank’s 
expertise and other members of the Air Quality Partnership.  

Interviewees  were  also  asked  about  the  elements  of  the  UAEU  other  than  the 
Thematic Partnerships, but the awareness of these was low and most of interviewees 
did not have much to say. Only a few member states representatives, also participants 
of  DGUM,  mentioned  that  the  UAEU  has  not  contributed  to  the  territorial  impact 
assessments  studies  even  though  they  believed  this  to  be  very  important.  These 
interviewees  also  highlighted  that  there  should  be  more  cohesion  between  the  UAEU 
and the Territorial Agenda as there is a need to have a more integrated approach and 
go beyond administrative boundaries, meaning that territorial cohesion work should not 
be treated in isolation and should be reinforced within the UAEU.  

Efficiency  

Most  of  the  interviewees,  particularly  cities  and  MS  representatives,  mentioned  that 
“they get more out of the UAEU than what they put in”, meaning that the benefits 
obtained  from  participating  in  the  UAEU  are  equal  or  larger  than  the  resources  their 
organisations invested. In term of benefits, they argued that many of those they obtain 
from the UAEU are intangible and difficult to quantify; namely, networking, relationship 
building and sharing of best practices.  

It was also noted that the costs and resources currently being invested by organisations 
involved in the UAEU are in line with, or less than the benefits they extract, because 
TPs  are  mainly  working  on  Better  Knowledge  actions,  which  tend  not  to  require  very 
significant resources. Interviewees believed that for TPs to implement Better Regulation 
actions, stakeholders involved in the TPs will need more resources. As mentioned before, 
interviewees felt there is a lack of clarity regarding where resources should come 
from in order to implement actions. Some TP members thought resources would have 
come, at least partially, from the Commission and Members States. Several members 
believed that the Commission and Member States would have either provided them with 
the  necessary  resources,  or  informed  them  on  how  to  obtain  financing  (e.g.  Urban 
Innovative Actions, URBACT programme).  

Interviewees welcomed the administrative and organisational support provided 
by the Technical Secretariat, but they were hesitant on whether it is the best possible 
arrangement for the funds available to support the implementation of the UAEU. It was 
noted that, at the moment, the Technical Secretariat is focused on the organisation of 

63 https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/inclusion-migrants-and-refugees/financial-blending-facilities-cities-

migrants-and-refugees 

129 

 
                                                 
TP  meetings,  rather  than  the  actual  implementation  of  actions  that  have  potential  to 
have impact (e.g. the migration advisory board).  

Relevance 

According  to  the  stakeholders  consulted  as  part  of  the  general  interviews,  the  UAEU 
aligns  with  the  needs  and  problems  faced  by  cities,  as  well  as  with  the  key 
challenges  for  sustainable  urban  development  covered  by  the  New  Urban  Agenda. 
Moreover,  they  also  mentioned  that  the  UAEU  themes  are  in  line  with  the  ESPON 
evidence for future development trends in different social, economic and environmental 
policy  fields.  Interviewees,  particularly  representatives  of  European  organisations, 
highlighted  that  cities’  needs  are  very  broad  and  diverse,  thus  the  UAEU  should 
only  focus  on  those  where  a  coordinated  and  integrated  intervention  is  needed  (e.g. 
reduce air pollution, create opportunities for circular businesses). The UAEU seems to 
be aligned with those key challenges that call for an integrated approach. However, a 
few  stakeholders  seem  to  believe  that  some  horizontal  and  cross  cutting  issues  that 
required an integrated approach are not fully covered by the UAEU, namely: accessibility 
and environmental friendliness of basic infrastructure in cities.  

Moreover, many interviewees argued that the cross-cutting issues included on the Pact 
of Amsterdam are not being considered properly by UAEU stakeholders. Interviewees 
also mentioned that clustering of the TPs and  cross-cutting issues themes is creating 
silos and that a better clustering could be arranged. An interviewee suggested to split 
the  cross-cutting  themes  into  enablers  -  such  as  IoT,  connectivity  and  physical  and 
digital infrastructure - and TP themes or as stated by interviewee “vertical themes” into 
themes with commercialisation purpose - such as industry, mobility, food etc.  

Coherence 

Many interviewees perceived the UAEU as a very different "machine" compared to 
other  EU  initiatives,  because  of  the  multi-level  nature  of  the  agenda  and  how  it  is 
supposed to feed into the policy making process. Thus, the level of alignment is limited 
to certain activities of the UAEU, which are to an extent aligned to the Urban Innovative 
Actions (UIA) and Horizon 2020 calls. However, some stakeholders claimed there are 
silos between EU initiatives such as the Covenant of Mayors, the European Innovation 
Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities, and the International Urban Cooperation 
(IUC),  as  well  as  with  the  urban  policy  work  being  carried  out  by  other  DGs  and  the 
initiatives with an urban focus put forward by DGs. Some interviewees felt the UAEU’s 
alignment with other existing initiatives (particularly those under the aegis of other DGs) 
was not fully understood before its launch.  

Moreover,  representatives  from  URBACT  mentioned  that  there  is  little  alignment 
between the UAEU and URBACT III programme because this started in 2014, hence 
it was already in place before the inception of the UAEU.  

In  relation  to  the  proposed  new  European  Urban  Initiative  (EUI),  most  of  the 
stakeholders interviewed seemed to be in favour of the Commission taking a stronger 
role  in  the  UAEU  and  providing  greater  steering.  However,  member  states 
representatives  highlighted  they  would  not  be  in  favour  of  having  the  Commission 
directly managing the UAEU, as they believe it will make the UAEU less transparent, and 

 130 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

they would prefer to have shared management of the UAEU, like in the case of URBACT. 
If  the  UAEU  is  directly  managed  by  the  Commission,  stakeholders  emphasised  they 
would like more transparency in issues such as the selection of members for TPs and 
how money is spent - certainly if UAEU gets its own budget under EUI.  

EU added value 

All  interviews  were  positive  about  having  an  UAEU.  Interviewees  pointed  to  several 
reasons why there is an added value of having the UA at EU level:  

1.  Find solutions to issues that affect many cities in the EU. Cities in the EU 
face  similar  challenges,  particularly  when  it  comes  to  digital  transition,  circular 
economy and environmental policies. The EU role is important for cities and other 
players  to  share  solutions,  create  spaces  for  urban  stakeholders  to  reflect  on 
common  challenges  and  share  best  practices.  It  was  recommended  by  an 
interviewee the UAEU should focus on issues where there is a lack of knowledge 
to create “transnational knowledge” and best practices. 

2.  Boost  solutions  found  locally,  but  that  can  be  transferred  and  used  by 
others.  For  example,  digital  transformation  in  the  health  care  systems  which 
tends to happen at the local level, should be boosted by the EU to ensure cities 
are not investing their resources in solutions that are already out there.  

3.  Cross cutting and cross border issues. Some “hot topics” cannot be solved at 
city level and require multi-level coordination and support, for example: security 
in public spaces.  

4.  Understand EU regulation that affects cities directly and / or needs to be 
implemented by cities (e.g. Air quality Directive). Legislation at the EU level 
has a direct effect at other levels, thus it is important to understand what is the 
directly  impact  of  EU  legislation  on  cities.  The  direct  contact  between  the 
Commission and cities can help ensure that what is happening at the EU level is 
not harmful at the local level.  

131 

 
 
 
Annex B: Case study reports 

Case study 1: Governance   

Introduction  

This  case  study  report  focuses  and  explores  the  UAEU’s  multi-level  governance 
approach, through the lenses of a sample of the Thematic Partnerships (TPs) launched 
under the UAEU to date. The aim of this case study report is to provide evidence-based 
findings  on  the  UAEU’s  multi-level  governance  approach,  in  particular  the  following 
issues:  

  The  formation  of  the  Thematic  Partnerships,  including  the  nomination  of 

Partnerships members and other aspects of the formation process.  

  Vertical  coordination  of  the  UAEU,  considering  the  roles  of  DGUM  and  UDG 
regarding how they provide strategic direction to the Partnerships, review their 
progress, contribute to establishing linkages between Partnerships, etc.  

  Cooperation between European institutions and other organisations in relation to 

the UAEU (e.g. Eurocities and Covenant of Mayors). 

The evidence base      

This case study report draws on information from six of the 14 TPs launched under the 
UAEU  to  date.  For  each  of  these,  we  have  reviewed  relevant  documentation,  and 
conducted interviews with selected members. The table below provides an overview on 
the Thematic Partnerships that are covered in this case study report.  

Name of TP 

Wave 

Number  of 
conducted 

interviews 

Inclusion  of  Migrants  and 
Refugees 

Wave 1 (Amsterdam) 

Sustainable  Land  Use  and 
Nature Based Solutions 

Wave 1 (Amsterdam)  

Circular Economy 

Wave 2 (Bratislava) 

Digital Transition 

Wave 2 (Bratislava)  

Energy Transition  

Wave 3 (Malta)  

Culture 
Heritage 

and 

Cultural 

Wave 4 (Vienna)  

4 

5 

3 

3 

3 

3 

 132 

 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

The UAEU’s multi governance approach   

The Thematic Partnerships formation process  

The majority of interviewees across four Partnerships do not know the process by which 
the  TP  has  been  created,  and  how  the  participation  of  the  partners  from  different 
countries was decided. Nevertheless, especially coordinators in two Partnerships were 
more aware of these issues.   

The  majority  of  interviewees  assume  that  the  participation  of  specific  countries  is 
decided at the level of the DGUM. According to many interviewees, the formation of the 
Partnerships also differed by wave of the TP. Thus, the interviewees perceived that the 
Member  States  played  an  important  role  in  the  formation  of  the  first  waves  of  TPs, 
contrary  to  latter  waves  in  which  the  European  Commission  had  a  more  marked 
involvement in the selection of TP members (which the Member States did not always 
fully agree with). Nevertheless, this could be explained by the fact that the first wave 
of TPs was different from all other waves in the sense that it existed prior to the Pact of 
Amsterdam,  and  prior  to  the  establishment  of  a  formalised  process  for  Member 
selection. 

The  majority  of  the  Partnership  members 
interviewed  still  have  no  clear 
understanding of the criteria for selection of countries, and/or representatives of 
cities,  MS,  or  other  stakeholders.  Several  interviews  point  to  the  fact  that,  once  the 
country composition is decided (in most cases based on national priorities), the partners 
were  nominated  by  a  national  Ministry,  based  on  the  relevance  to  national  priorities, 
expertise of the organisation, and the best fit city to participate in the theme based on 
a  national  selection  process.  Others  mention  that  the  partners  were  suggested  by 
organisations like Eurocities, or that the European Commission Services would decide 
who would join the TP. 

In  general,  there  is  agreement  that  the  process  of  TP  formation  should  be  more 
transparent, with clearer criteria for participation, as well as more guidelines 
on what is expected from each partner (e.g. including participation in meetings, the 
responsibilities  of  a  coordinator  or  a  member  etc.).  Drafting  a  Memorandum  of 
Understanding  was  suggested  by  an  interviewee  as  a  means  of  ensuring  that  the 
partners  have  clarity  on  their  commitments  and  responsibilities.  A  Partnership 
coordinator also mentioned they would like to have more decision-making power in the 
composition of the Partnership.  

In  the  majority  of  cases  there  seems  to  be  agreement  on  the  fact  that  the  selected 
members  represent  all  the  relevant  levels  of  governance,  although  there  are  some 
exceptions  to  this  finding.  For  instance,  members  of  one  TP  were  questioning  the 
relevance  of  their  TP  having  a  large  share  of  the  members  representing  the  national 
level, since they believed that actions should be more targeted to the city level. Some 
TPs included regions as partners, and  one interviewee was wondering why regions in 
general  seem  to  have  been  left  out  of  the  UAEU  framework.  One  of  the  interviewees 
highlighted that it is not clear how inactive members can be replaced.  

133 

 
Vertical coordination of the UAEU 

The evidence from the majority of the interviews with Thematic Partnership members 
shows  that  there  is  little  to  no  awareness  of  the  details  of  the  overall  governance 
structure of the UAEU, and the specific roles of the governing bodies (UDG, DGUM, etc.). 
There is a clear lack of transparency and communication between the governing bodies 
and the TP members. Interviewees pointed out that they have not been informed from 
the beginning of the roles of the UDG / DGUM, have not been provided with information 
on the discussion and do not interact with them.  

The few interviewees who were aware of the UAEU governance roles were of the opinion 
that it has not been a successful set up, and there is a belief that it can be improved. 
The overall impression conveyed is that the governing bodies of UAEU are not facilitating 
the work of the Partnerships, nor did they provide any useful or strategic advice.  

There  were  a  few  suggestions  for  improvement,  nevertheless  there  seems  to  be 
diverging positions:   

  On the one hand, some TP members are of the idea that the UDG / DGUM should 
only  be  overseeing  the  progress  of  the  TP  implementation,  without  providing 
direct guidance, but rather letting the TP members be more independent. There 
was also a feeling that the UDG / DGUM members don’t have the expertise to 
provide advice on some issues.  

  On  the  other  hand,  other  suggestions  for  improvement  have  been  quite  the 
contrary to the previous  one, demanding the closer involvement  of the UDG / 
DGUM into the implementation of the actions directed at stakeholders other than 
the  ones  involved  in  the  TPs,  or  especially  in  the  communication  and 
dissemination of results. 

Interviewees  believed  that  the  results  of  the  UAEU  TPs  would  have  more  reach  and 
impact in case the MS representatives involved in the governing bodies would support 
in  capitalising  on  the  results  of  the  TPs  and  share  them  with  cities  or  other  relevant 
actors in their own countries. This could help to raise visibility of actions and combine 
efforts of other Member States that are actively involved. 

Nevertheless,  in  general,  the  multi-level  governance,  understood  as  cooperation 
between entities at different levels of government within the UAEU context, is viewed 
as necessary to tackle  some  of the issues as it provides a direct  connection between 
cities and the MS and the Commission, showcasing the needs on the ground. 

Key actors driving the work of the Thematic Partnership   

In terms of involvement of the different types of actors in the governance processes, 
cities interviewed  find it particularly difficult to comprehend what is happening at the 
UDG / DGUM level, and some do not consider that these bodies take into account their 
grievances. They do not feel involved in the governance of UAEU per se.  

 134 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

According to interviews, Member States  representatives have been  some  of the least 
active  members  of  the  Partnerships.  The  interviewees  do  not  have  a  clear  sense  of 
progress in ensuring coherence of the TP work with the national agendas.  

A major point of interest for the majority of the interviewees has been the involvement 
of the European Commission, which provided the cities with the sense that their voice 
is heard at EU level. Nevertheless, there were some interviewees who were disappointed 
that the Commission services tended to act more like observers, and any outputs of the 
Partnerships’  work  that  imply  “better  regulation”  and  target  the  Commission  are  not 
directly taken into account in EU policies (also bearing in mind the regulatory cycle at 
EU level). It is therefore important to clarify expectations, roles and availabilities from 
the start, in order to minimise scope for disappointments.  

The role of “Other stakeholders”  

In  the  majority  of  cases,  the  interviewees  were  positive  about  the  role  and 
contributions of “other stakeholders” (other than cities, national authorities or the 
Commission). The city networks in particular were recognised as important stakeholders 
in the Partnership due to the extent of their networks and the inputs they provide. One 
interviewee stressed the importance of their role in the implementation phase.   

The  role  of  other  stakeholders  has  been  as  providers  of  expert  advice  when  drafting 
orientation  papers,  guiding  the  process,  mediating  between  views.  Particularly  when 
these organisations consult their cities’ networks about the actions included in the AP 
(Action Planning phase), communicating to cities the knowledge being generated by the 
TP  (i.e.  promoting  publications  prepared  by  the  TP)  and  finally  interviewees  believe 
these  organisations  will  be  useful  for  the  dissemination  of  the  “final  products”  when 
these are ready. 

Networks  such  as  Eurocities  and  CEMR  have  been  found  to  be  very  proactive  and 
supportive. Eurocities and CEMR are appreciated for the ‘eagle view’ they provide and 
knowledge  of  what  is  going  on  in  cities  outside  the  Partnership.  According  to  an 
interviewee,  there  is  a  need  to  bring  in  more  people  from  umbrella  organisations  to 
provide information from outside the Partnership. However, these organisations do not 
gather 100% of the information, as they do not represent all cities in Europe, specifically 
smaller ones that may have interesting cases to make.  

In at least two cases, the EIB helped to drive forward the work of the TP by publishing 
and  funding  two  tenders  to  support  the  implementation  of  actions,  which  was  very 
appreciated by the Partnership members, who are strapped for resources. 

There  is  a  noticeable  lack  of  involvement  in  the  TPs  from  CoR  and  the  European 
Parliament, although according to interviewees in  one Thematic Partnership, CoR has 
been facilitating the diffusion of results towards smaller cities.     

Enhancement of Role of Cities  

The majority of interviewees believed that the role of cities in the EU urban polices has 
been enhanced by the UAEU. The TP approach is the first formal step to get cities directly 
involved in EU policy related to urban matters, even if the Commission and MS have 

135 

 
been  consulting  them  in  the  past  through  different  channels.  There  has  been  an 
improvement but interviewees believe more can be done to get cities involved directly 
in decisions being taken at the EU level on urban policies  –  firstly by providing more 
economic support to small cities so they can also participate in the UAEU. However, it 
is not only about economic support but also about building awareness at the EU level 
that cities are an important player for the decision-making process and that they should 
have direct contact and exposure to the decision being taking at the EU level on urban 
polices.   

Summary of key findings   

The majority of interviewees across four Partnerships out of six do not know the process 
by  which  the  TP  has  been  created,  and  how  the  participation  of  the  partners  from 
different countries was decided.  

There is a clear lack of transparency and communication between the governing bodies 
and the TP members. Interviewees pointed out that they have not been informed from 
the beginning of the roles of the UDG / DGUM, have not been provided with information 
on the discussions in these bodies, and do not interact with them.  

There is little to no awareness of the details of the governance structure of the UAEU, 
and  the  role  of  the  governing  bodies  (UDG,  DGUM,  etc.).  The  overall  impression 
conveyed  is  that  the  governing  bodies  of  UAEU  are  not  facilitating  the  work  of  the 
Partnerships, nor did they provide any useful or strategic advice. 

The roles of the TP members, and especially of the Member States and the European 
Commission  services,  have  not  been  very  clear.  The  Member  States  have  been 
perceived  as  the  least  active  participants  in  the  TPs,  although  some  MS  did  take 
leadership in either coordinating or leading the implementation of actions. Several TP 
members  had  expected  the  European  Commission  to  be  more  active.  However,  the 
members were surprised to understand that the Commission took an observer role in 
the majority of cases.    

 136 

 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Case study 2: Partnership functioning & coordination 

Introduction  

This case study report focuses and explores the UAEU’s TP functioning and coordination, 
through the lenses of a sample of the Thematic Partnerships (TPs) launched under the 
UAEU to date. The aim of this case study report is to provide evidence-based findings 
on the UAEU’s functioning and coordination, in particular the following issues:  

  Thematic Partnerships coordinators’ role and effectiveness 

  Frequency,  format  and  effectiveness  of  meetings  and  other  coordination 

activities 

  Level of involvement of Members, Participants and Observers 

  Expertise of partners  

The evidence base      

This case study report draws on information from six of the 14 TPs launched under the 
UAEU  to  date.  For  each  of  these,  we  have  reviewed  relevant  documentation,  and 
conducted interviews with selected members. The table below provides an overview on 
the Thematic Partnerships that are covered in this case study report.  

Name of TP 

Wave 

Number  of 
conducted 

interviews 

Air Quality 

Urban Poverty 

Urban Mobility 

Wave 1 

Wave 1 

Wave 2 

Public Procurement 

Wave 3 

Security in Public Spaces  Wave 4 

Culture 
Heritage 

and 

Cultural 

Wave 4 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

The UAEU’s functioning and coordination   

Thematic Partnerships coordinators’ role and effectiveness 

The role played by coordinators in the TPs included the preparation of meetings’ content, 
the moderation of the sessions and discussions at the meetings, the liaising between 
different  partners  (members,  Technical  Secretariat,  Commission)  to  progress  the 
agenda,  the  oversight  of  the  different  strands  of  activities,  (e.g.  each  coordinator  is 
leading one of the working groups), the identification of priority areas and the drafting 

137 

 
 
and delivery  of  key reporting milestones (e.g.  the orientation paper).  In some cases, 
coordinators also took charge of identifying potential gaps in skills or expertise within 
the Partnership and writing the Terms of Reference to recruit external partners with the 
relevant skillset/ expertise. 

Several coordinators expressed the difficulties they encountered when first getting the 
role,  and  several  interviewees  regretted  the  lack  of  formal  onboarding  process  for 
coordinators  and  members  alike.  One  interviewee  suggested  a  document  with  clear 
guidance and guidelines for coordinators, along with key milestones, would also have 
been useful.  

The  coordinators  imposed  more  or  less  structure  to  the  TP  as  they  were  left  free  in 
choosing  their  approach  to  coordination.  Some  left  much  freedom  to  action  leaders, 
others set up advisory boards composed of thematic experts. Generally, the approaches 
have been satisfactory for coordinators and members alike. In several cases, members 
more acquainted with European projects have supported the work progress. 

In some TPs launched in the early UAEU waves, members interviewed started the work 
unsure of what to generate beyond the Action Plan; while the members of TPs launched 
in later waves seem to have received clearer guidelines on the expectations from their 
work. In a Wave 4 Partnership, interviews with coordinators revealed that it was made 
clear to them from the onset that the Commission expected the implementation of the 
majority of the actions to unfold during the timeframe of the Partnership, and that it is 
intended for  TP members to be key  stakeholders in the implementation of the Action 
Plan.  This  has  driven  a  clear  communication  from  the  coordinators  to  take  a  realistic 
approach when drafting the Action Plan. 

Overall,  the  coordinators  have  been  crucial  in  ensuring  the  Partnerships  go  forward. 
Generally, they were recognised by their members as having a good knowledge of the 
area  of  the  TP,  some  even  had  significant  experience  in  coordinating cross-European 
networks.  In  one  case,  the  coordinator  had  a  previous  working  relationship  with  the 
Commission ensuring a good buy-in from this partner. 

In terms of the Action Planning process, the majority of interviewees were largely happy 
with the content of the  Action Plan and the driving role of the coordinators in putting 
the Action Plan together on basis of their inputs.   

The  number  of  coordinators  does  not  seem  to  correlate  with  a  more  effective  TP.  In 
some  TPs,  only  one  coordinator  was  able  to  push  the  work  effectively.  In  one 
Partnership, it was highlighted that the two coordinators have different approaches and 
had to make an effort to align these in order to ensure a positive work dynamic.  

Coordination of the TP Scoping and Action Planning processes  

A series of initial plenary sessions were generally used to set the scope of the work in 
TPs,  discuss  and  identify  key  issues  to  be  set  at  the  agenda.  Interviewees  also 
mentioned that these first sessions were also useful for the different members to get to 
know  each  other,  understand  their  respective  agendas  and  expertise,  and  gauge  the 
interest of the different members in taking some themes/ actions forward. Outcomes of 
the discussions held at those plenary sessions were summarised in the orientation paper 

 138 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

submitted  to  the  Commission.  In  a  few  TPs,  an  online  consultation  was  launched  to 
gather suggestions about the TP or its Action Plan. 

In  most  TPs,  the  members  were  divided  in  sub-groups  to  decide  on  specific  priority 
actions.  The  members  volunteered  to  be  included  in  one  or  several  of  the  working 
groups,  generally  along  the  member  specific  interests  and  expertise.  Despite  this 
fragmentation, interviewees generally estimated that it was not detrimental to the TP 
rather it enabled to best utilise the diverse expertise of the TP members. In several TPs, 
a higher number of actions was related to the risk of diluting the efforts, as coordinating 
many actions with a wide scope was challenging. 

Coordination was done through an online document platform Microsoft Sharepoint in a 
few TPs, but several stopped using it after technical issues. For example, in the Security 
TP, the members eventually relied on emails to exchange and communicate in-between 
meetings  and  turned  to  Google  documents/  drive  for  the  drafting  of  outputs  (e.g. 
orientation paper). In general, access to online folders with documents was necessary, 
though not ensured in all TPs (e.g. Public Procurement). 

Frequency, format and effectiveness of TP meetings 

In  terms  of  meetings  organisation,  the  majority  of  Partnership  members  interviewed 
were satisfied by the way the meetings were held, with the exception of one TP where 
it  was  highlighted  that  discussions  were  too  short  in  the  initial  plenary  sessions  and 
members  felt  they  could  not  cover  all  topics  at  length.  The  meetings  were  organised 
regularly. In most TPs, the management team organised weekly meetings to coordinate 
the  day-to-day  activities  though  there  are  examples  of  TPs  with  monthly  virtual 
meetings.  

Partnership face-to-face meetings were less recurrent (about every 3 months) for they 
are  costly,  but  they  were  the  opportunity  to  take  stock  and  run  stakeholder 
consultations. In several TPs, the location of the meeting changed on a rotating basis, 
which  was  appreciated  for  constituting  an  opportunity  to  meet  during  conferences  or 
workshops. However, it may have caused issues of travel arrangements and raised the 
issue of lack of travel funds. In all cases, when meetings were organised at short notice 
the members attendance decreased.  

Level of involvement of Members, Participants and Observers 

Interviews  with  coordinators  highlighted  a  disconnect  between  the  partners’ 
involvement  during  the  meetings,  and  their  commitment  in-between  the  meetings. 
Whilst partners are happy to attend the meetings and participate in the discussions at 
the  meetings,  their  engagement  in  the  production  and  delivery  of  outputs  has  been 
limited,  and  output  production  was  commonly  almost  completely  taken  over  by 
coordinators and / or action leaders. In many TPs, coordinators/action leaders stressed 
the  lack  of  effective  support  from  members.  This  resulted  in  coordinators  and  action 
leaders taking on a larger role and responsibilities than they sometimes expected. 

In  most  TPs,  the  level  of  involvement  of  Member  States  was  deemed  insufficient.  In 
several TPs, representatives of Member States stopped attending meetings and/or did 
not lead actions as agreed in the Action Plan. A potential explanation is that the UAEU 

139 

 
does not offer strong advantages for the MS as they are already part of the discussion 
with the Commission and take part in the inter-governmental legislative process at EU 
level,  through  their  representation  in  the  Council.  The  MS  also  already  have 
consultations  with  the  cities.  From  the  interviews  performed  with  MS,  a  few  MS 
representatives  mention  they  have  undergone  a  learning  process  within  the  frame  of 
the UAEU, however, the scale of the knowledge transfer and awareness raising of cities’ 
problems is unclear.   

Across the board, the most active members in the TPs were the cities. Observers such 
as  URBACT  and  CEMR  brought  their  specific  expertise  to  the  table,  which  was 
appreciated  by  coordinators.  In  some  Partnerships,  members  stressed  the  important 
support  offered  by  URBACT  in  guiding  the  Partnership  work,  improving  the  quality  of 
work to better focus in a technical way the suggestions. 

As for the Commission, it was felt that the Commission has had issues positioning itself 
towards coordinators, especially in striking the right balance between a will to allow for 
flexibility / bottom up approach and the need to provide a clear set of guidelines, direct 
support and  efficient processes to  coordinators. For instance, coordinators mentioned 
that they would have welcome more feedback from the Commission on their orientation 
paper before starting to draft the Action Plan. In two TPs, interviewees stressed that the 
Commission was more involved in the beginning of the Partnership work. In one case, 
the Commission explained it withdrew at the recommendation stage, as it cannot agree 
to take any position, being a regulation body. The Commission generally positioned itself 
as a knowledge provider, though in a few Partnerships it contributed to the day-to-day 
coordination of the TP.  

In  some  TPs,  other members, particularly cities, became disengaged  as time passed, 
mostly due to high resource constraints.  

Some  interviewees  recommended  to  set  up  a  memorandum  of  understanding  or  an 
agreement, which should align expectations and resources that each partner commits. 
In one TP, the coordinator kept in contact with members, calling when one was absent 
and ensuring a strong commitment.  

Expertise of partners  

The  level  of  expertise  available  varies  per  Partnership.  In  a  few  Partnerships,  it  was 
observed that expertise was spread unevenly in the TP, or that there was high variability 
in terms of motivation and focus between members. In one TP, of the two coordinators 
one had much more expertise on the topic and was able to take on more of the work.  

In  several  cases,  the  interviewed  TP  members  would  have  appreciated  that  the  MS 
representative  could  stem  from  a  line  ministry  (which  has  responsibilities  relevant  to 
the theme of the TP). However, in the majority of cases, the MS representative came 
from the Ministries dealing with urban and / or regional affairs, which meant that they 
had less expertise on the topic at stake.   

As  a  rule  of  thumb,  when  the  expertise  of  partners  was  not  sufficient,  the  TPs  hired 
external experts. 

 140 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

The  Commission  expertise  on  EU  polices,  programmes  and  initiatives  was  highly 
appreciated  in  some  TP,  as  members  did  not  generally  have  an  EU-wide  vision  or 
knowledge of an issue. This was also the case with European networks (i.e. Eurocities, 
CEMR) representatives who supported with the comparative perspective on experiences 
on the particular topic across EU cities. 

Summary of key findings   

Thematic Partnerships coordinators’ role and effectiveness 

The  support  of  the  coordinators  was  highly  appreciated,  as  the  majority  of  the 
coordinators have been viewed as performing their tasks according to the needs of the 
TPs. In return, though, the coordinators tend to consider they could have received more 
support from the Commission and in the initial phases of the TP through guidelines on 
their role, and during the Action Planning from the members. The coordinators took on 
a  large  share  of  the  work  putting  together  the  Action  Plan.  It  is  unclear  whether  a 
Partnership is better managed when there are more coordinators.  

Coordination of the TP Scoping and Action Planning processes  

Each Partnership was coordinated according to the preferences and working style of its 
coordinator(s).  However,  in  most  cases,  the  Action  Planning  was  organised  first  in 
plenary sessions for all members to meet and know each other and then in dividing in 
sub-groups  of  Partnership  members  who  focused  on  priority  issues  on  basis  of  their 
interest  and  expertise.  This  resulted  in  some  Action  Plans  having  more  actions  than 
others.  The  coordination  could  be  challenging  due  to  technical  issues,  difficulties  in 
organising meetings or coordinating the many actions. 

Frequency, format and effectiveness of meetings   

In  most  TPs,  the  management  team  organised  weekly  virtual  meetings  to  coordinate 
the day-to-day activities, although in a few cases, the meetings were held on a monthly 
basis.   

Level of involvement of Members, Participants and Observers 

Overall,  it  was  the  assessment  of  the  coordinators  that  the  members  were  more 
interested in partaking in meetings than providing inputs for the Action Plan. As a result, 
the  coordinators  were  often  the  primary  author  of  the  Action  Plan.  The  lack  of 
involvement  of  Member  States  was  a  recurring  complaint  of  TP  members.  The 
involvement of the Commission depended on the Partnership but overall it was more a 
knowledge provider than an active member of the  Action Planning. This is due to the 
dual role of the Commission as participant to the TP and sometimes target of the actions. 
The  members  felt  there  were  avenues  for  improvement  to  push  the  members  to  be 
more involved in the TPs. 

Expertise of partners  

141 

 
 
 
There was no clear trend in terms of lack of  expertise in the TPs.  Some interviewees 
considered  that  the  members’  expertise  was  not  always  sufficient  to  draw  the  Action 
Plan.  In  some  TPs,  the  members  used  extensive  support  from  external  experts.  The 
expertise of the Commission was appreciated as well as the expertise of the network 
representatives. The representatives from ministries were not always the most relevant 
ones for the specific theme.  

 142 

 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Case study 3: Technical Assistance 

Introduction  

This  case  study  report  focuses  and  explores  the  UAEU’s  Technical  Secretariat  (TS) 
contribution,  through  the  lenses  of  a  sample  of  the  Thematic  Partnerships  (TPs) 
launched  under  the  UAEU  to  date.  The  aim  of  this  case  study  report  is  to  provide 
evidence-based findings on the UAEU Technical Secretariat’s added value. We will cover 
the following aspects:  

  The  extent  to  which  the  technical  assistance  is  in  line  with  the  needs  of  the 

Partnerships, and their level of satisfaction with it. 

  Explore differences (if any) in the way Partnerships use the available support. 

  Understand if there are any additional technical needs across Partnerships and 

DG REGIO that are not addressed by the Technical Secretariat.  

The  Technical  Assistance  is  provided  by  Ecorys  since  2017.  The  TA  is  funded  by  the 
Commission.  It  supports  the  Commission  and  the  Partnerships  in  the  following  ways, 
mostly on administrative and organisational matters: 

  Monthly reporting on the state of play of the Partnerships and progress reports 

every six months.  

  Delivery of guidelines for Partnerships’ implementation. 

  Maintaining and updating the contact list of the Partnership members. 

  Providing overview of the use of senior expertise days and reimbursement status 

of travel and accommodation.  

  Support to UAEU meetings organisation (minutes, moderations, presentations). 

  Support to UAEU Coordinators’ Meetings (January 2017, June 2017, March 2018 

and February 2019). 

  Support to preparation of UDG and DGUM meetings (8 in 2017-2018). 

  Ad-hoc  support  (e.g.  dissemination  of  online  consultation,  organisation  of  the 

Cities Forum in Rotterdam etc.) 

The evidence base      

This case study report draws on information from six of the 14 TPs launched under the 
UAEU  to  date.  For  each  of  these,  we  have  reviewed  relevant  documentation,  and 
conducted interviews with selected members. The table below provides an overview on 
the Thematic Partnerships that are covered in this case study report.  

143 

 
 
Name of TP 

Wave 

Number  of 
conducted 

interviews 

Air Quality 

Jobs and Skills 

Wave 1 

Wave 2 

Climate Adaptation 

Wave 3 

Public Procurement 

Wave 3 

Energy Transition 

Wave 3 

Security in Public Spaces  Wave 4 

3 

3 

2 

3 

3 

3 

The Technical Secretariat (TS)   

Services provided and satisfaction with the technical assistance  

The TA involves five specific tasks: 

  Support to the Thematic Partnerships (TPs) 

  The provision of expertise to the Partnerships 

  Outreach and communication support 

  The reimbursement of travel costs to Partnership members and 

  Support to the European Commission 

Support provided to the TPs across the phases of the TPs 

The  majority  of  interviewees  were  satisfied  with  the  services  provided  under  the 
technical assistance to the TPs (especially related to the logistical support to organising 
meetings  and  coordination).  They  also  recognised  that  it  was  a  crucial  factor  for  the 
success  of  the  Partnership,  especially  because  it  was  instrumental  in  keeping  the 
members  active  and  involved  through  the  organisation  of  the  Partnership  calls  and 
meetings.  

There was positive feedback on the assistance of the TS regarding day-to-day 
administrative  support  and  helping  the  coordinators  frame  their  role  and  organise 
activities (e.g. by assisting in launching a survey among members in order to identify 
priority actions). The support of the TS to speed up the process of Action Planning and 
regarding the relationship between the TP members and the European Commission was 
acknowledged by several interviewees. A few interviewees appreciated the TS keeping 
a low profile during the meetings, focusing on its administrative and organisational tasks 
while ensuing the Action Plan would be delivered on time. 

One  point  of  concern  that  was  stressed  by  several  interviewees  who  were  not  TP 
coordinators was the lack of transparency/relationship between the TS and the 
members of the TP. While the role of the TS in communicating is key, ensuring the 

 144 

 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

flow  of  information  reaches  all  members  of  TP  equally  is  also  a  responsibility  of 
coordinators. Interviewees often mentioned not being (completely) aware of the role of 
the TS and areas and ways of support. The reimbursement options as well as the lack 
of  formal  process  to  introduce  the  technicalities  to  the  partners  and  the  expected 
involvement  of  the  partners  were  all  points  where  interviewees  saw  room  for 
improvement.  This  hints  that  clearer  guidelines  and  information  packages  should  be 
provided  along  the  lifetime  of  the  TP,  especially  considering  that  new  members  may 
join. Besides the Secretariat, information should be provided by the TP coordinators and 
DG REGIO. Information from coordinators’ meetings and factsheets were provided to TP 
members, however it appears the role of coordinators was not always clear regarding 
this duty to inform.  

A large number of TP members also felt the need for further assistance in the Action 
Plan implementation phase, as they lack both the TS support and the guidance on 
how  to  implement  actions.  This  was  particularly  mentioned  as  an  impediment  in 
progressing with the implementation phase of the TP.   

On the topic of information exchange, some interviewees mentioned that the TS could 
also have shared more knowledge of the work carried out by the other Partnerships. In 
one  TP,  the  reactivity  of  the  technical  secretariat  was  considered  suboptimal.  For  a 
minority of interviewees, the fact that the TS was composed of 2 persons was considered 
excessive  for  the  number  of  Partnership  members.  The  working  relationship  between 
the TS and the TP coordinators has been good in all Partnerships however twice there 
was feedback on the coordination costs of working with the TS. 

The provision of expertise to the Partnerships 

In Partnerships where the members were strong thematic experts, the consensus was 
that the budget on experts could have been used on the TP members who were experts 
themselves. The selection process of the external expert was not the same across TPs. 
In  one  TP,  the  Terms  of  Reference  for  the  external  consultant  were  written  by  the 
Technical Secretariat support team without inputs from the TP members, which led the 
members estimating that it was not very cost-effective since the external expert was 
not located close to the city receiving expertise. On the contrary, in another Partnership, 
the Terms of Reference for the external expert were drafted by the TP coordinator. It 
should be noted that the Terms of Reference writing falls under the responsibility of the 
TP coordinator with inputs from the TP members. Related to the question of the expert 
choice, another interviewee claimed that the TS had not been proactive in informing the 
TP  members  about  available  experts.  Finally,  the  funds  for  external  experts  were 
communicated on an ad-hoc basis.  

Outreach and communication support 

Several interviewees believed the communication activities of the technical assistance 
team  could  be improved.  Several  mentioned  they  found  the  communication  activities 
insufficient and/or basic. The technical assistance provided to communicating the results 
of  the  UAEU  TPs  could  be  improved  as  the  page  of  the  UAEU  doesn’t  have  much 
followers, the social media presence could be extended (at the moment, only Twitter is 
used)  and  the  website  needs  restyling.  While  TP  members  often  considered  the 
communication  activities  to  be  lacking,  it  is  clear  in  the  mandate  of  the  TS  that  TP 

145 

 
members  should  largely  handle  the  communication  activities  (e.g.,  the  coordinators 
were invited to provide inputs for the newsletters). The role of the TS seems to have 
been  misunderstood  in  this  regard.  The  communication  activities  were  also  key  to 
strengthen  the  UAEU  community  outside its  members.  Therefore,  the  communication 
team  has  been  encouraged  to  widen  the  UAEU  community,  tap  into  more  relevant 
networks, keep contact with those cities that applied to Partnerships but were ultimately 
not considered64. A key element that has been established to address these issues is the 

Futurium  website,  single  digital  access  point  for  all  actors  involved.  For  instance,  the 
website management is considered to be (too) centralised, making content uploaded by 
the respective Partnerships themselves rather restricted.65 In a similar vein, Futurium 
is predominantly used as a post-hoc portal for providing information rather than a tool 
for cross-sectoral and  -boundary communication, knowledge transfer and information 
exchange between Partnerships and further relevant external actors.66 As a result, the 
Meeting on the State of Play on Communication in December 2018 stressed the desire 
to strengthen involvement and engagement of the FUTURIUM website and in February 
2019 the Meeting on the State of Play on Communication stressed the need to go beyond 
the Futurium website to engage the community. 

There is a need for more expertise on communication, outside website and social media 
posts and updates. Several TPs would have appreciated support on putting together an 
infographic or a video presenting the TP and its objectives and impacts, however this 
support was outside the scope of the FWC. More information sharing is expected about 
the  services  offered  by  the  FWC  as  well  as  the  available  budget  and  experts.  The 
members also wished to receive more information about the activities of the other TPs.  

The reimbursement of travel costs to Partnership members 

One role of the TS was also in organising and paying for the members’ travel. Several 
interviewees stressed a lack of transparency and in some cases of ownership of the TP 
members over the travel budget. Several interviewees pointed out it would be useful to 
estimate  the  utilisation  of  the  budget.  In  one  TP,  the  budget  was  quickly  spent,  and 
members dropped out since they had no funds left to travel to meetings.  

It appears the members of the first waves encountered more often issues related to the 
funding  of  the  travels.  In  several  cases,  the  budget  was  deemed  insufficient,  which 
might be due to TP members not knowing the total travel budget.  

Use of support across Partnerships 

The secretariat provided practical support to all six TPs considered for this case study. 
It also helped hiring experts to support the work of all TPs. The Partnerships from wave 
1  were  already  launched  and  received  technical  assistance  from the  Secretariat  at  a 
later stage. However, it does not appear to have resulted in particular issues. On the 

64 DG REGIO & Technical Secretariat. (2018). 4th State of Play Meeting on Communication. Brussels: DG 
REGIO & Technical Secretariat. 

65 UATPG. (2018). Urban Agenda Technical Preparatory Group. Vienna: UATPG. 

66 DG REGIO & Technical Secretariat. (2018). 3rd State of Play Meeting on Communication. Brussels: DG 

REGIO & Technical Secretariat. 

 146 

 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

contrary, the first wave Partnerships seem to have welcomed very positively the arrival 
of  the  Technical  secretariat  which  took  charge  of  logistical  and  administrative  issues 
such as finding and booking venues for the meetings, organising travels, taking notes 
during  the  meetings  and  drafting  follow-up  updates  after  the  meetings,  arranging 
conference  calls  between  meetings  for  progress  updates,  drafting  template  for  the 
reports and the Action Plan, and sourcing and recruiting relevant experts. It lifted the 
burden off coordinators who could then focus on content.  

Some  partners  did  not  ask  for  technical  assistance  because  they  had  difficulties 
understanding what the needs were in time to ask for support. It is unclear whether the 
TS did not sufficiently explain what support could be received. It generally seems than 
the  TPs  that  made  the  most  use  of  the  external  experts  were  the  ones  that  needed 
support writing the Action Plan. In Partnerships where the Action Planning ran behind, 
hiring an independent expert to provide inputs and helping to write the Action Plan was 
common.  

There  is  no  clear  link  between  the  distribution  of  roles  and  responsibilities  among  TP 
members and the tendency to request assistance. The quality of the services provided 
by  the  TS  was  overall  consistent,  in  one  case  the  TS  was  hindered  by  organisational 
issues on the end of the TP members.  

Coordinators  less  accustomed  to  European  projects  (cities  except  capitals)  found  the 
support of the TS particularly useful. The TS helped them understand the requirements 
and  expectations  of  their  role,  helped  set  up  an  effective  working  methodology  and 
actively supported the draft of the Action Plan.  

Summary of key findings   

Generally,  the  service  provided  by  the  Secretariat  to  TP  coordination  activities  have 
been deemed satisfactory by the majority of the interviewed TP members. These have 
been  an  important  element  supporting  the  continuity  of  work  in  the  Partnerships, 
ensuring that members are active when they meet, pushing the work forward through 
the  support  in  organising  meetings,  drafting  agenda,  moderating  sessions,  sharing 
minutes and maintaining a relationship with coordinators.  

The support in hiring experts was not always used and in one case did not seem to fully 
respond to the needs of the TP.  

Several points related to the use of the budget were also questioned: the procedure for 
hiring  external  experts,  the  lack  of  transparency  regarding  the  travel  and  expert 
budgets. In the absence of information on the cost of the TS services, the interviewees 
did not form an opinion on the value for money of such services.   

In terms of supplementary support, the most recurrent point related to the need to both 
improve  and  develop  the  communication  activities.  A  second  point  related  to  the 
importance  of  transparency.  Transparency  was  expected  on  the  use  of  the  services 
provided by the TS (especially the funds). It appears the members could have benefited 
from a clearer internal communication.  

147 

 
In addition, the Technical Secretariat support seems to need further improvement when 
looking at the different stages of TP development. In particular, clearer guidelines and 
information packages should be provided in the early phases to the TP members on the 
role  of  the  TS.  Further,  more  TS  support  was  requested  for  the  Action  Plan 
implementation phase, similar to the one received in the Action Planning phase.   

 148 

 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Case study 4: The role of cities, MS and Commission in Partnerships  

Introduction  

This case study report focuses and explores the role of cities, MS and Commission in 
the UAEU’s Partnerships, through the lenses of a sample of the Thematic Partnerships 
(TPs) launched under the UAEU to date. The aim of this case study report is to provide 
evidence-based findings on the UAEU’s multi-level governance approach, in particular 
the role of cities, Member States (MS) and the European Commission (EC) in the TPs, 
and the nature and perceived quality of their respective representation, involvement, 
contributions in the Partnerships, as well as key challenges and shortcomings. It also 
touches upon the role of cities as coordinators, and highlights common themes, which 
have  emanated  from  a  variety  of  stakeholders  regarding  their  role  in  the  TPs  or  the 
multi-level governance approach more generally. 

The evidence base      

This case study report draws on information from six of the 14 TPs launched under the 
UAEU  to  date.  For  each  of  these,  we  have  reviewed  relevant  documentation,  and 
conducted interviews with selected members. The table below provides an overview on 
the Thematic Partnerships that are covered in this case study report. 

Name of TP  

Wave  

Number  of 
conducted  

interviews 

Housing 

Urban Poverty 

Wave 1  

Wave 1  

Digital Transition 

Wave 2  

Urban Mobility 

Sustainable  Land  Use  and 
Nature Based Solutions 

Wave 2  

Wave 3  

Security in Public Spaces  Wave 4  

3 

3 

3 

3 

5 

3 

The UAEU’s multi-level governance approach   

Overall,  feedback  on  the  multi-level,  multi-stakeholder  approach  was  very  positive. 
Discussions in the various TPs were described as open and constructive, and allowed all 
stakeholders to be able to provide input in the Thematic Partnerships. The opportunity 
to  exchange,  get  the  views  and  experiences,  and  understand  the  perspective  and 
agendas of a variety of stakeholders was mentioned in all Thematic Partnerships covered 
in  this  case  study  as  a  key  added  value  of  the  TPs,  and  of  the  Urban  Agenda  more 
generally – this was thought not to be replicated in any other European fora or networks, 
and the multi-level, multi-stakeholders approach was praised in this regard. 

149 

 
 
 
Before  turning  to  the  respective  roles  of  cities,  MS  and  Commission  in  the  following 
subsections, a range of issues and remarks identified to be common to all stakeholders 
are fleshed out below: 

In  all  TPs,  engagement  was  highly  varied  across  members  (and  across  all 
stakeholder types). While this is perhaps unsurprising for a  subset  of  members to be 
more  passive  given  the  relatively  large  size  of  these  TPs,  this  was  thought  to  be 
exacerbated  by  (1)  a  rather  opaque  selection  process  and  (2)  a  voluntary-based 
participation. 

There was also a high variability in the expertise on and prior experience of the 
TP members with the specific topics discussed in the TPs, especially at the EU-level, and 
this was noted as an influential factor for the nature of the stakeholders’ engagement 
and  contribution  in  the  TPs  (whether  for  cities  or  MS).  Evidence  points  to  this 
phenomenon being (at least partially) geography-based, with predominantly (but not 
only) Eastern European cities and in some respect MS having less practical experience 
of different approaches, less knowledge of the EU context, as well as fewer resources 
available for the TPs, meaning they tended to play a more passive role, focused more 
on learning than actively contributing. 

Resource constraints in terms of budget for travel as well as time to dedicate to the 
work  of  the  Partnerships  was  reported  as  a  key  factor  hindering  engagement  for  all 
stakeholder  types.  However,  as  noted  below,  constraints  were  particularly  acute  for 
smaller (and to some extent Eastern European) cities. As such, all TP members faced 
significant opportunity costs, as they had to balance their involvement in the work 
of the UAEU with competing priorities in their respective organisations. 

Other  stakeholders,  such  as  umbrella  organisations,  European  networks  and 
commissioned external experts were noted in no less than 4 of the 6 TPs to have played 
a  significant  role  in  progressing  the  work  of  the  Partnerships,  either  as  members  or 
coordinators.  It  was  highlighted  that  they  possessed  significant  policy  expertise, 
knowledge  of  the  EU  context  as  well  as  extensive  experience  in  coordinating  pan-
European  networks  of  partners.  They  were  recognised  as  key  actors  to  provide  an 
overarching, ‘eagle view’ of issues, liaise with cities external to the TPs if needed, and 
fill  in  for  other  stakeholders  when  they  faced  capacity  gaps  (especially  at  the 
implementation  stage).  However,  in  2  TPs,  caution  was  raised  on  the  fact  that  those 
organisations also tend to have their own agenda and attempt to steer discussions in 
specific directions. 

Role of cities 

According  to  case  study  interviewees,  cities  are  a  key  stakeholder  level  in  the  multi-
governance,  multi-stakeholder  approach  adopted  by  the  UAEU,  and  they  were 
considered as critical actors in the Thematic Partnerships. The representation of cities 
in  each  Partnership  was  described  as  excellent,  and  well  balanced  across  sizes  and 
locations. Across all TPs considered for this case study, cities have been very engaged 
actors, most enthused as they valued the opportunity to feed into the EU policymaking 
and believed their work as part  of the UAEU  could have a  ‘real impact’ on their daily 
work. 

 150 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Indeed, cities usually got engaged in the different TPs with a clear objective to find 
practical solutions to their local challenges and needs. This included: 

To increase their knowledge on certain aspects of the issue, contrast their approach and 
policies  with  those  of  other  cities  in  the  Thematic  Partnership,  learn  from  their 
experiences and initiatives and share best practice. For instance, in the Housing TP, two 
cities,  both  with  significant  experience  in  housing-related  matters,  were  widely 
recognised  as  prime  examples  of  different  approaches  to  the  issue  of  social  housing, 
and this complementarity between the two was thought to have enriched discussions in 
this Partnership, and fostered learning for ‘less experienced’ cities. 

To influence policy at the EU level in the areas in question, specifically aiming to: 

(1) improve local authorities’ access to EU funding by relaxing certain requirements of 
certain  EU  funds,  which  were  frequently  perceived  as  ‘putting  off’  cities  because  too 
burdensome  (in  terms  of  resources  and  bureaucracy).  This  was  a  relatively  common 
objective, touched upon in at least half of the TPs covered in this case study (Housing, 
Urban Poverty, Security in Public Spaces). 

(2) to a lesser extent, flex or adjust the legislative frameworks at the EU level, currently 
perceived as too restrictive and not reflecting well their daily preoccupations. This was 
perhaps  more  of  a  consideration  for  certain  TPs  in  which  the  regulatory  frameworks 
were perceived as especially divorced from local responsibilities and practicalities (e.g. 
Urban Poverty, Security in Public Spaces). For instance, members of the TP on Security 
in Public Spaces highlighted that needs and challenges of cities around security at the 
local  level  (e.g.  installing  CCTV  or  other  surveillance  instruments  for  security-related 
concerns)  was  somewhat  ‘caught  up’  in  broader  debates  around  individual  liberties, 
privacies and data protection laws, in which cities tended to have had limited input at 
the EU level thus far. 

Cities,  by  sharing  their  local  knowledge,  experiences  and  challenges,  and  coming  up 
with  concrete  ideas  and  propositions  for  the  Action  Planning,  were  perceived  as 
valuable  contributors  to  the  TP.  This  practical  experience  was  appreciated  by 
Members  States  and  the  European  Commission  –  perhaps  more  remote  from  the 
realities of the ground – and for this reason these other stakeholders regarded cities as 
a key actor of the multi-level approach. Given the excellent representation of cities in 
the  TPs  overall,  stakeholders  agreed  that  cities  were  able  to  reach  a  critical  mass  to 
have their voice heard and to influence the content of the Action Plans. Yet, in a third 
of the TPs covered in this case study, cities themselves raised some doubts over their 
ability  to  influence  the  workings  of  their  respective  TPs  and  steer  its  agenda.  Of  all 
stakeholder types, they were also the most likely to highlight that the TPs operated 
under a relative ‘top-down’ approach and remained, in their view, remote from local 
considerations and challenges. However, this appears to have had only a minimal impact 
on  their  engagement,  as  only  interviewees  from  one  TP  noted  a  significant 
disengagement of cities over time. 

However,  engagement  was  often  noted  to  have  varied  across  cities  within  each 
Partnership, with typically a limited number of cities most engaged and others taking a 
more passive role. This was thought to be driven by the following set of issues:  

151 

 
Resource constraints – both in terms of budget for travel and time to dedicate to the 
UAEU – were mentioned in all 6 TPs covered as a key factor hindering the engagement 
of cities both during Partnership’s meetings as well as in-between meetings. Half of the 
TPs  considered  resource  constraints  to  be  particularly  acute  for  smaller  cities,  and  to 
some extent, for Eastern European cities. 

High variability in expertise on and prior experience of the issue, especially at the 
EU-level, was noted as an influential factor for engagement and contribution in the TP. 
To  some  extent,  evidence  points  again  to  a  size  and  geographical  gap,  with  smaller, 
eastern European cities more likely to be engaging directly with EU policy fora for the 
first time.  

Turning  to  the  role  of  cities  as  coordinators,  there  was  no  clear  evidence  that  it 
differed significantly from that of other stakeholders who have held this position, and 
cities did not seem to possess any advantage or disadvantage in terms of their suitability 
for the role. Based on the case study interviews, the fact of having one (or more) cities 
as  coordinator  also  did  not  seem  to  bear  any  influence  over  the  perceived  effective 
functioning  and  performance  of  the  TP.  In  most  cases,  coordination  of  the  TP  was 
perceived  as  effective,  in  a  few  others  less  so,  but  either  way  this  seems  to  have 
depended more on the individual characteristics and experience of coordinators or the 
broader characteristics, circumstances and challenges of the TPs, rather than on specific 
traits of cities as coordinators. However, the evidence gathered strongly suggests that 
coordinators  were  key  to  the  performance  of  the  TPs.  As  such,  the  TPs  perceived  as 
more ‘successful’ tended to be those that had coordinators described as ‘knowledgeable, 
engaged  and  committed’,  regardless  of  their  profile  (cities,  MS,  or  other  types  of 
organisations). 

Role of Member States (MS) 

Case  study  interviewees  also  perceived  MS  to  be  key  actors  in  the  multi-stakeholder 
approach adopted for the TP, although their feedback indicates that their participation 
and engagement in the TPs has been highly variable across TPs and across MS 
in each TP. A range of factors were mentioned to explain this: 

Composition of the TPs, representation of MS, and relevance of the ministries 
involved:  It  was  mentioned  in  2  of  the  6  Partnerships  covered  that  they  could  have 
benefitted from the presence of a larger MS, perceived to hold greater legislative and 
political  influence  within  the  EU  system  (France,  Germany,  Italy  and  the  UK  were 
mentioned as examples). In half of the TPs, some of the ministries involved were also 
not  perceived  as  the  most  relevant  ones  for  the  purpose  of  the  TP,  and  their 
representatives  were  not  always  individuals  who  were  considered  to  be  best  placed 
within  their  MS  to  open  doors  and  start  conversations  with  other  MS.  In  other  cases 
where TPs were treating more transversal policy issues, ministries present were relevant 
but not necessarily sufficient in their own rights to cover all policy aspects. 

Cultural  issues:  In  half  of  the  TPs  covered  (Urban  Mobility,  Sustainable  Land  Use, 
Security  in  Public  Spaces),  it  was  highlighted  that  MS  might  not  be  used  to  taking  a 
multi-level, multi-stakeholders approach, and some might have failed to see the benefits 
for  them  in  participating  in  this  sort  of  initiatives.  This  might  have  had  an  impact  on 
their initial decision to join the TP, but also on their involvement throughout the TP, as 

 152 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

at  least  a  third  of  the  Partnerships  noted  that  the  engagement  of  MS  had  starkly 
decreased over time. Members of the Partnership on Security in Public Spaces, suffering 
from a particularly low representation of MS (only 2 volunteered) considered that this 
might  be  especially  the  case  in  their  TP,  as  security  was  typically  perceived  a  prime 
national competence. 

Resource constraints and skills gap: just like cities, most MS reported to suffer from 
significant  resource  constraint.  Time  constraints  and  severe  opportunity  costs  were 
often mentioned as key factors hindering their active participation. In several TPs, MS 
also  noted  a  skills  gap  in  their  respective  states,  with  a  limited  pool  of  civil  servants 
having the right expertise and being fluent in English, meaning that those who do tick 
both boxes tend to be over-exposed to EU initiatives. 

When  MS  have  been  involved  and  actively  contributing  to  the  work  of  the  TP,  their 
approach tended to differ somewhat from that of cities. While (as noted above) cities 
usually approached the TP as an opportunity to find solutions to practical problems, MS 
frequently opted for a broader, higher-level perspective. They tended to approach issues 
more conceptually, through the lens of ‘legal and institutional frameworks’ with a keener 
interest to set up well rounded, ‘proper frameworks’ at the EU-level as well as ‘national 
sectoral  policies’.  Taking  the  example  of  the  Housing  Partnership,  according  to 
interviewees, MS appeared more interested in asking more abstract questions such as 
‘what are the elements of a good housing policy?’; whereas cities were more interested 
in  ‘practical  solutions’,  such  as  ‘why  can’t  the  EU  provide  financing  for  the  types  of 
projects we want to undertake?’. 

Some  interviewees  identified  a  risk  that  MS  could  steer  the  agenda  of  the  TP  in 
certain directions, as it was noted in at least 2 TPs that the engagement of Member 
States somewhat narrowed to specific aspects of the work of the TP, generally falling 
along the lines of their national interest, agenda and initiatives (Digital Transition, Urban 
Poverty). For instance, MS in the Urban Poverty Partnership were involved in working 
groups  and  proposed  actions,  which  aligned  with  or  reinforced  their  national  agenda. 
While interviewees felt that this may have been beneficial to the TP to some extent, as 
it had allowed it to capitalise on the key strength and expertise of each MS, there was 
limited evidence that, conversely, MS had adjusted their own national policies to align 
with the work undertaken in their respective Partnerships. Only anecdotal evidence was 
mentioned in the TP on Sustainable Land Use and Nature Based Solutions that one MS 
had done so. 

A  certain  degree  of  complementarity  was  highlighted  between  MS  and  cities, 
whereby  MS  tended  to  act  as  moderating  presence,  and  provided  a  welcome  ‘reality 
check’ on the (sometimes overly) ambitious vision set by cities. Indeed, in several TPs 
a link could be established between their ability to reconcile the differing views 
of MS and cities, and the overall (perceived) ‘success’ of their TP. As such, those 
TPs (Housing, Sustainable Land Use and Nature Based Solutions) which reported to have 
been more successful at reconciling those views at the Action Planning stage were also 
much more positive when assessing the overall ‘success’ of their TP. On the contrary, 
those who reportedly had difficulties in ‘finding a middle ground’ between MS and cities 
tended to report that their Action Planning phase dragged on, encroaching on the later 
implementation phase (Digital transition, Urban mobility).  

153 

 
Role of the European Commission (EC) 

Case study interviewees held relatively mixed views with regards to the role played 
by the European Commission in the different Partnerships, although there was some 
variability across TPs and evidence indicates that this role has somewhat evolved over 
time. It should however be noted that our pool of interviewees involved very few DGs 
representatives  (2  as  part  of  the  6  TPs  covered  in  this  case  study),  who  would  have 
allowed us to draw a more comprehensive assessment of the Commission’s role. 

On  the  one  hand,  representation  of  the  European  Commission  in  the  different 
Thematic Partnerships was overall perceived as very good, with on average 3 to 
4  different  DGs  represented  in  each  TP.  For  the  TPs  covered  in  this  case  study, 
representation of the Commission had also improved over time, with Partnerships from 
the last two waves benefitting from the participation of at least 4 Commission DGs as 
opposed  to  between  2  and  4  in  previous  waves.  The  vast  majority  of  case  study 
interviewees also reported that the participating DGs were very relevant for the work of 
their  respective  TPs.  Attendance  of  the  various  DGs  was  judged  satisfactory  overall, 
though highly variable across DGs and without a clear causal explanation. For instance, 
DGs perceived as ‘most remote’ from the issues debated in a TP were not necessarily 
less likely to attend meetings).  

there  was  a  perceived  disconnect  between  this  extensive 
However, 
representation  in  the  TPs,  the  generally  satisfactory  attendance  of  the  DGs’ 
representatives  at  the  meetings,  and  the  Commission’s  involvement  and 
contribution  at  and  in-between  meetings.  Views  were  split  on  this  issue  across 
TPs, with some improvement over time. In about a third of cases (most pertaining to 
the most recent waves), the Commission was reported to have played a useful role in 
aligning the work of the TP with other EU initiatives, and collecting/sharing relevant data 
for the drafting of the Action Plans. In the remaining two thirds, it was suggested that, 
overall, the Commission could have done more to contribute to the action planning and 
implementation, coordinate with other relevant DGs not  represented in the TPs when 
needed, and ensure that the work of the TP was aligned / embedded into broader EU 
initiatives.  In those instances, a certain sense  of a  ‘lack of institutional backing’ from 
the Commission transpired to the rest of the stakeholders. It is however interesting to 
note that perceived ‘buy-in’ at the EU level might have improved for wave 4 TPs, as the 
subjects for those TPs were defined more collaboratively (or at least it was perceived by 
interviewees as such). In the case of the wave 4 TP considered for this case study, prior 
relationships had been established with the key relevant DG for some years prior to the 
Urban  Agenda.  It  was  perceived  to  have  enabled  TP  members  (and  especially 
coordinators)  to  develop  a  good  relationship  with  this  key  DG,  and  ensured  that  the 
Partnership  benefitted  from  a  good  buy-in  at  the  Commission  from  the  onset,  with  a 
keen interest to integrate the work of the TP into their own work. 

Like  all  other  stakeholders,  the  Commission  reported  that  significant  resource 
constraints  (in  terms  of  time  especially)  and  opportunity  costs  had  hindered  its 
participation  in  the  TPs.  But  the  role  of  the  Commission  within  the  TPs  was  also 
considered as ill-defined by the majority of case study interviewees, and as such, it was 
thought  that  the  Commission  encountered  difficulties  to  find  its  place  and 
reconcile  its  different  roles  in  the  Partnerships.  In  the  two  TPs  where  the  tension 

 154 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

between the Commission’s different roles was not reported as a key issue, the position 
of  the  Commission  (as  representative  of  the  EC,  TP  member,  and  potentially  as 
addressee  of  some  of  the  proposed  actions)  was  still  reported  as  ‘paradoxical’  by 
members of the TPs, and perceived by the DGs representatives themselves as relatively 
challenging to navigate. In the remaining TPs where tension between the various roles 
of  the  Commission  was  acknowledged,  these  difficulties  seem  to  have  become 
increasingly  evident  at  the  implementation  stage  of  the  TPs,  as  most  interviewees 
reported that the engagement of the Commission had been particularly challenging at 
this stage of the process. Indeed, the Commission usually did not volunteer to be action 
lead  in  TPs,  and  DGs  were  generally  not  much  involved  in  implementing  actions, 
although the majority of Actions Plans have actions that require contribution from the 
Commission as they stand out of the direct control of TP members. Although, as noted 
above, the role of the Commission appears to have evolved over time and it could be 
that, as a result, it has better managed to reconcile its different roles and support the 
implementation  of  the  APs  in  the  most  recent  waves  of  TPs.  However,  the  evidence 
currently at our disposal does not allow us to draw such conclusions, as those last waves 
have not yet reached the implementation stage of the process.  

Finally, cities and MS also hoped the Commission to play a more leading role to 
set  the  context  for  the  Partnerships  from  the  onset,  and  to  provide  feedback  on  the 
direction taken and the feasibility – from the Commission’s perspective – to implement 
suggested actions. It was also noted that the Commission had repeatedly fallen short of 
clarifying  how  the  output  of  the  TP’s  work  would  be  exploited  and  feed  into  the  new 
programming of EU policies. 

Summary of key findings   

Overall, feedback on the multi-level, multi-stakeholder approach was very positive. The 
opportunity  to  exchange,  get  the  views  and  experiences,  and  understand  the 
perspective  and  agendas  of  a  variety  of  stakeholders  was  mentioned  in  all  Thematic 
Partnerships  covered  in  this  case  study  as  a  key  added  value  of  the  TPs,  and  of  the 
Urban  Agenda  more  generally.  This  was  thought  not  to  be  replicated  in  any  other 
European fora or networks, and the multi-level, multi-stakeholders approach was 
praised in this regard.  

According to case study interviewees, cities are a key stakeholder level in the multi-
governance, multi-stakeholder approach adopted by the UAEU. They have proven to be 
very engaged actors and valuable contributors to the work of the TPs, coming with clear 
objectives to find practical solutions to their local challenges and needs, and providing 
concrete  ideas  and  propositions  for  the  Action  Planning.  However,  of  all  stakeholder 
types, cities were also the most likely to highlight that the TPs operated under a relative 
‘top-down’ approach and remained, in their view, remote from local considerations and 
challenges. Their engagement was also noted to have varied across cities within each 
Partnership, with typically a limited number of cities most engaged and others taking a 
more  passive  role.  This  was  thought  to  be  driven  by  resource  constraints  and  a  high 
variability in expertise on and prior experience of the issue across cities. Turning to the 
role of cities as coordinators, there was no clear evidence that it differed significantly 
from that of other stakeholders who have held this position, and cities did not seem to 
possess any advantage or disadvantage in terms of their suitability for the role. 

155 

 
Case study interviewees also perceived Member States to be key actors in the multi-
stakeholder  approach  adopted  for  the  TP,  although  feedback  indicates  that  their 
participation and engagement in the TPs has been highly variable across TPs and across 
MS  in  each  TP.  A  range  of  factors  were  mentioned  to  explain  this,  including  (1)  the 
composition of the TPs, representation of MS, and relevance of the ministries involved, 
(2) cultural issues, and (3) resource constraints and skills gap. Member States tended 
to  approach  issues  more  conceptually  than  cities,  through  the  lens  of  ‘legal  and 
institutional  frameworks’  with  a  keener  interest  to  set  up  well  rounded,  ‘proper 
frameworks’ at the EU-level as well as ‘national sectoral policies’. Yet a certain degree 
of complementarity was highlighted between MS and cities, whereby MS tended to act 
as  moderating  presence,  and  provided  a  welcome  ‘reality  check’  on  the  (sometimes 
overly) ambitious vision set by cities. Indeed, in several TPs a link could be established 
between their ability to reconcile the differing views of MS and cities, and the overall 
(perceived) ‘success’ of their TP.  

Case study interviewees held relatively mixed views with regards to the role played by 
the  European  Commission  in  the  different  Partnerships,  although  there  was  some 
variability across TPs and evidence indicates that this role has somewhat evolved over 
time. Representation of the European Commission in the different Thematic Partnerships 
was on the whole perceived as very good. But there was a perceived disconnect between 
this  extensive  representation  in  the  TPs,  the  generally  satisfactory  attendance  of  the 
DGs’  representatives  at  the  meetings,  and  the  Commission’s  involvement  and 
contribution at and in-between meetings. Like all other stakeholders, the Commission 
reported  that  significant  resource  constraints  (in  terms  of  time  especially)  and 
opportunity  costs  had  hindered  its  participation  in  the  TPs.  But  the  role  of  the 
Commission within the TPs was also considered as ill-defined by the majority of case 
study  interviewees,  and  as  such,  it  was  thought  that  the  Commission  encountered 
difficulties  to  find  its  place  and  reconcile  its  different  roles  in  the  Partnerships  (as 
commissioner,  TP  member,  and  potentially  as  addressee  of  some  of  the  proposed 
actions).  Other  stakeholders  also  hoped  the  Commission  could  have  played  a  more 
leading role to set the context for the Partnerships from the onset, provide feedback at 
key milestones, and clarify how the output of the TP’s work would be exploited and feed 
into the new programming of EU policies. 

 156 

 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Case study 5: Action Planning 

Introduction  

This  case  study  aims  to  provide  evidence-based  findings  on  the  Action  planning 
process (i.e. the process of stocktaking; preparatory actions; defining objectives and 
deliverables),  the  process  that  UAEU  Thematic  Partnerships  (TPs)  are  going  or  have 
been through to develop their Actions Plans (APs) to then implement their actions. This 
case  study  examines  in  particular  the  following  issues  related  to  the  Action  planning 
process: 

  Stages of the Action planning process and differences across TPs; 

  Effectiveness of the Action planning process; 

  Final content of the Action Plan; 

  Consideration  and  usefulness  of  the  three  Pillars  (Better  Regulation,  Better 

Knowledge, Better Funding) and the eleven cross cutting issues; 

  Consideration  of  EU  policies  and  programmes  (including  URBACT,  UIA  and 

Cohesion Policy); 

  Challenges experienced when developing the APs.   

The evidence base      

This case study report draws on information from six of the 14 TPs launched under the 
UAEU  to  date.  For  each  of  these,  we  have  reviewed  relevant  documentation,  and 
conducted interviews with selected members. The table below provides an overview on 
the  TPs  that  are  covered  in  this  case  study  report.  Please  note  that  the  Culture  and 
Cultural  Heritage  TP  is  still  in  an  early  stage  development,  thus  there  is  limited 
information on the action planning process from this TP.  

Name of TP 

Wave  

Number  of 
conducted  

interviews 

Inclusion  of  Migrants  and 
Refugees  

Wave 1 

Circular Economy  

Wave 2 

Digital Transition  

Wave 2  

Sustainable  Land  Use  and 
Nature Based Solutions 

Wave 3 

Energy Transition  

Wave 3 

Culture 
Heritage  

and 

Cultural 

Wave 4 

4 

3 

2 

5 

3 

3 

157 

 
The Action Planning phase   

Stages of the Action Planning phase 

Twelve of the fourteen Partnerships have published final APs and two (wave 4) are still 
in the early stages of their action planning phase.  This means that  most of the TPs 
have completed their action planning phase. According to the Pact of Amsterdam, 
each Partnership should follow a process of five phases (Figure 1) that last around three 
years.  This  preparation  phase  has  been  followed  by  most  of  the  Thematic 
Partnerships interviewed for this case study, including sub-steps such as: drafting 
orientation  papers  as  part  of  the  stocktaking  exercises,  having  working  groups 
discussing the themes covered by the orientation papers and decide on preliminary list 
of actions, public and targeted consultation on draft APs and final consolidation of APs. 
According  to  most  of  TP  members  interviewed,  the  preparation  of  the  APs  took 
between eighteen months to two years, as several meetings/co-creation exercises 
were  needed  to  decide  on  the  list  of  final  actions  and  how  to  implement  these.  For 
example,  members  from  the  Inclusion  of  Migrants  and  Refugees  TP  spent  a  year 
identifying  the  bottlenecks  related  to  European  funding,  regulations  and  knowledge 
exchange  which  were  translated  into  scoping  papers,  and  around  eight  months 
consulting stakeholders (including migrants and refugees) on the eight actions included 
on the scoping papers. This TP participated in twelve events to promote the TP prior to 
deciding on the final list of action and publishing the final AP. Only members of one TP 
mentioned  that  they  had  the  impression  the  action  planning  phase  could  take  three 
years, and that the actual implementation of actions would take place afterwards.  In 
this case, a lot of time was spent on formulating draft actions in the first place; during 
the ensuing process of  discussing, consolidating, and fine-tuning the actions and how 
to implement them, a number of changes to the actions included in the AP were made, 
which then impacted on what could be implemented in the remaining time. For most of 
the  interviewees,  the  action  planning  was  described  as  lengthy  but  not  necessarily 
ineffective as it is described below. For more than half of survey respondents, the action 
planning  phase  was  carried  out  in  a  cost-efficient  and  timely  manner  as  well  as  the 
meetings organised for the TP.  

Figure 1: Phases and deliverables of Partnerships  

Source: Pact of Amsterdam  

Effectiveness of the Action Planning phase 

Members of the Thematic Partnerships covered by this case study  had mixed views 
on  the  effectiveness  of  the  Action  Planning  phase,  even  if  all  TP  members 

 158 

 
 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

interviewed  found  the  process  participatory.  Based  on  the  interviews  carried  out,  it 
seems  that  in  most  TPs  the  Action  Planning  process  was  found  reasonably 
effective. Particularly, in TPs that had active coordinators (e.g. Circular Economy and 
Inclusion of Migrants and Refugees), driving and steering the Action Planning phase and 
members from all levels of government involved in the stock taking, preparatory actions 
and final selection of actions that were included in the APs. For members of two TPs, 
the  Action  Planning  process  was  considered  slightly  less  effective  as  these  had  little 
steering/coordination  from  the  coordinators  and  a  lack  of  members’  participation, 
particularly  from  Member  States  representatives.  The  lack  of  steering  from 
coordinators  was  mainly 
lack  of  understanding  and 
misinterpretation of how the TP should function, what it should generate and 
in which timeframe. 

linked 

to  a 

Moreover,  several  cities  (coordinators  and  non-coordinators)  found  the  process  of 
selecting and designing actions challenging, and considered that this process (part 
of  Action  Planning)  could  have  been  dealt  differently  (i.e.  selecting  actions  where  TP 
members  would  commit  to  be  action leaders  and  action leaders  have  a  clear  idea  on 
how  to  implement  them).  For  example,  the  Sustainable  Land  Use  and  Nature  Based 
Solutions TP members had to redesign and merge actions at the implementation phase 
due  to  a  lack  of  ownership  of  certain  actions  and  of  alternative  ideas  on  how  to 
implement them. On the other hand, members of the Circular Economy TP only included 
actions in the AP that members  were  fully able and willing to implement (i.e. actions 
leaders  had  put  forward  the  actions  that  they  are  in  charge  of  coordinating  and 
implementing).  

Another observation linked to why some TP members found the Action Planning phase 
slightly  more  effective  than  others,  is  that  TPs  that  found  this  process  effective 
managed to carry out targeted consultation with key stakeholders: contacting 
members of existing networks and presenting and participating at events and workshops 
to  gather  feedback  on  proposed  actions.  For  example,  the  Inclusion  of  Migrants  and 
Refugees  TP  members  presented  their  scoping  papers  at  two  working  conferences 
organised by the TP (in Amsterdam in November 2016 and in Berlin in February 2017), 
to consult a broad range of stakeholders and gather their feedback on the bottlenecks 
identified and possible actions to address them. These consultations were carried out 
on  top  of  the  public  consultations  published  on  the  Futurium  website.  All  the  TP 
members interviewed found the public consultation of limited value to decide 
on  actions  to  include  in  APs.  The  public  consultations  were  disseminated  by  TP 
members and umbrella organisations, however not necessarily through channels other 
than the Futurium website.  

Even though most of the interviewees were positive about the overall Action Planning 
process in their TPs, all TPs interviewed in this case study believed it would have been 
helpful to have defined a clearer methodology for the Action Planning phase as 
this is considered the most important but also challenging stage of the operationalisation 
of  UAEU.  It  is  the  stage  when  TPs  decide  on  which  actions  to  include  in  their  APs, 
available resources to implement selected actions and leaders of each actions. According 
four interviewees, the Pact of Amsterdam does not define in detail what kinds of actions 
are envisaged and what their aim should be, hence TPs had to find by themselves 
what the best approach to develop APs is. In this approach, each TP had to decide 

159 

 
the appropriate level of ambition and concreteness of actions, including who should be 
the  target  of  the  actions  and  who  should  implement  the  actions  (e.g.  TP  members 
themselves, and/or other actors (DGs, MS…) outside the TP). As noted above, members 
of  four  TPs  managed  to  find  an  approach  to  develop  their  APs  that  they  considered 
effective, following the light-touch guidelines of the Pact of Amsterdam, and other TP 
members highlighted that they struggled to find an effective way to plan their APs. The 
Sustainable and Land Use and Nature Based Solutions TP members took a long time to 
reach  a  consensus  on  which  actions  to  include,  finally  deciding  on  actions  that  were 
realistic to implement within the time they had left. Thus, according to interviewees, the 
actions included were not considered that ambitious meaning that the implementation 
of their actions will not result in concrete solutions to key urban challenges but rather 
show elements/examples of how to solve these challenges (e.g. guidance document on 
how  to  finance  brown  fields).  The  difficulties  encountered  by  some  TPs  to  effectively 
manage the Action Planning phase is not solely due to the lack of a clear methodology 
but,  as  highlighted  above,  other  aspects  such  as  lack  of  coordination  and  active 
participation of TP partners.  

Final content of the Action Plan 

Partnership  members  found  the  content  of  their  APs  overall  satisfactory 
considering the time and efforts put into developing APs. Most interviewees highlighted 
that level of ambition of actions depend on the scope of the action, and that their APs 
included actions with different scopes. The actions which outcomes are to provide policy 
recommendations to different stakeholders are considered less ambitious than actions 
that equip cities with expertise and tools to implement solutions to target existing urban 
challenges  (e.g.  resource  management  roadmap  for  cities).  A  few  interviewees 
highlighted  that  they  were  highly  satisfied  with  the  fact  that  they  have  managed  to 
agree on sustainable actions that will be continued after the TP finishes. For example, 
action 6 of the Circular Economy TP, which aim is to develop a Circular Economy Portal 
for  cities.  The  TP  partnered  with  European  Circular  Economy  stakeholder  platform  so 
they will help to develop the portal and will be in charge of update it after the TP finishes 
in December 2019.   

Most interviewees highlighted that  actions under the Better Regulation pillar are 
the  most  ambitious  actions  included  in  their  APs  but  also  the  hardest  to 
implement, as their implementation depends on stakeholders involved in the legislative 
process and thus,  outside  of the  control of TP  members.  There are not many actions 
under this pillar and the majority of actions under the Better Regulation do not relate 
directly to the modification of existing legislation but rather policy recommendations and 
guidance documents for existing Regulation. According to the monitoring data, only five 
of the 31 actions under the Better Regulation Pillar target the “modification to existing 
EU legislation”.  

Consideration of UAEU Pillars, eleven cross-cutting issues and EU policies and 
programmes (including URBACT, UIA and Cohesion Policy) when preparing APs 

When  developing  the  APs,  all  the  TP  members  mentioned  that  they  had 
considered  the  three  pillars  (Better  Knowledge,  Better  Funding  and  Better 
Regulation) defined in the Pact of Amsterdam and believe that the Pillars are useful to 

 160 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

understand the focus and work of UAEU. The role of partners from DGs was crucial to 
discuss  which  actions  should  fit  under  which  pillar/s,  particularly  for  actions  that 
targeted the Better Regulation pillar as the DGs needed to provide insight from the EU 
policy making cycle. On the contrary, the cross-cutting issues exercise67 appears not to 
have added significant value to the preparation of the APs. According to interviewees, 
the consideration of the cross-cutting issues played a limited role in the development of 
APs and many considered that “these cross-cutting issues require a re-think”. Although 
the responses to the survey shows that all the cross-cutting issues were considered to 
be relevant (with scores above 7.9 out of 10), feedback from the interviews suggests 
that they were too numerous, broad and general to be useful  to effectively guide the 
Action Planning work of the TPs.  

During the Action Planning phase, all TPs considered how their proposed actions 
could align with existing EU programmes (e.g. URBACT and Urban Innovative 
Actions),  policies  and  initiatives.  Similarly,  the  majority  of  stakeholder  survey 
respondents (56%) believed that APs were aligned with EU policies. The involvement 
and  active  participation  of  TP  members  from  DGs  was  considered  key  to  understand 
which are the programmes, policies and initiatives related to the policy areas covered 
by the TP and how the TP could align and contribute to these. Apart from DGs, URBACT 
also helped to align the actions with existing EU programme and policies, but also try 
to  align  actions  across  different  TPs.  Even  though  some  degree  of  alignment  was 
achieved with Urban Innovative Actions and URBACT, TPs found it difficult to align their 
actions with relevant EU policies and their cycles. This misalignment is mainly due to 
the amount of EU programmes, policies and initiatives, which relate to the topics of the 
TP (e.g. Circular Economy) which is not possible to cover by TP members.  

Challenges experienced when developing the AP 

Several challenges related to the selection of actions and overall development of APs 
were highlighted by the TP members consulted for this case study, namely:  

  Choosing  actions that are manageable, that TP members  can implement with 
the resources available. Manageable actions are not always easy to identify at the 
Action Planning phase as TP members could not predict exactly the resources that 
each  action  would  need.  In  the  case  of  the  Energy  Transition  TP,  members 
highlighted  that  they  reduced  their  actions  to  eight  that  were  manageable  to 
implement by the end of the Partnership focusing mainly on policy recommendations 
and  guidance  documents.  The  Circular  Economy  TP  members  decided  on 
manageable actions slightly different; members listed their expertise and matched 
their  expertise  to  the  urban  challenges  that  they  wanted  to  contribute,  and  they 
reached  out  to  other  stakeholders  that  were  doing  similar  work  so  they  could 
contribute to each other work.   

  Choosing actions that are sustainable and will continue having an impact after 

the end of the TP.  

67 There was a template provided for the AP that included a section on cross-cutting issues.  

161 

 
                                                 
  Identifying  which  other  organisations  are  working  on  similar  actions  and 

initiatives and align TP actions to theirs.  

  Degree  of  ownership  of  actions,  some  partners  felt  very  strongly  that  certain 
actions needed to be included in the APs but did not take responsibility to implement 
the action (i.e. becoming action leader).    

  Action planning timeline. Some members of one TP highlighted that in their TP, 
members misunderstood the Action Planning process timeline. TP members had the 
impression  that  they  would  have  3  years  to  write  the  Action  Plan  and  the 
implementation would follow.  

Summary of key findings   

Most interviewees reported the Action Planning process was effective overall, and were 
satisfied with the APs developed by their TPs. However, the process of identifying issues 
to address and defining specific actions was quite challenging in most cases, and not all 
TPs  managed  to  finalise  their  APs  in  the  two-year  window  envisaged  for  this.  The 
effectiveness of the Action Planning phase seems to be directly linked to how 
active coordinators were; driving and steering the Action Planning and the involvement 
of  TP  members  from  different  levels  of  government  in  the  stock  taking,  preparatory 
actions and final selection of actions that were included in the APs. Many TP members 
believed that the Action Planning phase should have had a clearer methodology to 
ensure that coordinators took responsibility of the steering and driving the process, and 
TP members understood what was required from them at the initial stage of their TPs. 
Many interviews highlighted that TPs had to find by themselves what the best approach 
to develop APs was, which took longer and was potentially less effective than it would 
have been, if a clearer methodology had been in place. However, they still found the 
Action Planning process participatory and enjoyed the co-creation meetings and 
exercises that were needed to develop their APs even if the process was lengthy.  

When asked about the challenges experienced during the Action Planning process, TP 
members  highlighted  several  challenges:  choosing  manageable  actions  and 
sustainable  actions,  identifying  other  organisations  working  on  similar  actions  and 
initiatives,  degree  of  ownership  of  actions  and  the  misunderstanding  with  the  overall 
Action Planning timeline.  

Overall,  TP  members  believed  that  the  content  of  their  APs  was  satisfactory 
considering the time and efforts put into developing them. There are actions that are 
more  ambitious  than  others  in  the  APs,  depending  on  the  target  these  have  (local, 
national or EU) and the pillar these are under. However, many TP members highlighted 
that  actions  were  not  particularly  innovative  but  rather  pilot  actions  that  will  show 
examples and best practices  of how to solve a problem  rather than finding a definite 
solution.  

All the TPs considered the three pillars (Better Knowledge, Better Funding and Better 
Regulation)  when  developing  their  APs  and  believed  that  the  Pillars  are  useful  to 
understand the focus and work of UAEU. However, the cross-cutting issues did not add 
much value to the preparation of the APs. The involvement of the DGs in the TPs 

 162 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

was  considered  crucial  to  understand  the  pillars  and  link  the  actions  to  these. 
Moreover,  the  role  of  DGs  was  also  considered  important  to  align  the  APs  to  EU 
programmes,  policies  and  initiatives.  Even  though  some  degree  of  alignment  was 
achieved with UIA actions – some of the UIA actions are funding TP actions – TPs found 
it difficult to align their actions with relevant EU policies and their cycles.  

163 

 
 
 
Case study 6: Implementation of Action Plans 

Introduction  

This  case  study  aims  to  provide  evidence-based  findings  on  the  implementation  of 
Action Plans in the UAEU, in particular with regard to the following issues:  

  Progress made with implementation, emerging and expected future results and 

impacts; 

  Reasons for (lack of) progress, enablers and preconditions, including buy-in from 

different types of actors and funding requirements / sources; 

  Differences  between  actions  related  to  Better  Knowledge,  Better  Funding  and 

Better Regulation;  

  Sustainability of actions, barriers and drivers. 

The evidence base      

This case study report draws on information from six of the 14 TPs launched under the 
UAEU  to  date.  For  each  of  these,  we  have  reviewed  relevant  documentation,  and 
conducted interviews with selected members. The table below provides an overview of 
the Thematic Partnerships that this case study report draws on.  

Name of TP 

Wave  

Number  of 
conducted  

interviews 

Air Quality 

Housing 

Urban Poverty 

Urban Mobility 

Jobs and Skills  

Wave 1 

Wave 1 

Wave 1 

Wave 2 

Wave 2 

Climate Adaptation 

Wave 3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

2 

The implementation of Action Plans in the Urban Agenda  

Progress made with implementation 

Across all UAEU Thematic Partnerships, there have been a total of 114 actions planned. 
The  monitoring  data  shows  that  out  of  these  actions,  46%  are  in  the  initial 
implementation phase, 18% are in the planning and inception stage and 10% have been 

 164 

 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

finalised68. A broadly similar picture emerged from the Thematic Partnerships reviewed 
for  this  case  study,  with  most  actions  still  being  in  the  initial  implementation  phase. 
Substantial  differences  are  visible  at  the  Partnership-level.  This  is  of  course  partly 
related to the wave of the Partnerships. The monitoring data shows that all completed 
actions are of first wave Partnerships, while none of the wave 3 Partnerships’  actions 
has  passed  beyond  the  initial  implementation  phase.  However,  also  within  the  same 
wave significant differences can be observed. For example, in wave 1, the Air Quality 
Partnership  has  finalised  all  its  five  actions,  whereas  the  Housing  Partnership  has 
finalised three out of twelve actions.  

Reasons for lack of progress 

A  key  reason  for  the  limited  number  of  finalised  actions  was  the  often  longer  than 
foreseen Action Planning process (see separate case study on Action Planning for more 
details). This implies that there has been limited time for the implementation of Actions, 
even  in  some  first  wave  Partnerships.  For  this  reason,  several  of  the  Thematic 
Partnerships  have  extended  their  work  plan  beyond  the  originally  planned  timespan. 
The  implementation  status  of  Actions  is  not  only  a  question  of  time,  however,  as 
confirmed by the fact that also within individual Partnerships the implementation status 
of Actions varies significantly. Moreover, in most of the  Partnerships reviewed for this 
case study, uncertainty exist about whether certain Actions will be implemented at all.  

An important reason for this is that it appears to have been difficult to find the  right 
balance  between  ambition  and  feasibility.  Some  Action  Plans  are  very  ambitious,  but 
‘high-level’, with not easily ‘actionable’ actions, for others the opposite was true69. This 
divergence can be explained by the fact that Partnerships frequently felt uncertain 
about  what  needed  to  happen  with  the  actions  after  the  Action  Plan  was 
completed. It was often unclear who was in charge of implementation and what the 
‘audience’  was  /  to  whom  to  direct  actions.  In  for  example  the  Urban  Poverty 
Partnership,  the  Partnership  members  –  notably  the  cities  and  urban areas  –  initially 
foresaw  for  themselves  a  chiefly  advisory  role  and  limited  direct  involvement  in  the 
implementation, which was supposed to be the responsibility of the Member States and 
/ or the Commission. This led to a high number of Better Regulation actions (seven out 
of a total of ten actions in this Partnership), which were outside the direct control of the 
Urban  Poverty  Partnership  during  the implementation  phase.  In  general, it  was  often 
raised  as  an  issue  by  Partnership  members  that  the  Pact  of  Amsterdam  was  not 
specific  about  the  implementation  and  follow-up  of  the  actions  and  that  not 
much  guidance  had  been  provided  during  the  implementation  stage  by  the 
DGUM  or  the  Commission,  meaning  that  the  Partnerships  had  to  find  out  a 
great deal by themselves. Moreover, it was felt that developing Implementation Plans 

68 These figures should be interpreted with some care, as it is not always clear what ‘finalised’ means, as 

explained further below.  

69 This divergence between TPs focussing on very concrete actions (often evolving around better knowledge) 
and TPs focussing on more fundamental issues (often evolving around better legislation and funding) 
was also described in the report of the Urban Futures Studio on the Urban Agenda from 2018, available 
at: http://nws.eurocities.eu/MediaShell/media/Research-UrbanFuturesStudio-def.pdf 

165 

 
                                                 
required experience which similar processes, know-how which was not always available 
among Partnership members70.  

The latter links to a related issue that explains the limited progress with implementation: 
Implementing  actions  demands  a  good  knowledge  of  EU  policy-making  cycle  and 
funding  mechanisms,  knowledge  which  Partnership  members  –  especially  cities  and 
urban areas – not always have. Hence, much depended on the level of involvement of 
Partnership  members  with  expertise  and  direct  access  to  the  policy-making  process, 
such as Commission DGs and Member States. This involvement varied, according to the 
interviewed Partnership members and as confirmed by the stakeholder survey results71. 
It was generally felt that the Technical Secretariat played an important role in the Action 
Planning process, but could only partly address the need for expertise, considering its 
restricted budget and mandate72. Another issue that was raised was that in many cases 
the  Technical  Secretariat’s  support  stopped  (or  will  stop)  before  the  actions  were  (or 
will be) implemented.  

A  lack  of  resources  /  funding  was,  perhaps  not  unexpectedly,  also  reported  as  an 
important  stumbling  block  when  implementing  actions.  In  most  if  not  all  of  the 
Partnerships reviewed for this case study, at least part of the members seems to have 
struggled with resources, which made it hard to get them to commit to implementing 
actions. This is in line with the findings from the stakeholder survey, which showed that 
a  lack  of  funding  was  perceived  as  the  greatest  barrier  to  the  UAEU  realising  its  full 
potential.  As  the  Partnerships  were  prolonged,  the  lack  of  funding  became  a  more 
pressing issue, with some Partnership members reportedly reducing their involvement 
because of a lack of resources. Also in the case of  funding, initial unclarity about the 
functioning of the UAEU seems to have had an impact on the implementation of actions, 
as  in  some  Partnerships  doubts  existed  about  whether  the  members  or  other  actors 
needed to fund actions.  

Emerging and expected future results and impacts 

The  stakeholder  survey  data  suggests  that,  when  looking  at  the  three  pillars,  the 
Thematic Partnerships have contributed most to better knowledge and data on urban 
issues (79% agreed to a great extent or somewhat). This was followed by EU funding 
that  is  better  adapted  to  cities  and  urban  areas  (64%  agreed  to  a  great  extent  of 
somewhat) and EU regulation that is better adapted to cities and urban areas regulation 
(61% agreed to a great extent or somewhat). It should be added, however, that just 
18%-19% agreed that the Thematic Partnerships have contributed to a great extent to 
Better Regulation and Better funding; for Better Knowledge, this figure was 30%.  

70 This was confirmed by the results of the stakeholder survey, in which only 57% of respondents agreed 

that the Action Plans comprise a clear plan for implementation.  

71 In the stakeholder survey about a third (32%) of respondents found that the Thematic Partnerships 

receive sufficient support from other Commission DGs (other than DG REGIO). In a different question, 
the lack of interest or involvement of EU Member States was rated as the third most significant barrier to 
the UAEU realising its potential, after a lack of funding and a lack of alignment with the EU regulatory / 
financing cycle.  

72 In the stakeholder survey, a third (33%) of respondents found that the Thematic Partnership receive 

sufficient administrative or technical support. 

 166 

 
 
                                                 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Partnership members found it hard to comment on the (future) impact of actions. Partly 
this was because it was “too early to tell”, with few actions having been implemented. 
Moreover, the Partnership members regularly found it hard to judge what ‘implemented’ 
or  ‘finalised’ means.  Not all  actions have a  clear end-point, and often  actions’ impact 
will depend on their long-term sustainability, which is frequently unclear considering the 
uncertainty about the future of the UAEU (see section on sustainability of  actions). It 
should be added that many Partnership members, especially if not ‘core members’ such 
as coordinators and Action Leaders, admitted to be unaware about the current status of 
the actions in their Partnership and the next steps. 

Nonetheless,  two  main  groups  of  members  can  be  distinguished  across  Partnerships, 
with  their  relative  weight  varying  depending  on  the  Partnership73.  The  first  group  of 
Partnership members highlighted the innovative nature of the UAEU and the importance 
of  the  progress  made.  This  group  provided  examples  of  successful  actions,  but  more 
often stressed the importance of looking at the long-term effects of the Partnerships, 
beyond the impacts of the individual actions to date. The members of the Urban Poverty 
and Housing Partnerships stressed for example the continued usefulness of the Action 
Plan as an advocacy and lobbying tool to increase attention for the topic. The second 
group of Partnership members expressed mainly concerns about the results and (future) 
impacts of the actions. These concerns related to three broad factors, described in more 
detail  in  the  sections  below:  1)  disappointment  about  the  Better  Funding  and  Better 
Regulation  actions,  both  regarding  their  low  number  compared  to  Better  Knowledge 
actions  and  their  implementation  status;  2)  the  perceived  limited  use  of  Better 
Knowledge actions, and 3) concerns regarding the follow-up of actions. 

Differences between actions related to Better Knowledge, Better Funding and 
Better Regulation  

As noted in the monitoring data, almost half of all actions (48%) are oriented towards 
“Better Knowledge”. The remainder are split between “Better Regulation” actions (28%) 
and  “Better  Funding”  actions  (24%).  The  division  across  pillars  varies  substantially 
across Thematic Partnerships. For example, the Urban Poverty Partnership’s Action Plan 
contains seven Better Regulation actions out of twelve actions. The Climate Adaptation 
Action Plan, on the other hand, includes one Better Regulation action, out of ten actions. 
On the implementation side things look somewhat different. The monitoring data shows 
that Better Regulation are the most advanced actions with 19% finalised and 25% at 
advanced  or  half  implementation  stage,  followed  by  Better  Knowledge  (7%  finalised, 
20% at advanced or half implementation stage) and Better Funding (4% finalised and 
8% at advanced or half implementation stage).  

Undoubtedly, the preponderance of Better Knowledge actions does not imply that Better 
Knowledge was considered more important than the other two pillars of the UAEU. To 
the contrary: Partnership members felt that Better Regulation and Better Funding are 
key aspects of the UAEU, as it is here that multi-level governance could in theory have 
most impact, whereas Better Knowledge can to some extent be achieved through other 
means and networks.  In the  Urban Mobility Thematic Partnership, for  instance, some 

73 It was difficult to discern a clear pattern, with members with more positive and negative opinions present 

in both advanced and less advanced Partnerships. 

167 

 
                                                 
members  reported  a  wealth  of  existing  knowledge  and  knowledge  sharing  networks. 
Hence doubts existed about to which extent the generated better knowledge (such as 
guidance materials and data) would be used in the field, certainly in the absence of clear 
communication about the knowledge produced (the latter was reported to be a problem 
in other Partnerships as well). Nonetheless, the Urban Mobility Partnership formulated 
mostly Better Knowledge actions, like most other Partnerships.  

feasibility. 
This  can  be  explained  by  Better  Knowledge  actions’  perceived 
Notwithstanding  the  monitoring  figures  mentioned  above  that  show  that  Better 
Knowledge actions are not more often finalised than the other actions, there was broad 
consensus  among  the  interviewed  Partnership  members  that  the  Better  Knowledge 
actions are easiest to implement. This mainly because Better Knowledge actions often 
involve  the  development  of  a  ‘product’  (such  as  a  web  portal)  and  as  such  are  less 
dependent  on  the  involvement  of  other  actors  compared  to  actions  in  the  two  other 
pillars. On the other hand, with regard to Better Regulation and Better Funding actions, 
numerous interviewed Partnership members noted that the implementation of actions 
was “not in their control”, but reliant on the involvement of the European Commission, 
Member States, the European Investment Bank, etc. This involvement was often seen 
as  inadequate,  with  the  Member  States’  representatives  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  the 
Commission DGs other than DG REGIO regularly described as not very engaged.  

In line with the above,  the consulted stakeholders  felt that Better Knowledge  actions 
are relatively easier to implement because they require less knowledge of / access to 
the  EU  policy-making  process  and  could  be  implemented  by  for  example  the  Action 
Leader. Timings seem to have played an important role as well. Partnership members 
felt that Better Funding and Better Regulation actions could not be implemented in the 
timeframe of the Partnership, among other because these actions are dependent on the 
EU policy cycle and because of uncertainty about what would happen with actions after 
the  Partnerships’  planned  timespan.  One  of  the  consequences  was  that  some 
Partnerships opted for formulating ‘recommendations’ in the Action Plan in areas that in 
theory would have been suited for Better Regulation and Better Funding actions.  

Sustainability of actions, barriers and drivers 

Most  of  the  consulted  stakeholder  found  it  hard  to  comment  on  the  long-term 
sustainability of actions. This related mainly to uncertainty about the implementation of 
actions  (as  explained  above).  What  was  clear  for  Partnership  members  is  that  many 
actions’ long-term impact depends on the sustained action and commitment of partners 
that goes beyond the time frame of the current Partnerships. It was noted for example 
that  many  Better  Knowledge  actions  require  continuous  updates  to  achieve  concrete 
results,  whilst  many  Better  Regulation  and  Better  Funding  actions  will  only  have  an 
impact when taken into account in the decision-making process for the next EU planning 
and  funding  period.  In  relation  to  this,  several  Partnership  members  pointed  to  the 
importance of further clarity about the future of the UAEU and on how  actions will be 
followed  up  in  the  longer  term  (2020  and  beyond),  as  well  as  about  the  role  of 
Partnership members after the implementation stage. There is also a clear link between 
the  sustainability  of  actions  and  funding.  The  Partnership  members  struggle  with 
resources,  which  hinders  their  continued  involvement  in  actions  beyond  the 
implementation phase. With an eye on sustainability, Partnership members also called 

 168 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

for  formal  procedures  to  make  sure  that  actions  are  taken  into  account  in  the  EU 
decision-making process. Members of the Air Quality Partnership mentioned for example 
to  be  disappointed  that  the  Partnership’s  feedback  on  the  Fitness  Check  on  the  Air 
Quality  Directive  was  not  treated  differently  compared  to  other  stakeholder  feedback 
obtained through the stakeholder consultation for the Fitness Check. 

Summary of key findings   

To what degree has the UAEU facilitated progress under the three pillars of EU policy 
making and implementation that it focuses on (Better Regulation, Better Funding, Better 
Knowledge)? When looking at the implementation of Actions it appears fair to say that 
this is still work in progress, notwithstanding the impact of individual Actions.  

Only  10%  of  actions  are  finalised  and  most  others  (46%)  are  in  the  initial 
implementation  stage.  This  can  be  explained  by  a  lengthy  Action  Planning  process, 
producing actions of variable feasibility and ‘actionability’. This can in turn be explained 
by  unclarity  about  the  process  of  Action  Planning  and  the  implementation  phase,  for 
example  with  regard  to  whom  to  address  actions:  Partnership  members  or  external 
actors. Partnership members felt that not much guidance had been provided during the 
implementation stage by the DGUM or the Commission. Members also often missed the 
needed  expertise  in  EU  policy-making  and  funding  mechanisms,  and  /  or  were 
constrained  by  a  lack  of  resources.  Hence,  implementation  depended  on  the 
involvement  of  Commission  DGs  and  Member  States,  which  varied  depending  on  the 
Partnership. 

The Partnership members often found it hard to comment on the (future) impacts of the 
actions  due  to  uncertainty  about  the  future  follow-up  of  actions.  When  they  did 
comment,  opinions  were  mixed.  Some  Partnership  members  emphasised  successful 
actions  and  /  or  what  has  been  achieved  so  far  as  part  of  the  broader  UAEU.  Others 
voiced concerns about the relatively low number of  actions in the Better Funding and 
Better Regulation pillars, the perceived limited impact of Better Knowledge actions, and 
concerns  regarding  the  follow-up  of  actions  after  the  Partnerships  have  ended.  The 
former two points relate to the finding that Partnerships seem to have opted for Better 
Knowledge actions because these were considered most feasible, not because they were 
most desirable with an eye on the needs they address. 

Concerning  the  sustainability  of  actions,  barriers  and  drivers,  Partnership  members 
found this difficult to judge, as long as there is no certainty about the future of the UAEU 
and the Partnerships. What is clear is that many  actions will need follow-up after the 
implementation  phase  to  achieve  long-term  results.  In  the  view  of  Partnership 
members,  this  requires  clarity  about  the  future  of  the  UAEU  and  the  Thematic 
Partnerships,  including  the  role  of  members  after  the  implementation  stage  and  how 
this will be funded. 

169 

 
 
 
Case study 7: Wider Impacts & Outreach  

Introduction  

This case study report focuses and explores the wider impacts and outreach of the UAEU 
through the lenses of a sample of the Thematic Partnerships (TPs) launched under the 
UAEU to date. The aim of this case study report is to provide evidence-based findings 
on the extent to which TPs have wider effects (beyond the implementation of the actions 
defined  in  their  respective  Action  Plans),  e.g.  by  raising  awareness  of  certain  issues, 
building linkages between stakeholders, directly or indirectly influencing policy making 
processes, etc. It explores inter alia:  

  The  extent  to  which  TPs  reach  out  to  non-members,  in  particular  other  cities, 

and any impact at city level;  

  The level of influence of TPs on national or EU policy processes, and any changes 

resulting from this;  

  European or international policy links, particularly the links to the UN New Urban 

Agenda.  

The evidence base      

This case study report draws on information from six of the 14 TPs launched under the 
UAEU  to  date.  For  each  of  these,  we  have  reviewed  relevant  documentation,  and 
conducted interviews with selected members. The table below provides an overview of 
the Thematic Partnerships that are covered in this case study report.  

Name of TP 

Wave  

Number  of 
conducted  

interviews 

Housing 

Inclusion  of  Migrants  and 
Refugees 

Wave 1  

Wave 1  

Circular Economy 

Wave 2  

Jobs and Skills  

Wave 2  

Climate Adaptation 

Wave 3  

Public Procurement 

Wave 3  

3 

4 

3 

4 

2 

3 

 170 

 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Wider impacts and outreach of the UAEU’s TPs  

Outreach to non-members and awareness raising 

According  to  case  study  interviewees,  the  work  on  the  TPs  helps  to  create  and/or 
strengthen  linkages  among  their  members;  for  some  of  these,  there  are  strong 
indications that the collaboration and exchange of information between them is likely to 
continue long after the end of the 3-year implementation period of TPs. This finding is 
also confirmed by the consultation results, where 69% of respondents agreed (many of 
them  “strongly”)  that  the  work  of  the  TPs  has  contributed  to  establishing  a  strong 
collaborative relationship among members. 

To a greater or lesser extent, all six TPs covered for this case study also made efforts 
to  reach  out  to  non-members,  especially  other  cities  /  urban  authorities.  For 
example: 

  The TP on Housing and its members made a concerted effort to raise awareness 
of its work and share relevant information and guidance as widely as possible, 
via  the  website  as  well  as  participation  in  conferences,  meetings,  seminars, 
webinars.  The  international  conference  “Housing  for  all”  held  in  Vienna  in 
December 2018 (organised and paid for by the city of Vienna) was reportedly an 
excellent  opportunity  to  share  the  results  of  the  TP  with  attendants  (including 
reportedly  over  200  cities).  TP  members  (especially  the  coordinators)  also 
attended  a  variety  of  other  meetings  across  Europe  to  share  insights  and 
disseminate information about the TP and its actions / recommendations.  

  The Public Procurement TP has reportedly created a “second ring” of cities who 
were  involved  in  drafting  actions,  and  will  be  key  to  their  dissemination. 
Similarly, the Italian and Latvian members of the Jobs & Skills TP reach out to a 
“second ring” of cities in their respective countries (in the Latvian case, via the 
association  of  municipalities),  informing  them  about  the  work  of  the  TP  on  a 
regular basis. 

  For several TPs, EU-level organisations (Eurocities, CEMR, URBACT, the Covenant 
of Mayors) were key multipliers; their (direct or indirect) involvement in the TPs 
opened  up  communication  and  dissemination  channels  that  were  described  as 
facilitating  outreach  to  cities  across  Europe.  However,  stakeholders  did  not 
provide concrete examples on how these stakeholders opened up communication 
and dissemination channels (see communication barrier below). 

  Some of the TPs referred to the transfer of knowledge and information to non-
member  cities  as  a  key  part  of  the  rationale  of  many  of  their  actions.  For 
example, members of the TP on Inclusion of Migrants and Refugees highlighted 
the Academy in Integration Strategies as a key action that successfully targets 
cities  that  did  not  take  part  in  the  TP  itself.  The  Circular  Economy  TP  also 
developed guides and toolkits that are intended for non-member cities, and could 
significantly raise awareness of key issues if disseminated widely. 

  Members of the Circular Economy TP also referred to an application for URBACT 
funding that resulted from one of its actions, and brought together a group of 

171 

 
two  TP  members  and  eight  new  cities,  which  helped  share  the  knowledge 
generated in the TP with a wider group of cities. 

Interviewees varied somewhat in their assessment of how intense and successful their 
TPs’ efforts to reach out beyond their membership were. All TPs share an ambition to 
disseminate  information  about  their  work  and  Action  Plans  as  widely  as  possible. 
Some appear to have been quite successful in doing so, based largely on intense efforts 
by very active and committed coordinators and EU-level organisations with large pre-
established  networks  and  –  crucially  –  an  ability  to  commit  resources  to  awareness 
raising activities. As a result, interviewees from these TPs tended to be confident that 
the  work  of  the  TP  has  had  a  significant  effect  in  terms  of  raising  awareness  of  key 
issues related to the issues in question among cities and other relevant audiences across 
Europe. However, some other TPs appear to have been more inwards-focused in terms 
of  how  they  have  gone  about  their  work  to  date,  with  no  clear  plan  for  how  to 
systematically  reach  out  to  and  make  the  results  of  their  work  known  to  the  highest 
possible  number  of  non-members.  In  these  cases,  interviewees  tended  to  be  more 
sceptical about the eventual impact in terms of wider awareness. 

Influence of TPs on EU policy processes  

Interviewees  from  some  but  not  all  TPs  were  able  to  pinpoint  how  their  work  had 
influenced – or was likely to influence – policy and/or legislative processes at EU 
level. However, it is important to note that the exact amount of influence of the work 
of the TPs (relative to other factors) is usually difficult to substantiate. For example: 

  The  Housing  TP  has  developed  a  proposal  to  revise  the  definition  of  the  term 
‘Social  Housing’  in  the  regulation  on  Services  of  General  Economic  Interest 
(SGEI) and gathered some support for this, but it is not clear if and how this will 
be  considered  and  taken  forward  by  the  next  European  Commission  and 
European  Parliament.  It  is  likely  to  depend  partly  on  how  successfully  TP 
members can lobby and keep the memory of the TP and its Action Plan alive in 
relevant circles. 

  The  work  of  the  Circular  Economy  TP  has  reportedly  helped  to  convince  the 
Commission to include aspects related to the circular economy among the areas 
that  are  eligible  for  funding  in  its  proposals  for  the  post-2020  Cohesion  Policy 
and corresponding Funds. Interviewees also reported its influence is apparent in 
the proposed regulation on minimum requirements for water reuse, and may yet 
influence  future  proposals  on  waste  management  and  production  of  bio-based 
products. 

  According  to  interviewees,  the  TP  on  Inclusion  of  Migrants  and  Refugees  has 
influenced the Commission proposal for the successor programme of the Asylum, 
Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), which takes on board a recommendation 
from  the  TP  specifying  that  local  authorities  and  other  local  actors  should  be 
consulted to improve cities’ access to funding. 

  The  Housing  TP  has  also  contributed  to  steps  towards  the  re-establishment  of 
the Housing Focal Points (a first meeting is reportedly planned for 2020 under 
the  German  Council  Presidency)  and  the  informal  Ministerial  Meetings  on 

 172 

 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Housing. It was also reported that the EIB has become more active in providing 
funding  to  cities  for  affordable  housing,  which could  be  partly  attributed  to  its 
participation in the TP. 

Other TPs appear not to have had much of a discernible impact on EU policy processes 
to date. According to interviewees, this was due to a variety of reasons including the 
early  stage  of  Action  Plan  implementation  (e.g.  Climate  Adaptation  TP),  and  the  TP 
having identified no need for any changes to EU legislation (Public Procurement TP).  

Influence on national or local policies 

Although  some  interviewees  thought  that  it  was  likely  the  work  of  “their”  TPs  would 
have indirect effects on national policies in some MS, they lacked specific information 
on  this,  and  found  it  difficult  to  pinpoint  specific  areas  of  influence.  For  example, 
members of the Housing TP noted that some MS (e.g. Latvia, Slovenia) showed a keen 
interest in using learning from the TP for developing or reviewing their national housing 
policies; however, they were unsure of the progress made in this respect, and the level 
of influence of the TP.  

As regards local effects (at city level), similarly, several interviewees reported a strong 
interest in the policy approaches discussed, identified and disseminated during the work 
of  the  TPs,  but  again  struggled  to  point  to  specific  changes  made  as  a  result.  It  was 
widely felt that many of the actions developed by the TPs (in particular those focused 
on  enhancing  knowledge,  capacity  building,  dissemination  of  good  practices, 
development of policy tools etc.,  such as the Knowledge Pack for cities developed by 
the  Circular  Economy  TP;  other  examples  are  listed  above)  have  the  potential  to 
influence the way cities across Europe tackle some of the challenges facing them. 

One interesting example of where the TP approach as such appears to have served as 
inspiration for cities in a specific MS was provided by members of the TP on Inclusion of 
Migrants  and  Refugees,  who  pointed  to  the  creation  of  a  Greek  network  of  12 
municipalities  hosting  refugees74,  which  followed  /  was  inspired  by  the  format  and 
working methods of the TP.  

Coherence with other EU and international policies 

Generally speaking, interviewees felt the work of their TPs was coherent with other EU 
urban policy initiatives as well as wider policy objectives in relevant areas (e.g. 
social policy, environmental and climate policy), although they often lacked the in-depth 
insights  into  EU  policy  to  provide  specific  feedback  on  how  this  general  coherence 
translated into tangible synergy effects. They tended to feel that, to date, the influence 
of the TPs on other EU policies was more potential than actual (see above). 

As regards the UN New Urban Agenda (NUA), most interviewees were unaware of if 
/ how the UAEU relates and/or contributes to this. However, a couple of interviewees 
with  first-hand  experience  of  the  NUA  felt  that  both  are  based  on  similar  principles, 
recognising the need for a multi-level partnership approach to achieve change. As such, 

74 https://www.accmr.gr/en/news/665-ddd.html  

173 

 
                                                 
the TPs can contribute to broader international discussions about how to approach the 
urban dimension of the SDGs, and the TP working methods can serve as inspiration for 
any country in the world regarding the practicalities of how the multi-level partnership 
approach can be put into practice.   

Summary of key findings   

In summary, the interviews conducted as part of this case study confirm that the TPs 
have  been  relatively  successful  in  building  sustainable  collaborative  relationships 
between their members. Moreover, the evidence suggests that TPs reached out to non-
members with a view to share relevant information, knowledge and tools. Outreach, 
dissemination and awareness-raising is a shared ambition of all TPs, although some 
appear to have been more successful in this respect than others (based largely on the 
efforts  and  resource  investments  of  coordinators,  and  the  involvement  of  EU-level 
organisations  such  as  Eurocities,  CEMR,  URBACT,  and  the  Covenant  of  Mayors).  The 
public consultation results also suggest that the UAEU and the TPs have had significant 
impacts on networking, collaboration and knowledge among participants and, to some 
extent, other cities and stakeholders. A clear majority of respondents agreed that it has 
contributed “to a great extent” or “somewhat” to improved networking and collaboration 
on urban issues with other stakeholders (80%), to better knowledge and data on urban 
issues  (79%)  and  more  cooperation  with  cities  and  urban  areas  in  other  European 
countries (77%). 

As regards policy impacts, a majority of respondents to the consultation also identified 
a  contribution  to  more  involvement  of  cities  in  EU  policy-making  (74%)  and  national 
policy-making (54%), as well as improved policy-making on urban issues at the local 
level; (60%). However, the interviews confirmed that it is challenging to substantiate 
in specific terms how this perceived policy influence has materialised and had tangible 
effects  in  practice.  For  two  of  the  TPs  explored  as  part  of  this  case  study  (Circular 
Economy and Inclusion of Migrants and Refugees), interviewees reported their work had 
influenced  /  was  reflected  in  specific  EU  proposals  for  post-2020  expenditure 
programmes,  though  without  a  counterfactual,  it is impossible  to  assess  whether  the 
elements  in  question  might  have  also  been  addressed  in  the  absence  of  the  TPs. 
Interviewees  also  expressed  the  hope  that  the  results  of  certain  other  TPs  would  be 
considered in future policy discussions. In the case of Housing, the TP  sought the re-
establishment of an EU-level policy forum (Informal Ministerial Meetings on Housing). 
An influence on national or local policies is even harder to ascertain due to the lack of 
detailed knowledge among interviewees, but some were optimistic that the work of their 
TPs had provided inspiration for the development or review of policy approaches in some 
MS and/or cities.  

Overall,  this  case  study  confirms  both  (1)  the  usefulness  of  the  TPs  as  a  forum  for 
networking,  collaboration,  awareness-raising,  knowledge  generation  and  exchange 
among  stakeholders  representing  different  levels  of  government  from  across  Europe, 
and (2) their potential to generate wider effects and impacts via the dissemination of 
the  results  of  their  work  and  the  implementation  of  specific  actions  that  seek  to 
strengthen the urban dimension in the design and implementation of relevant EU and 

 174 

 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

national  policies.  At  the  same  time,  it  illustrates  some  of  the  key  challenges  in  this 
respect, in particular the fact that, since the TPs are “soft” initiatives with a somewhat 
“random” membership and limited resources, they are not in a position to exert direct 
control  over  relevant  EU  or  national  policy  or  legislative  processes.  Instead,  the  best 
they can realistically hope to achieve is often that the ideas and proposals developed by 
them are subsequently considered and, ideally, taken on board by the relevant policy-
makers and regulators. This case study has found a number of examples where this has 
already  been  the  case  and  others  where  TP  actions  may  yet  influence  policies  in  the 
coming years. However, in the case of several TPs, the extent to which they will achieve 
tangible effects on relevant EU or national policies remains highly uncertain.  

175 

 
Annex C: Assessment framework 

* MD = Monitoring data; DR = Desk research; C = Consultation (public & targeted); Int = Stakeholder interviews; CS = Case studies 

Assessment 
criteria 

Effective-
ness 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Data sources / methods* 

MD  DR  C 

Int  CS 

1. To what extent has the 
UAEU  fostered  effective 
cooperation, coordination 
and  interaction  between 
stakeholders  at  different 
levels? 

Formation composition of 
Partnerships 

  Level of stakeholder interest in Partnerships 

  Perceived appropriateness of the selection process 

of members 

  Balance of membership (across stakeholder types 

and levels of government) 

  Frequency  and  format  of  Partnership  meetings  / 

 

 

events 

Working  methods  and 
arrangements 

Participation 
engagement 

  Perceived effectiveness of coordinators in fulfilling 

their role 

  Perceived  adequacy  of  support  provided  by  the 
Member  States,  EC,  the  Secretariat,  outreach 
partners 

/ 

  Level  of  active  participation  from  Partnership 

 

members 

  Role of and relationship between different groups 

 

of actors (incl. cities, MS and EC DGs)  

  Relationship  between  Partnerships  and  UAEU 

governance structures (DGUM, UDG) 

2. To what extent has the 
UAEU facilitated progress 
under the three pillars of 
EU  policy  making  and 
it 
implementation  that 
(Better 
focuses 
Better 
Regulation, 

on 

Development  of  Action 
Plans 

  Perceived 

effectiveness 
process 
development 
participatory, timely, etc.) 

of 

Action 

Plan 
(evidence-based, 

  Difficulties  encountered  in  drafting  APs  (e.g. 
delays, disagreements) and underlying reasons  

  Perceived  effectiveness  of 

the  consultation 
process  (incl.  amount  of  feedback  received  on 
draft APs) 

 

 176 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Assessment 
criteria 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Data sources / methods* 

Funding, 
Knowledge)? 

Better 

Content of Action Plans 

  Number  and  types  of  actions,  pillars,  target 

audiences 

  Extent  to  which  cross-cutting  issues  have  been 

addressed 

MD  DR  C 

Int  CS 

 

 

Implementation of Action 
Plans 

Stronger voice for cities 

More  effective  approach 
to policy-making 

contributed 

3. To what extent has the 
to 
UAEU 
strengthening  the  urban 
dimension  in  the  design 
and 
implementation  of 
relevant  EU  and  national 
policies? 

  Level of ambition of actions (e.g. extent to which 

 

they target fundamental multi-level issues) 

  Perceived  feasibility  of  actions  (e.g.  in  terms  of 
resource  requirements,  level  of  buy-in  of  key 
actors) 

  Extent  to  which  actions  have  been  implemented 
by  relevant  actors  (Partnership  members  / 
others), by AP and pillar 

  Expectations  regarding  future  implementation, 

opportunities and challenges 

  Success stories of successful implementation, key 

drivers 

  Strengthened opportunities for cities to voice their 
concerns  and  feed  them  into  relevant  processes 
and fora 

  Stronger  involvement  of  urban  authorities in  the 
design  and  implementation  of  EU  /  national 
policies 

  Raised  awareness  among  other  stakeholders  of 
urban issues, needs and potential contribution 
  Use  and  perceived  usefulness  of  the  one-stop-

shop for cities portal 

  Use of territorial impact assessments 

 

 

 

  Enhanced  ability  of  cities  and  other  urban 
stakeholders  to  influence  the  development  and 
implementation  of  relevant  EU  policies  after 
participating in the UAEU  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

177 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assessment 
criteria 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Data sources / methods* 

Contribution 
effective EU policies 

to  more 

  Evidence of specific policy or legislative processes 
that  have  used  a  more  effective,  integrated, 
coordinated approach due to the UAEU 

  Evidence of results of AP actions reflected in EU, 
national  or  local  policies  in  the  fields  of  Better 
Regulation, Better Funding and Better Knowledge 
  Evidence  of  impacts  of  UAEU  on  EU,  national  or 
local  policies  in  the  priority  themes  and  cross-
sectoral issues of UAEU 

  Effects on territorial cohesion 

  Wider  economic,  social,  environmental  effects  of 

policies influenced by UAEU 

International effects 

  Contribution  to  the  implementation  of  UN  SDG 

4.  What  are  the  main 
drivers  of  the  UAEU’s 
effectiveness  (strengths, 
weaknesses, 
success 
factors and challenges)? 

drivers 

Internal 
of 
effectiveness  (positive  / 
negative) 

drivers 

External 
of 
effectiveness  (positive  / 
negative) 

#11; Habitat III 

Extent  to  which  the  following  aspects of  UAEU  have 
contributed to the achievement of its objectives: 
  Working  methods;  Stakeholder  participation  / 
engagement;  Governance  structures;  Available 
support and resources; Priority themes and cross-
cutting issues; Other aspects to be identified 
Extent to which the following contextual factors have 
contributed  to  the  achievement  of  the  UAEU’s 
objectives: 
  Stakeholder policy agenda; Competing priorities; 
EU Cohesion Policy context; Wider socio-economic 
context; Other aspects to be identified 

MD  DR  C 

Int  CS 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Efficiency 

5. To what extent do the 
UAEU’s 
governance, 
coordination, 
management 
and 
administrative  structures 

Operational  efficiency  of 
the 
Thematic 
Partnerships 

  Ease 

/  difficulty  of 

coordination  within 

 

 

 

Partnerships (between participants) 

  Perceived efficiency of key Partnership processes 
set-up,  meetings, 
(e.g. 

and  mechanisms 
consultation, etc.) 

 

 

 

 178 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Assessment 
criteria 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Data sources / methods* 

ensure 
implemented efficiently? 

the  UAEU 

is 

and 

6. To what extent are the 
financial 
other 
resources invested by the 
other 
and 
EU 
stakeholders 
proportionate 
benefits? 

the 

to 

  Main causes of administrative burden, delays, and 

 

 

 

inefficiencies 

MD  DR  C 

Int  CS 

Operational  efficiency  of 
the 
and 
governance 
support structures 

  Efficiency  and 

timeliness  of  reporting  and 

monitoring and reporting processes 

  Ease and speed of access to technical assistance, 

key barriers 

Availability  /  sufficiency 
of resources 

  Ease / difficulty of coordination between different 

Partnerships 

  Amount of time and other  resources  invested by 

participants 

  Amount of EU resources (incl. technical assistance 

budget and secretariat) 

  Demand 
support 

for  technical  assistance  and  other 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proportionality  of  costs 
and (perceived) benefits 

  Extent  to  which  resource  shortages  hamper 

 

 

 

participation in Partnerships 

  Extent 

to  which  resource  shortages  affect 

 

 

 

implementation of Action Plans 

  Key UAEU effects (as per questions 1-3 above) 

 

 

 

 

 

  Main benefits reported by stakeholders 

 

 

 

  Extent  to  which  participants  remain  willing  to 

 

 

 

invest their own resources 

  Level  of  satisfaction  with  benefits  generated  in 

 

 

 

view of resources invested 

Relevance 

7.  To  what  extent  is  the 
of 
UAEU’s 

approach 

  Extent  to  which  cities  feel  relevant  EU  policies 
(e.g.  Cohesion  policy,  R&I  policy,  inter-regional 

 

 

 

179 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assessment 
criteria 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Data sources / methods* 

MD  DR  C 

Int  CS 

multi-level  and  multi-
stakeholder  cooperation 
relevant 
for 
strengthening  the  urban 
dimension in EU policy? 

a 
barriers 
Main 
stronger urban dimension 
in EU policy 

to 

cooperation) reflect their key needs and priorities, 
and those of their citizens 

  Extent  to  which  cities  feel  able  to  influence  the 
development  and  implementation  of  relevant  EU 
policies 

  Key  barriers  and  bottlenecks  that  prevent  urban 

concerns from being more fully addressed 

of 

Alignment 
UAEU 
cooperative  approaches 
with these barriers 

  Extent  to  which  cities  perceive  a  need  for 
cooperation  with  other  stakeholders  from  across 
the EU 

  Extent  to  which  other  stakeholders  perceive  a 
need  for  cooperation  with  cities  from  across  the 
EU 
  Extent 

to  which  UAEU’s  pillars  of  Better 
Regulation, Better Funding and Better Knowledge 
continue to be relevant to cities and citizens 

  Existence  of  alternative  ways  in  which  cities  can 

influence EU policy (outside of UAEU) 

Main  themes  and  issues 
of concern for cities in the 
EU 

  Policy  areas  /  problems  in  which  cities  report 
strong  misalignment  between  their  needs  and 
relevant EU / national policies 

  Key 

governance, 

and 
regeneration, and other challenges faced by cities, 
and their priorities / approaches in tackling these 

planning 

urban 

of 

Alignment 
UAEU 
themes  and  issues  with 
these concerns 

  Level  of  alignment  between  key  problems  and 
needs  of  cities,  and  the  priority  themes  of  the 
UAEU 

8. To what extent are the 
pillars, themes and cross-
cutting  issues  defined  in 
the  Pact  of  Amsterdam 
conducive  to  addressing 
the  main  needs  and 
priorities  of  urban  areas 
in the EU? 

Coherence 

9. To what extent do the 
elements  of  the  UAEU 
(including 
12 
Thematic  Partnerships) 

the 

Complementarities, 
reciprocal 
synergies  

linkages, 

  Level  of  alignment  between  key  governance  and 
other  challenges  faced  by  cities,  and  the  cross-
cutting themes of the UAEU 

  Level of cross-Partnership collaboration and cross-

fertilisation 

  Extent to which later waves of Partnerships build 

on and learn from earlier ones 

 180 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Assessment 
criteria 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Data sources / methods* 

MD  DR  C 

Int  CS 

10. To what extents is the 
UAEU coherent with other 
urban policy initiatives at 
international,  EU  and 
national level? 

added 

EU 
value 

11.  To  what  extent  does 
the UAEU generate value 
that  is  additional  to  the 
value  that  would  have 
from 
resulted 
interventions  initiated  at 
regional 
national 
or 
levels? 

complement 
reinforce each other? 

and 

Duplications, 
incompatibilities 

overlaps, 

  Existence of synergies, economies of scale in how 
UAEU  governance  and  technical  assistance  is 
provided 

  Extent to which the remit of Thematic Partnerships 

is clearly defined 

  Level  of  similarity  /  overlap  /  contradictions  (if 
any)  between  Action  Plans  of  different 
Partnerships 

 

 

Theoretical coherence 

  Extent to which the objectives of UAEU and other 

initiatives are aligned / consistent 

  Extent to which target audiences and approaches 
of UAEU and other initiatives are complementary 
  Level of mutual support initiatives lend each other 

(e.g. in terms of implementing Action Plans) 

  Amount of consistency / overlap between themes, 

issues, participants 

  Extent  to  which  transferable  best  practices  are 

shared between initiatives 
(As per questions 1-3 above) 

Practical coherence 

Results  /  benefits  of  the 
UAEU 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Importance  of  the  EU 
involvement  /  dimension 
in generating results 

  Extent to which cooperation between stakeholders 
from  different  MS  was  necessary  to  generate 
results 

 

 

 

  Extent to which EC, DGUM, UDG involvement was 

 

 

 

necessary to generate results 

  Other facets of EU added value (e.g. networking, 
exchange  of  good  practices,  addressing  cross-
border threats, efficiency gains…) 

  Likely effects of UAEU discontinuation on existing 
Partnerships (collaborative relationships between 
stakeholders) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

181 

12. To what extent would 
the  effects  of  the  UAEU 
if  EU 
be 

sustained 

Sustainability of results 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assessment 
criteria 

Questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Data sources / methods* 

MD  DR  C 

Int  CS 

support for the UAEU was 
discontinued? 

  Likely  effects  of  UAEU  discontinuation  on 

 

 

 

implementation of Action Plans 

  Perceived need for new Thematic Partnerships 

 

 

 

 182 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Annex D: Intervention logic of the Urban Agenda for the EU 

183 

 
 
Annex E: Bibliography  

Bulgarian  Presidency  of  the  EU  Council.  (2018).  Scoping  paper  on  Urban  Agenda 

Technical Preparatory Group (UA TPG).  

CoR.  (2018).  Opinion  -  Implementation  assessment  of  the  Urban  Agenda  for  the  EU, 

COTER-VI/037. Brussels . 

Council  of  Ministers  on  Urban  Matters.  (2015).  Riga  Declaration.  Retrieved  from 

http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9625-2015-INIT/en/pdf  

DGUM. (2019). Minutes of the DGUM meeting on UAEU, 8 May 2019.  

Dutch  Presidency  of  the  EU.  (2016).  Urban  Agenda  for  the  EU.  Pact  of  Amsterdam. 
from 

Retrieved 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/themes/urban-
development/agenda/pact-of-amsterdam.pdf 

EU and UN-HABITAT. (2016). The State of European Cities 2016. Cities leading the way 
from 

to 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/newsroom/news/2016/10/20-10-
2016-state-of-european-cities-report-cities-leading-the-way-to-a-better-future. 

Retrieved 

future. 

better 

a 

EU  Capital  City  Mayors.  (2019).  Joint  declaration  by  the  Mayors  of  the  28  EU  Capital 

Cities, 25 June 2019. 8th EU Capital City Mayors Meeting. London. 

EUKN. (2017). One Year from the Pact of Amsterdam. European Knowledge Network. 

European Commission. (1997). Towards an urban agenda in the European Union (COM 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

(97) 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:51997DC0197&from=RO 

Retrieved 

197). 

from 

European  Commission.  (2015).  Commission  Staff  Working  Document:  Results  of  the 
Public  Consultation  on  the  key  features  of  an  Urban  Agenda  for  the  EU, 
SWD(2015) 
from 
final/2. 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/consultation/urb_agenda/pdf/swd
_2015.pdf 

Retrieved 

109 

European Commission. (2016).  Working Programme of the Urban Agenda for the  EU. 
from 

Retrieved 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/themes/urban-
development/agenda/urban-agenda-working-programme.pdf 

European Commission.  (2017).  Report from the  European Commission to the Council 

on the Urban Agenda for the EU, COM(2017) 657 final, Brussels, 20.11.2017.  

Hajer, M. &. (2018). Learning with cities, learning for cities. The golden opportunity of 
the  Urban  Agenda  for  the  EU.  Utrecht:  Urban  Futures  Studio,  University  of 
Utrecht. 

JRC.  (2019).  The  future  of  cities.  Opportunities,  challenges  and  the  way  forward  . 
Commission: 

Retrieved 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-
reports/future-cities 

European 

from 

 184 

 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

Mayors of the Capital Cities of EU. (2018). Brussels Declaration by the Mayors ofthe EU 
Capital Cities on Public investment, Cohesion policy an dthe Urban Agenda for 
EU. Brussels : European Commission. 

Potjer,  S.  H.  (2017).  Learning  to  Experiment:  Realising  the  Potential  of  the  Urban 

Agenda for the EU. Utrecht: Urban Futures Studio. 

Purkathofer, E. (2019). Investigating the partnership approach in the EU Urban Agenda 
from  the  perspective  of  soft  planning.  European  Planning  Studies,  27:1,  DOI: 
10.1080/09654313.2018.1527294, 86-105. 

Romanian Presidency of the EU Council . (2019). Bucharest Declaration of the Informal 

Meeting of EU Ministers Responsible for Urban Matters.  

UN. (2019, February 25-27). Seville Commitment. Cementing a local-global movement 
2030: 

to 
https://www.agenda2030.gob.es/sites/default/files/recursos/Seville%20Commi
tment.%2027%2002%202019.pdf 

Retrieved 

localising 

Agenda 

SDGs. 

from 

the 

185 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex F: Technical secretariat factsheet  

 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assessment Study of the Urban Agenda for the EU | Final Report  

187 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Getting in touch with the EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You 
can  find  the  address  of  the  centre  nearest  you  at:  https://europa.eu/european-
union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can 
contact this service: 

– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),

– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or

– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

Finding information about the EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on 
the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

can 

download 

at: 
You 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be 
obtained  by  contacting  Europe  Direct  or  your 
information  centre  (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

publications 

priced 

order 

local 

free 

and 

EU 

or 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official 
language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 

The  EU  Open  Data  Portal  (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en)  provides  access  to  datasets 
from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes. 

K
N
-
0
2
-
2
0
-
0
0
8
-
E
N
-
N

 ISBN 978-92-76-14914-9