23.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/86

1.1

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

1.2

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

1.3

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

1.4

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

1.5

The Committee is also convinced of the future success of the Commission's approach in developing an integrated development strategy for an urban environment deeply rooted in the principles of subsidiarity and proximity, especially if the strategy is implemented through shared, participatory methods, within the framework of the renewed Lisbon and Gothenburg agendas.

1.5.1

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

1.5.2

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

1.6

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

1.7

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

1.7.1

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

1.8

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

1.8.1

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

1.8.2

The Committee emphasises the crucial role that schools, educational institutions and universities in general are expected to play in orientating young people and citizens towards sustainable development.

1.8.3

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

1.9

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

1.10

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

1.10.1

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

2.1

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

2.1.1

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

2.1.2

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

2.1.3

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

2.1.4

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

2.1.5

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

2.1.6

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

2.1.6.1

The following are also closely connected with the proposed strategy under consideration:

2.1.7

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

2.1.8

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

2.1.9

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

2.1.10

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

2.2.1

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

2.2.2

The proposed thematic strategy is structured along the following lines:

2.2.3

Since the Commission proposal is multisectoral, it should be read against the background of other thematic proposals, and more specifically, the proposal on air pollution, and the proposals on solid urban waste, marine pollution and soil protection.

2.2.4

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

2.3.1

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

2.3.2

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

2.3.3

In order to ensure consistency with the Community commitment ‘to legislate less but to legislate better’, the Committee believes that it would be appropriate to:

2.3.4

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

2.3.4.1

The Committee is convinced that the social and cultural development of the urban environment is of primary importance, in view of demographic trends and migratory flows.

2.3.4.2

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

2.3.5

The process should be divided into the following clearly defined phases:

2.3.5.1

Local authorities have already identified a number of solutions, including the following examples:

2.3.5.2

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

2.3.6

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

2.3.6.1

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

2.3.6.2

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

2.3.6.3

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

2.3.6.4

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

2.3.7

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

2.3.8

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