51996IE1084

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Role of the EU in urban matters` (97/C 30/17)

On 26 October 1995 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an Opinion on the 'Role of the EU in urban matters`.

The Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 25 June 1996. The Rapporteur was Mr Vinay.

At its 338th Plenary Session (meeting of 25 September 1996), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by 89 votes to one.

1. Political and cultural thinking on urban matters

1.1. Background

1.1.1. Since the end of the 1980s, the European institutions have shown a growing interest in urban matters. In 1989 the European Commission launched the first programme of innovative measures, and this led three years later to the Europe 2000 paper and the framing of the Urban Community initiative.

1.1.2. The 1990 Commission Green Paper on the Urban Environment () launched an in-depth consideration of the ways cities were developing, and stressed the need to make the quality of the urban environment and the well-being of city dwellers a key objective of socio-economic development. This point was clearly highlighted in the relevant ESC Opinion ().

1.1.3. The Europe 2000 paper, issued in 1992, provided an initial outline of the Community's urban system. It was followed two years later by Europe 2000+ which fleshed this out and focused on cooperation and development prospects (). The Committee issued Opinions on both these papers. The Opinions stressed the strategic importance of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), and the need for participation ().

1.1.4. In 1993 the OECD and the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions looked at the subject of partnership in cities. They analyzed the main features of urban policies in Europe, with special reference to the goals of economic efficiency, social equity, and control of externalities. The proceedings identified a conflict between policies of excellence and social cohesion policies, and a risk that the new world economic order would isolate and weaken urban communities ().

1.2. Current thinking

1.2.1. The 1994 Oslo conference and Leipzig informal council of Ministers responsible for regional policies and spatial planning stressed the value of a European spatial planning policy. Also in 1994, the European Commission made a first stocktaking of Community action in urban areas, listing over 40 schemes that were of direct or indirect concern to large and medium-sized cities. Almost all major cities and many medium-sized ones are involved in schemes promoted by the Commission. It is indeed true that 'cities have during the last few years increasingly benefited from Community actions, both in financial and policy terms` (). However, it should be pointed out that although most of these activities are carried out in cities, they were not specifically devised for them.

1.2.2. Most of the programmes under which measures have been carried out in cities relate to specific sectors (youth employment, technological innovation, etc.), and although they have significantly boosted competitiveness, employment and local quality of life, they have rarely constituted a real strategy for the urban system as a whole.

1.2.3. The ideas of the committee of senior officials of the European conference of regional and spatial planning Ministers (CEMAT) and of the preparatory committee for the UN Conference on human settlements (Habitat II) are of particular relevance to political and cultural thinking on urban matters. In 1995 CEMAT held a seminar on public participation in regional and urban planning. The seminar elucidated the principle that local communities and socio-economic representatives had a right to take part in the framing of spatial planning decisions which affect local quality of life and economic development prospects (). The preparatory committee for the Habitat II conference advocates an intersectoral approach, in which housing and urban planning policies dovetail with those for sustainable development and competitiveness ().

1.3. New prospects

1.3.1. In July 1995 the Committee of the Regions adopted an Opinion on Urban development and the European Union (). The Opinion began by pointing out that 'urban areas are the location of some of the most innovative economic actions in the European Union` and that 'they are central to the economy of their regions and states and to the competitiveness of the whole of the European Union`. The COR went on to note that there was an 'urban deficit in the Treaty` and called for a new Treaty chapter 'which facilitates the coordination of current activities into a coherent urban policy`. More specifically, the COR proposed new provisions on urban development, transport, economic and social cohesion, environment policy, trans-European networks, public health, cultural policy, multicultural society and subsidiarity.

1.3.2. With reference to the subsidiarity principle, the COR explained that an EU urban policy would not seek to diminish local or regional powers, but rather to coordinate existing EU powers. It would 'provide a legal duty for the Commission to coordinate the impact of its existing policies in urban areas, ensure that existing EU policies complement the work of local and regional authorities and help promote the needs of urban areas in the EU.` ()

1.3.3. A few months later, at the Madrid informal Council of Ministers responsible for regional policies and spatial planning held at the end of 1995, the Commissioner for regional policies and cohesion noted that spatial planning at EU level could not simply be the sum of 15 national approaches; it had to distil them into a unified approach building on major points of convergence but also on the diversity and special features of that territory.

1.3.4. With reference to the significant spatial and urban impact of Community policies, the Commissioner emphasized the need to make these policies more mutually consistent and complementary, so as to ensure their effectiveness throughout the EU, based on a unified approach to the European dimension of its territory's long-term development.

1.3.5. A further indication of the new and more specific interest in urban issues is the fact that two recent ESC Opinions (one on spatial planning and inter-regional cooperation in the Mediterranean area, and the other on the future of cohesion and the long-term implications for the Structural Funds) highlighted the importance of the EU's urban system for development and economic and social cohesion. The Opinions stressed the need to step up EU action in the urban sector, with a view to promoting the establishment of a more balanced urban network in the Mediterranean and channelling Structural Fund assistance to urban areas in the less developed regions. ()

2. EU activities in the urban sector

2.1. Current activities

2.1.1. The growing concern which EU bodies have shown for urban areas is buttressed by a framework of actions which bear witness to a strong EU commitment. Some 90 % of Structural Fund aid is allocated via the CSFs, and a large part of this aid is channelled to cities. Moreover, the EU has launched 13 Community initiatives which take up 9 % of European funds, including the Urban initiative designed specifically for cities.

2.1.2. However, not enough is known about the effective targeting and impact of Community urban development measures to accurately assess the 'yield` of these investments in terms of economic development, employment, social cohesion, better infrastructure and services, enhancement of the urban environment, participation of all the economic, social and cultural groups directly involved, () and consistency of EU and national, local and regional measures.

2.2. Innovative regional development measures and urban pilot projects

2.2.1. In tandem with the framing of a new Community approach to spatial planning and to the development of urban areas, the Commission adopted a programme of innovative measures for the period 1995-1999 (Article 10 of the ERDF), funded out of a reserve equivalent to 1 % of Structural Fund resources. The programme includes action lines for spatial development planning and urban policies.

2.2.2. The first operates at national or transnational level, and uses a cross-sectoral approach to provide an overall view of the spatial impact of Community policies and anticipate possible obstacles to, or contradictions with, the overriding objective of economic and social cohesion (). Mention is also made of the multisectoral nature of these measures and the need for an overall view of them and - more importantly - of their effects ().

2.2.3. The second subject, urban pilot projects, refers specifically to cities, as they 'are the main focus and source of economic development, technological innovation and public services`. However this strand seems to focus on specific areas and themes rather than on the urban tissue in general.

2.2.4. Comparison of the two strands reveals rather a leap in scale. The urban structure as a whole does not seem to be fully addressed either by the first strand (too broad, and concentrating mainly on economic aspects) or by the second (too narrow and sectoral). Even so, EU activity in urban areas seems extremely extensive: as well as the many programmes mentioned above, over 130 urban projects are expected to be started or completed during the period 1995-1999 ().

3. The case for a European urban policy

3.1. Basic policy references and the central role of local development

3.1.1. The emergence of a new approach to spatial and urban development can be traced to two papers marking the break between the spatial and urban policies of the 1980s and the new policy outlook that began to emerge in the early 1990s. These are the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness, Employment - The Challenges and Ways Forward into the 21st Century, and the European Community Programme of Policy and Action in relation to the Environment and Sustainable Development.

3.1.2. Under the new approach, a region is not merely a site for sectoral measures. Rather, it provides an overall implementing framework for policies designed to combine economic development, social and economic cohesion, employment, enhancement and protection of the environment, and so on. Local development is thus a key feature of the new sustainable development mode advocated in the White Paper.

3.1.3. The ESC Opinion on local development initiatives and regional policy takes a similar line, and points out that the distinguishing feature of local development is its ability to 'harness all the various local resources available` and 'boost the capacity of a specific area to find its own development path` ().

3.2. The specific features of urban development policies

3.2.1. Within local development strategies, the special nature of urban development policies lies in their ability to dovetail local development objectives with the development and enhancement of urban areas, protecting their historical and cultural heritage and strengthening their residents' sense of local identity and involvement in decisions which affect their development and quality of life.

3.2.2. Hence, urban development policies use sectoral measures as building-blocks in a wider scheme to bring development and balance, this being the prerequisite for securing sustainable development and cohesion at local level. Urban planning thus provides a framework for consistent policy-making in different sectors and different tiers of authority (Community, national, regional and local level) and for checking that these policies are compatible with social, economic and environmental development ().

3.3. The European dimension of urban policies

3.3.1. It is clear from the above that the more general aspects of urban development policies, namely those related to the capacity to combine economic development, social cohesion and quality of the urban environment, have a European dimension not because they involve supernational measures, but because such policies concern principles, factors and conditions which are of strategic importance for the development prospects of the whole EU and for the quality of life of the European public.

3.3.2. Hence the need to give urban policies a European dimension does not derive from the need to encourage action in a specific area of infrastructure or improve the quality of urban life or even to protect and enhance the cultural heritage of Europe's cities. These aspects, while extremely important, can be handled at local, regional or national level, according to the systems of each Member State.

3.3.3. The Committee considers that the European dimension of urban policies stems from the need to facilitate the framing and dissemination of integrated urban development strategies based on the key principles which the EU has adopted to tackle the challenges of the 21st century. In this context, policies for developing Europe's urban areas are crucial for social development, for improving economic conditions and, in particular, for improving the quality of life of EU citizens. These policies can assist needy urban areas by responding to the requests and needs voiced by the Member States and local and regional authorities.

3.4. From individual cities to an EU urban system

3.4.1. There is a second set of reasons why urban policies need to have a European dimension. A recent Commission study shows that despite the Community's best efforts, many of Europe's lagging regions have been unable to close the gap with the more developed regions (). Similar conclusions are set out in the fifth periodic report on the social and economic situation and development of the regions of the Community ().

3.4.2. Spatial imbalances, especially those between cities, place extremely heavy burdens on the public purse in each country, in the form of assistance to local communities who are unable to close the development gap.

3.4.3. Over the long term, competition-driven development which is not tempered by complementarity or cooperation is unsatisfactory both economically and socially. The Commission paper on Community activities in urban areas singles out 'cooperation and complementarity rather than competition between cities` as one of the prerequisites for urban development and regeneration ().

3.4.4. Economic globalization and the growing number of transnational networks of cities which cooperate in economic development schemes make it vital that strategies and guidelines for cooperation and urban partnership be drawn up jointly at European and national level, so as to prevent any further imbalances in the EU's urban ecosystem.

4. Problems, needs and opportunities for action

As part of the activities of the Italian Council Presidency, the Committee's Study Group was invited by the Ministry for Public Works' General Directorate for Coordination of Spatial Planning to hold a working meeting in Rome. The meeting was also attended by representatives of the socio-economic partners, the national, regional and local authorities responsible for urban policies, and other interest groups. Following this meeting, and in the light of the above comments, the Committee has pinpointed certain strategic urban development issues which it feels call for specific Community intervention ().

4.1. Competition and cooperation: city networks and cohesion between cities

4.1.1. Economic globalization is increasingly exposing urban communities to national and international competition, and the effects of this competition are becoming more immediate and more intense. Also, in highly developed countries, economic growth is not directly or mechanically linked to employment growth improvements in quality of life, social progress or improvement of the environment in which we live.

4.1.2. Urban development strategies must thus address four different problems:

I) the vulnerability of urban communities to the local effects of the global economy encourages them to innovate and become more competitive, but this calls for a suitable range of planning abilities, resources and skills, without which the prospects of success are poor;

II) the scope for development using only factors that are available locally appears increasingly narrow. However, the new information technologies (telematics, teleworking) make it possible to combine and reinforce factors located in different regions and countries and build a single development strategy;

III) the increasing pace of change and innovation can bring rapid improvements in competitiveness and quality of life, but adjusting to the speed of innovation is becoming more and more difficult;

IV) a high level of efficiency is required of infrastructure, production facilities, administrative headquarters and R& D centres, as these are essential for urban competitiveness and economic development. This requires major investment and a clear selection of priorities.

4.1.3. The Committee therefore feels that urban cooperative networking should be encouraged. The aim should not be to neutralize the drive for competitiveness, but rather to enable the entire EU urban system to find a development path based on complementarity and the search for a competitiveness that does not create a gap which would end up by weighing heavily on the community's resources, bringing further damaging social and economic fragmentation (). In this context, cooperation between European cities focuses on improving quality of life and boosting the EU's ability to compete with other developed countries (such as the United States and Japan) and the industrializing countries.

4.1.4. Moreover, given the prospective EU accession of central and eastern European countries and the increasingly close ties between the regions and cities of the Mediterranean (), it would be worth devising specific measures to promote partnership with cities in these regions, both to advance and guide cooperation with future Member States and to provide more systematic cooperation between Mediterranean countries and regions.

Lastly, the Committee points out that some cities are subdivided into a (sometimes large) number of administrative districts. In such cases, cooperation between the various local authorities which run parts of the same city is vital, and should be encouraged by means of pilot projects and dissemination of information on the most successful schemes.

4.2. The urban partnership

4.2.1. Generalized pruning of public spending on infrastructure and services has encouraged - and in some cases made necessary - the spread of partnership schemes between public and private bodies, aimed at developing infrastructure and services and thus helping the whole local community.

4.2.2. More generally, urban partnership can encourage coordinated development planning which, if properly oriented, can guide urban development at a time of decreasing State involvement in sectors of key importance for development and economic and social cohesion and for improving the urban environment and quality of life.

4.2.3. The Committee thus highlights the case for encouraging forward-looking urban partnership schemes that can boost the involvement of national, regional and local authorities in key socio-economic development sectors (basic amenities, research and innovation facilities, transport and telecommunications infrastructure, improvement of the environment and of town planning, protection of cultural assets, etc.) by bringing in private professional, organizational and financial resources for schemes which meet the interests of the local community. Here the Committee stresses that the public/private partnership can be greatly facilitated if the relevant authorities act in a prompt, transparent and consistent manner.

4.3. Subsidiarity

4.3.1. The trend for cities to form transregional and transnational networks will lead local and regional authorities in different countries to cooperate more and more often in the framing and implementation of jointly agreed development projects. In such cases, the partnership problems of any network are compounded by the diversity of national legislation and of national interpretations of the subsidiarity principle.

4.3.2. Here the Committee feels that the EU could provide encouragement, drawing up guidelines and establishing a conduit for pooling experience of inter-institutional consultation and partnerships and assessing whether successful schemes can be replicated elsewhere. The Committee considers that when defining development strategies and activities, the EU should use appropriate consultation arrangements that will enable it to benefit from the experience of local and regional authorities and the recommendations put forward by them and their associations.

4.4. Participation

4.4.1. As noted above, economic globalization makes urban communities more vulnerable to the local effects of national and transnational development programmes. The interplay of these measures and local socio-economic development prospects make it more difficult to ensure that the socio-economic players play a proper part in the framing of decisions which affect the social, economic, environmental and town-planning development of their areas. In such circumstances:

- the basic information needed to assess effects and implications tends to be rather complex, as it concerns not just one city but all the cities directly or indirectly affected by the relevant scheme;

- participation is hampered by the fact that decisions and options are prompted by large-scale guidelines and needs and affect more than one community.

4.4.2. In this connection, the Committee thinks it vital that the EU foster at local level:

- increased transparency and a greater public say in urban development decisions;

- involvement of the socio-economic partners, as stipulated in the framework Regulation of the Structural Funds.

4.4.3. It is also worth noting that Europe is a gateway for large numbers of third-country migrants whose cultures, expectations and systems of values are sometimes very different from those of the host community. Many regions of Europe are assuming a multicultural nature which could promote social and economic development. However, this requires the establishment of specific types of participation, tailored to the differing cultural models and designed to foster and support the integration process ().

4.4.4. In this context, the quality of the information made available and the transparency of participation in decisions are vital not only for democracy but also for integration and multicultural cohesion.

4.5. Strategies for combining objectives of economic excellence with objectives of social equity

4.5.1. As infrastructure and service networks become more important for economic development, cities are increasingly seen as an engine for creating conditions conducive to economic competition. This may lead some authorities to give economic excellence greater priority than cohesion, solidarity and the socio-cultural development of the local community. The result may be a clash between economic development and social development, between objectives of efficiency and objectives of equity ().

4.5.2. Without a strategy to effectively exploit the impact of individual measures on the wider urban structure and marry competitiveness with economic and social cohesion, any resources committed to solidarity and improving the urban environment will - at least in the short term - mean a reduction in the resources available for improving economic efficiency and competitiveness.

4.5.3. Hence one of two situations will emerge: where the capacity to define and implement integrated urban development strategies is poor, economic excellence and social equity tend to be mutually exclusive. Where local authorities' planning and implementation capacity is good, the two objectives can be reconciled by taking in hand and exploiting the direct and indirect effects of the measures (management of externalities) ().

4.5.4. In the absence of policies to assist less developed cities, or those with a limited capacity to plan and administer integrated urban development strategies, the abovementioned situation can aggravate the imbalances in the EU's urban system. In this context, the Committee, mindful that the prime aim of urban development is to improve quality of life, calls for the establishment of a twofold system of criteria and guidelines.

- Firstly, for boosting the capacity to combine competitiveness and economic and social cohesion in integrated urban development projects, by means of training schemes and by the promotion of pilot schemes and studies.

- Secondly, for setting up networks to monitor, compare and assess the techniques, methods and results of these policies in different cities, and to disseminate the most successful ones.

4.6. Sustainable development and social cohesion at urban level

4.6.1. This raises the question of the conditions most conducive to sustainable urban development. The Committee thinks that in the long term, non-integrated development policies focusing on economic excellence, social cohesion or enhancement of the urban environment would bring growing burdens which an increasing number of Member States would be unable to sustain.

4.6.2. Sustainable urban development concerns not only the environment, but also economic and social factors, and must be tackled as a whole. The Committee feels that the serious socio-economic imbalances and urban and environmental decay afflicting many cities call for urban development schemes that establish the practical, economic, administrative and technical prerequisites for an improvement in social cohesion and the environment. Support should therefore be given to pilot projects and experience-pooling which, while accommodating the special features of individual EU cities and the radical differences between them, foster the sustainable development of urban areas.

4.6.3. Also relevant here are spatial planning policies which foster a more balanced distribution of services and infrastructure and improve the built environment in order to reduce - and if possible eliminate - the environmental and social dereliction and decay which beset some inner cities, dormitory towns and suburbs ().

4.7. Urban development and employment

4.7.1. It should also be remembered that most of the unemployed live in urban areas and that, while economic development does not automatically boost employment levels, social cohesion and quality of life, there is no doubt that over the longer term, employment and quality of life will not improve without economic development and thus without improving the productivity and competitiveness of urban areas.

4.7.2. It is therefore worth stressing that boosting employment requires the intermeshing of two different types of policy. On the one hand, an environment must be created that will attract new economic activities or extend existing ones, either indirectly (by improving infrastructure and services, accessibility and mobility, the urban environment, safety, etc.) or directly, by fleshing out the opportunities which cities can offer businesses.

4.7.3. On the other hand, economic development potential must be steered towards sectors and forms which provide new jobs that match supply to demand. In particular, the Committee stresses the 'virtuous circle` of employment directly created by urban regeneration and reorganization, the ensuing improvement in business competitiveness, and the new jobs which incoming businesses can provide.

4.8. Urban regeneration and social cohesion

4.8.1. The congestion, pollution, industrial decline and social alienation found in many cities are bound up with such factors as the growing competition between social groups and between local communities, public finance difficulties, high unemployment, the widening gap between rich and poor countries and the related migration to Europe's cities from underdeveloped third countries.

4.8.2. In this context, as it becomes more difficult to find public money to provide decent services and infrastructure for the whole community, so there is a tendency to create 'privileged` enclaves - sometimes with private sector resources - which provide a quality of life and services not available elsewhere. In this way, cities risk becoming less cohesive units with their residents segregated in separate social groups; above all, they risk ceasing to be places for building and strengthening cultural identity and for social development, places imbued with a sense of history, and centres for the development of technical and managerial skills.

4.8.3. However, urban development creates and redistributes wealth. The development of infrastructure, services and technical and managerial skills can all trigger a gradual regeneration process. Infrastructure and regeneration schemes thus help to increase and redistribute urban amenities and assets by improving services, infrastructure, mobility and the quality of the city landscape and environment.

4.8.4. In many cases, the regeneration process benefits the different social groups in a uniform manner. In others, the redistribution is less effective, with the result that urban development and regeneration may marginalize and impoverish the weakest social groups.

4.8.5. Accordingly, the Committee thinks that a set of criteria and guidelines could usefully be devised for ensuring effective, fair participation in the costs of urban renewal and in the benefits which it brings. Here steps are needed to encourage the upgrading of urban architecture, to promote cultural exchanges and note-swapping on the most effective types of spatial and architectural regeneration schemes, and to ensure real public involvement in development decisions along the lines indicated above.

4.8.6. In particular, the Committee calls for Community measures to raise general awareness:

I) of urban quality requirements (job opportunities, quality of services and of the environment, accessibility and mobility conditions, and so on) which should be available for all;

II) of the most effective urban planning, economic and administrative instruments for triggering systematic urban regeneration processes that meet the above-mentioned requirements;

III) of the type of actions needed to encourage a balanced social redistribution of the economic results and benefits of urban regeneration.

4.8.7. To this end, the Committee asks that criteria and guidelines be devised for easing the transition from support-based strategies for marginalized areas, to strategies designed to secure economically and socially balanced development.

5. Proposals

5.1. The above considerations presuppose a significant increase in the Community's commitment to urban areas in planning, organizational and financial terms. The Committee recommends the following:

I) the EU's commitment to urban pilot projects (innovative measures under ERDF Article 10), should be increased, turning these into systematic pilot actions with a strong bias towards overall urban development projects and reinforcing economic and social cohesion both in and between the EU's cities;

II) in relation to the results of the above pilot schemes, and given the significant impact which the state of cities has on general economic and social cohesion, a distinction should be drawn between Structural Fund objectives (and measures) of a mainly economic nature, designed to reduce regional disparities, and those which focus on urban development and involve the framing and implementation of integrated urban development projects designed to reduce social, cultural, environmental, urban-planning and economic disparities within each city;

III) the above two action lines should be closely coordinated;

IV) urban development projects might take one of two forms, being designed either (a) to trigger a general improvement in competitiveness, economic and social cohesion, employment, services and mobility, the urban environment and architecture, or (b) to link up sectoral programmes and activities and tie them to an integrated urban development model;

V) procedures and instruments should be established for examining the spatial and urban impact of all schemes which directly or indirectly concern cities;

VI) the urban development projects should be targeted on a specific set of socio-economic goals designed to ensure the maximum impact on employment and the integration of third-country immigrants, and to lessen the marginalization of the weakest groups in society and ease the degradation of the urban environment, as these may pose a serious threat to social cohesion; ()

VII) the new Structural Fund action for urban areas should include a specific strand to encourage partnership between EU cities and central/eastern European and Mediterranean cities, to promote cooperation and the establishment of networks between EU cities and those of neighbouring countries, and to help the cities of eastern Europe and the southern Mediterranean to join the European economic relations network;

VIII) decisive steps should be taken to encourage 'horizontal` use of the various sectoral schemes which concern cities. To this end, a forum should be set up between EU, national, regional and local authorities, the socio-economic partners, and other interested parties, to prepare EU intervention strategies for urban areas;

IX) the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) should also become an instrument for consultations between the EU, Member States, local and regional authorities and socio-economic partners, to hammer out an overall EU strategy for urban areas;

X) the EU's commitment to urban development and in particular to improvement of economic and social cohesion within and between cities, () under the Structural Funds, should be significantly increased.

5.2. From the cohesion angle, special attention and funds should also be devoted to cities in less developed regions where socio-economic conditions are particularly poor, per capita GDP is significantly below the EU average and unemployment is extremely high. The imbalances and shortcomings which generally affect all Objective 1 regions are concentrated in these cities, and social disparities and risks of marginalization are particularly great. Community measures to boost economic and social cohesion should therefore be especially intensive in these cities, which should be the subject of detailed surveys by the EU in order to gain a clearer idea of the nature and causes of their social problems and devise possible measures for remedying them.

5.3. The Committee considers that three further conditions need to be met if these objectives are to be achieved:

i) Since schemes conducted in the same city will only be successful and secure a high socio-economic return on the resources invested in them if they are mutually consistent, the local and regional authorities and socio-economic partners must be directly involved in the framing of development lines, and they must be given explicit, direct responsibility for ensuring that the urban development projects promoted by the EU are fully consistent with those run by the central and local authorities.

ii) Since the type of urban development action mentioned above is extremely innovative, the Commission needs to give a stronger lead in determining not only objectives and eligibility criteria but also the structural features of urban development projects. In particular, it would be helpful for the Commission to draw up a set of guidelines for the EU urban system and for development strategies based on subsidiarity, cooperation and partnership, economic and social cohesion, and the balance of the EU urban system.

iii) Lastly, as not enough information is available about the socio-economic, spatial, environmental and infrastructure position of cities to check on the results of the schemes, the EU should set up an experience-swapping network. This would keep the urban authorities and the socio-economic partners informed about urban development initiatives and experience, and enable them to assess their limitations and potential, to carry out forms of active partnership, and to contribute actively to the framing of increasingly sophisticated and effective intervention strategies.

5.4. Moreover, since urban development projects form a specific part of Structural Fund activity, the Committee stresses the obligation, under Article 4 of the framework Regulation, for each Member State to provide the requisite conditions, instruments and procedures for encouraging the socio-economic partners to play an informed and effective role in the formulation and administration of such projects.

5.5. As regards the case for EU legal competence in this area, the Committee of the Regions has drawn up detailed proposals for revision of the Treaty. However, more systematic, effective action could already be launched under the existing regulatory framework. Also, remembering that the Structural Fund regulations are to be reviewed in 1999, the Committee thinks that any new urban policy action should be decided in close, systematic relation to the reform of the Structural Funds.

5.6. Finally, the Committee wonders whether the launch of a new and more systematic EU strategy for urban areas should be formally enshrined by inserting a specific reference in the Treaty, notably in Articles 130a and 130c.

6. Priority intervention areas

6.1. By way of examples, the Committee has identified two priority intervention areas for improving the condition of EU cities, namely the urban mobility system and the urban environment.

6.2. The urban mobility system

6.2.1. The Committee thinks that the Community's aim here should be to overcome the traditional subdivisions between spatial planning and transport planning, and to promote integrated schemes that:

- offer the public - especially the least advantaged groups - satisfactory access to services, leisure areas, jobs and training centres;

- redesign the traffic system so as to significantly improve safety levels ();

- lessen the impact of traffic on the environment, which is currently marked by serious air and noise pollution and a severe deterioration in the quality of city life.

6.2.2. Here the Committee feels that vigorous efforts must be made to reorganize urban structures and employment so that less travel is necessary and accessibility is not impaired. Action is also needed to stop the steady encroachment of roads and private car parks into areas available to the public. In this context it is necessary to make wider use of telecommunication and telematics systems in production and services, in order to reduce the amount of 'necessary traffic` ().

6.2.3. Particular encouragement should be given to urban development projects designed to: reduce air pollution and traffic congestion by discouraging the use of private cars and encouraging the use of rail transport; make areas more generally accessible, thereby enhancing quality of life and improving urban amenities; use the economic benefits of this to finance improvements in services and infrastructure; offer companies better possible links with research and innovation centres (e.g. via telematics) and thus indirectly improve competitiveness and employment; use types of urban partnership that bring in private financial, organizational, professional and planning resources.

6.2.4. In this way, urban mobility schemes lose their sectoral nature and become part of a wider strategy in which the improvement of social cohesion, competitiveness of local businesses and quality of life become complementary parts of a single design.

6.3. The urban environment

6.3.1. Environmental decay and urban-planning problems tend to concentrate in specific urban areas, thereby worsening social and economic marginalization and drastically limiting the employment and other prospects of the poorest groups in society. Priority intervention areas for the urban environment should therefore start with the regeneration of seriously run-down urban areas. This means pinpointing the specific causes of their decline and framing systematic action for regenerating them.

6.3.2. Refurbishment of buildings and urban renovation are clearly not enough (in some cases they simply move the marginal social groups to other areas where the cycle of decay and isolation begins again). The aim must be to alter the social, economic, employment and cultural causes of social and urban marginalization.

6.3.3. Shifting attention from the effects (run-down buildings and neighbourhoods, unemployment, social marginalization) to the causes (lack of job opportunities, weak cultural models, low incomes, etc.) necessarily means reshaping urban development mechanisms and mechanisms for distributing the benefits of services, infrastructure, transport, and so on.

6.3.4. In this context, integrated urban redevelopment projects should be designed essentially to repattern the investments and policies which affect cities; to organize extensive consultations between institutions (local, regional, national, EU) and socio-economic partners; to devise development models that further the objectives of sustainability, cohesion and social equity; to define an integrated set of measures that will pave the way towards more balanced forms of urban development; and to ensure the political, administrative, technical and financial viability of these measures.

6.3.5. Integrated development projects to regenerate the urban environment will thus reflect the new perception of cities as a key element in making development policy fully consistent with policies designed to achieve economic excellence and social equity.

6.3.6. Lastly, the Committee feels that the issues raised in this consideration of the EU's role in urban matters are so important for EU development and quality of life that they exceed the confines of an Opinion. They require constant and careful attention, based inter alia on the results of the activity of the EU and the national, regional and local authorities. The Committee stresses the case for systematic EU monitoring of the state of the EU's cities and of the integrated urban development programmes and their results. The information obtained should be made available to the socio-economic partners and other interested parties.

Brussels, 25 September 1996.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() Commission Communication entitled Green Paper on the Urban Environment, 1990.

() OJ No C 269, 14. 10 1991.

() Commission of the European Communities, Europe 2000 - Outlook for the Development of the Community's Territory, 1992. Europe 2000+ - Cooperation for European Territorial Development, 1994.

() OJ No C 301, 13. 11. 1995.

() OJ No C 153, 28. 5. 1996.

() European Commission DG XVI, Community activities in urban matters. The development of the urban system and the urban dimension in Community policies, 12. 9. 1994.

() Council of Europe - CEMAT, The challenges facing European society with the approach of the year 2000: Public participation in regional/spatial planning in different European countries, Bath, UK, 26-27. 4. 1995.

() UN General Assembly, Preparatory committee for the UN conference on human settlements (Habitat II), Preliminary version of the declaration of principles and commitments and of the Global Action Plan. Habitat Agenda, 26. 10. 1995.

() Committee of the Regions, Opinion on Urban development and the European Union, Brussels, 19/20. 7. 1995, CdR235/95.

() Ibid. Section IV.1) Subsidiarity.

() OJ No C 133, 31. 5. 1995 and OJ No C 153, 28. 5. 1996.

() Hereafter referred to as the 'socio-economic partners`.

() European Commission, Regional Policies and Cohesion, Guide to innovative actions for regional development (Article 10 of the ERDF) 1995-1999. ECSC-EC-EAEC, Brussels, 1995. See in particular Part I - Spatial planning measures, second paragraph.

() The themes mentioned as relevant to spatial planning include the urban system and public amenities, broad-scale infrastructure, economic activity, the historical and artistic heritage, and regulatory aspects.

() European Commission, Regional Policies and Cohesion, Guide to innovative actions for regional development (Article 10 of the ERDF) 1995-1999. ECSC-EC-EAEC, Brussels, 1995. Part 2, Urban pilot projects, Paragraph IV.

() OJ No C 18, 22. 1. 1996, Points 2.1.2 and 2.1.3.

() OJ No C 301, 13. 11. 1995.

() European Commission, Regional Policies and Cohesion, Cohesion and the development challenge facing the lagging regions.

() European Commission, Competitiveness and cohesion: trends in the regions. Fifth periodic report on the socio-economic situation and development of the regions of the Community, 1994.

() European Commission DG XVI, Community activities in urban matters. The development of the urban system and the urban dimension in Community policies, 12. 9. 1994, p. 1.

() Study Group meeting held on 9-10. 5. 1996 at the headquarters of the National Economic and Labour Council (CNEL).

() Here it is worth noting the important contribution which city-twinning schemes have made to the integration of the EU's urban system.

() For instance, the recent Rome and Barcelona conferences on cooperation between Mediterranean regions.

() A further, albeit indirect, boost to the integration process can be provided by the partnership with Mediterranean cities mentioned in Point 4.2 above.

() Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development - European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Partnership for People in Cities. Proceedings of a Joint Conference, Dublin, 18-21. 10. 1993.

() OJ No C 153, 28. 5. 1996.

() Urban imbalances take very different forms in different countries and cities. The common thread seems to be the presence of radical disparities in terms of services, quantity and quality of infrastructure, accessibility, and quality of urban areas.

() OJ No C 153, 28. 5. 1996.

() OJ No C 153, 28. 5. 1996.

() It is worth remembering that, every year, 42 000 EU citizens are killed and 1 550 000 are injured in road accidents in urban areas (Eurostat figures for EUR-12).

() OJ No C 212, 22. 7. 1996.