Explanatory Memorandum to SWD(2015)109 - Results of the public consultation on the key features of an EU urban agenda - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | SWD(2015)109 - Results of the public consultation on the key features of an EU urban agenda. |
|---|---|
| source | SWD(2015)109  |
| date | 22-05-2015 |
Contents
- Brussels, 22.5.2015 SWD(2015) 109 final
- 2.3.1. Better EU legislation and policy design ..................................................................................... 4
- 2.3.2. Better coherence of EU policies with an impact on cities .................................................. 5
- 2.3.3. Improving urban intelligence, benchmarking, and monitoring ...................................... 6
- Facilitate access to funding. Provide
- o strengthen coordination of policies and actors related to urban development supporting an integrated approach to
- o ensure better regulation by more systematic assessment of impacts of new legislation on urban areas and stronger involvement of the key actors responsible for the
- should
- The question concerning which elements of urban development would benefit from a more concerted approach is closely linked to that of priorities in question 2. The analysis
- strengthen the urban dimension of
- EUROTOWNS
- Conference of Atlantic Arc Cities - (CAAC)
- represents the interests
- A global industry
- collaborative foundation-led network committed towards increasing
- CCRN is the informal network of the capital cities and regions of the European Union's
- tic-
- JRC, CNECT, REGIO Digital Agenda Toolbox
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE KEY FEATURES OF AN
EU URBAN AGENDA
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
2. Main Messages .......................................................................................................................... 2
2.1. What is an EU Urban Agenda and what should it achieve? ............................................ 2
2.2. What should be the scope of the EU Urban Agenda? ........................................................ 3
2.3. How should an EU Urban Agenda operate? ......................................................................... 4
2.3.1. Better EU legislation and policy design ..................................................................................... 4
2.3.2. Better coherence of EU policies with an impact on cities .................................................. 5
2.3.3. Improving urban intelligence, benchmarking, and monitoring ...................................... 6
2.4. Who should do what? .................................................................................................................. 6
3. Assessment of the responses ............................................................................................... 6
4. Operational conclusions - next steps ............................................................................. 10
Annex 1: Summary of replies per question .......................................................................... 12
Annex 2: List of interest groups that have responded ...................................................... 23
Annex 3: EU Urban initiatives (preliminary list) ................................................................ 31
Initiatives with a direct impact on urban development ............................................................... 31
Initiatives with an indirect impact on urban development ......................................................... 35
1.
Introduction
Europe continues to be faced with challenges related to the economy, the climate, the environment, and society at large. Most of these challenges have a strong urban dimension. With almost three quarters of Europeans living in cities1, it is clear that Europe needs its cities to win its battles. Without them, Europe will not meet its goals. This has been widely recognised and has triggered many important urban initiatives both at the EU and at the national level. These have been well received and are highly welcome. Yet, there is room for improvement to better link them, so to reduce overlaps, to ensure that they are mutually reinforcing, and thus to get much more out of them.
That is why a growing number of voices – at the EU, national and local level – argue that an EU Urban Agenda is needed so that cities can provide their input and expertise in developing and putting EU policies into practice and, in turn, that these are better adapted to urban realities.
As
response, the
European Commission
adopted
Communication2
in
July 2014
launching a public consultation on an EU Urban Agenda. Its purpose was to widen the debate to all relevant stakeholders, to gather their ideas, and to further clarify the rationale for an EU Urban Agenda, what its objectives should be and how it could function.
The consultation has generated strong interest. Respondents come from 29 European countries, as well as Canada and the USA. In total, 225 responses were received. Many respondents were local authorities associations, trade and industry federations, civil society organisations, thus representing a much larger number of interested parties. In addition, some Member States have carried out national consultations with local authorities.
Figure 1 – Distribution of replies by category of stakeholder3
| Pubkc Aumorcv indHidud Ptaon Othtr Irctf AKOflH Off musen Prtvan En'iprn' | 38% 19% 15% 11% 9% 4% 4H |
| 0 | * UK 20' 30tt 40tt |
The largest group of respondents come from public authorities with 84 responses, including from 16 Member States, which alone represent about 65% of the EU
71.8% living in cities, towns or suburbs. Source: European Commission (JRC, EFGS, DG REGIO).
"The Urban Dimension of EU Policies – Key Features of an EU Urban Agenda", COM(2014) 490 of 18.7.2014
Respondents could classify themselves according to seven categories. ”Other” includes European wide city
a
a
population. Some 15 cities' networks and 15 national associations have replied representing a significant share of the European urban population. Among them is the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, which represents national associations of local and regional authorities from 41 European countries. Some 75 interest groups have replied, representing various cities' associations, housing associations, spatial planners, chambers of commerce, employers, and sectorial interest groups.
Figure 2 – Number of replies by country4
The objective of this paper is to summarise and assess the main messages emerging from this consultation5.
2. 2.1.
Main Messages
What is an EU Urban Agenda and what should it achieve?
The main message emerging from the consultation is that Europe can help cities to address common challenges and, in turn, cities can contribute to achieve the priorities of the Union.
Note: The category 'Other' includes Albania, USA/Canada, Norway, Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) and the Danube Region. 'EU-wide' is a category created not to bias responses from Belgium, it refers to organisations represented in Brussels but located elsewhere.
For a more detailed overview of the responses please see annex 1.
4
5
Respondents believe that an EU Urban Agenda should help cities to implement European priorities and in doing so, it would push the EU's towards reaching its overall political objectives. Moreover, an EU Urban Agenda should fully acknowledge the key role cities play in translating national and EU policy objectives into concrete action. It should also support cities in addressing society's challenges, such as demographic change, urban poverty or migration.
Many also see an EU Urban Agenda as a vehicle to promote global sustainability issues and the European model of urban development in the context of the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals and global New Urban Agenda being developed in the context of the 2016 Habitat III conference.
Most respondents are of the opinion that no new legislation is needed, but rather better legislation which reflects urban realities. No new instruments or funding sources are requested, but better coordination among the existing ones. No new competences should be transferred to the European level, but a more structured, regular dialogue in full respect of subsidiarity and respective responsibilities should be put in place to ensure that what already Europe does is good for cities.
All respondents agree that the 'Cities of Tomorrow' report is the reference document at the European level. No new visions are necessary; no new conceptual works are needed. The real challenge is how to deliver on its main ideas.
What does this mean in practice?
Respondents point to a number of obstacles, summarised in the next sections, which hinder more effective action and concrete results. Overcoming those obstacles with the help of an EU Urban Agenda would greatly help in two respects: first, it would enable cities to work in a more systematic and coherent way towards overarching goals – be they at the EU or national level – and secondly, it would push Europe closer to its targets by making EU action more effective.
The consultation points to three main avenues to move forward: (i) concerted action on few priorities, (ii) improved policy coherence and coordination of instruments, and (iii) development and better use of the knowledge base.
2.2. What should be the scope of the EU Urban Agenda?
Respondents consider that an EU Urban Agenda should focus on a limited number of priority areas in order to achieve visible results and demonstrate its value added.
A majority of the respondents advocates concerted action in a limited number of priority areas. They argue that focusing on a limited number of important challenges would make it possible to achieve results.. The main key priority areas emerging from the consultation are largely in line with the Europe 2020 objectives and many of the priorities of the Commission, not least the Jobs Growth and Investment, Energy Union and Climate, the Digital Single Market, Migration and Democratic Change:
– Smart – Low carbon, low waste and smart flow cities: the main concern of respondents is to get the management of especially energy and transport as efficient as possible based on smart infrastructure solutions. This includes efforts in support of sustainable urban mobility and accessibility, energy efficiency and use of renewable
– Green – Environmentally-friendly, climate resilient and compact cities: the main concern of respondents is that urban development needs to rely more on green infrastructure and nature-based solutions as a response to heat-waves, drought and flooding, pollution peaks, etc. It is also about short circuit food production, minimising sprawl, land-take and soil sealing, as well as conserving the habitat.
– Inclusive – Living, caring, inter-generational cities: the main concern of respondents is to have cities that are open and inclusive, in which all inhabitants take part in society regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, culture, etc. This also includes quality of life issues related to affordable housing, neighbourhood regeneration, access to services, local economic development and jobs.
The main characteristic of the challenges identified by the respondents is that sectorial action is not enough to address them effectively, and initiatives which cut across sectorial boundaries are required. At the same time, many respondents indicate that flexibility is needed as challenges and specific priorities evolve over time.
2.3. How should an EU Urban Agenda operate?
As a guiding principle, respondents agree that it is necessary to respect subsidiarity and to avoid new regulation. The heterogeneity of EU cities also requires a flexible framework.
Respondents’ views on how the EU Urban Agenda should function, its scope and limits show different levels of ambition. On the one hand, some support better use of existing structures and exchange of experience on a voluntary basis, while the majority favours a more ambitious urban strategy for the EU with clear objectives and targets, better regulation, and improved policy coherence and coordination.
A great majority of respondents also confirms that an EU Urban Agenda should be relevant for all cities, whether metropolitan areas, small or medium sized cities, or larger urban areas extending beyond traditional administrative borders. This is also why there is a clear understanding that an EU Urban Agenda should also look at the interactions between urban and rural areas.
There is a widely shared view among respondents on some shortcomings of urban EU policymaking and implementation. To overcome them, many concrete proposals are put forward, essentially building on existing tools and instruments.
The following are the key elements emerging from the consultation and possible responses as suggested by the respondents.
2.3.1. Better EU legislation and policy design
Shortcomings: Stakeholders, predominantly public authorities, indicate that EU legislation sometimes has conflicting - at times even negative - impacts on cities, and that its implementation at local level can be difficult. They would like to see a proper evaluation of the impact of EU initiatives in cities beforehand. This is an important point since in practice cities play a central role in putting such legislation into action and therefore a large part of EU legislation has direct implications for urban policy making. Virtually all respondents wish to be more involved in policy-making and complain about
also criticize how EU directives are transposed into national legislation (e.g. air quality and emission directives).
So ution To overcome this deficiency, the respondents suggest:
• Ensure better re gulation and what many stakeholders refer to as “urban proofing” of
new policy initiatives. Do this through a territorial impact assessment beforehand where relevant. Pay more attention to how EU directives are transposed into national legislation.
• Involve key actors responsible for putting legislation into practice more closely. Do this early on, already in the policy design phase, and also at a later stage, when evaluating/assessing urban impacts. Cities argue they can provide valuable expertise on how to tackle the challenges they face.
2.3.2. Better coherence of EU policies with an impact on cities
Shortcomings All categories of stakeholders see better coordination of EU policies as one of the main rationales for an EU urban agenda. The increasing complexity of urban issues demands m ore joi ned - up approaches both between sectoral policies and between governance levels. Again air quality and emission directives are put forward as an example of inconsistency between policies and between governance levels.
Respondents welcome that many EU initiatives are targeting cities. However, a vast majority of respondents consider that these urba n - relate d initiatives are poorly coordinated. While objectives on paper are often complementary, respondents feel that currently EU level initiatives are too fragmented. There is a clear view that potential synergies, also alongside Member State initiatives, remain to be exploited.
Moreover, respondents say that access to funding appears complicated and funding is limited. Finally, many respondents regret that the many networks and platforms supported by different EU policy instruments, such as Horizon 2020 networks, different Covenants, European Innovation Platforms, etc. often overlaps and that there are margins for improving coordination and maximising the overall impact.
So ution A large majority of respondents, in particular the cities, would welcome much simpler and less fragmented ways of finding out what the EU is doing for cities. They suggest in particular:
• Coordinate better within the Commission. At the very least, the responsibilities should be much clearer. Many request some kind of EU urban envoy or a Commissioner for EU urban policy.
• Provide cities with a single access point to EU initiatives. A significant number favour a one-stop-shop. For them, this would greatly facilitate the dialogue with the Commission.
• Make better use of the existing instruments. No extra or new instruments are called for but existing ones should be used more effectively.
more funding earmarked specifically for cities.
2.3.3. Improving urban
intelligence, benchmarking, and monitoring
Shortcomings: Finding more comparable and reliable data on European cities is a concern for most respondents. Such data is crucial to monitor and benchmark cities. Without such data, it is difficult to exchange knowledge, to assess progress, to engage in a public debate on policy initiatives. Currently, urban statistics are still too fragmented without an effective data flow between Member States.
In addition, virtually all respondents would like to see a stronger urban knowledge base at EU level. They believe that existing knowledge is very fragmented and should be better exploited but also that new knowledge needs to be acquired.
Finally, they see a clear need for a more regular, public discussion on how cities are contributing to EU priorities and, in turn, how EU policies and instruments are better supporting cities in this effort.
Solution To address these shortcomings, stakeholders suggest:
• Develop more comparable urban indicators on key issues at the EU level. Share these common indicators in order to allow comparing urban development across the EU.
• Invest more in urban related research. Strengthen existing EU cross-scientific networks and programmes and forge closer links to EU policy.
• Establish a regular discussion to monitor progress.
2.4. Who should do what?
Big expectations emerge from the consultation of a stronger involvement and more effective interaction between all levels of policy-making. The EU Urban Agenda should facilitate participation of European cities networks as well as other relevant stakeholders such as industry and academia. It is suggested by the respondents that initiatives already in place, such as the Covenant of Mayors, should be used as models when defining and implementing the EU Urban Agenda.
Stakeholders stress that the local level is where challenges are best known and priorities can best clearly defined - cities know best their needs and problems, as well as the solutions. A view shared by all is that cities and local authorities should be supported (financially and technically) by the EU and the national level - the local level should be responsible for implementing urban policies, the national level should facilitate this process, and the EU level should define guidelines, monitor, and enable information flow and provide knowledge to all European cities.
3. Assessment of the responses
After the assessment of the proposals emerging from the consultation, the Commission services consider that the main focus in the EU Urban Agenda should be on those elements where EU level action can be justified and has a real added value in full respect of subsidiarity. In particular, the following strands can be further developed:
A. Result
orientation – focus on a limited number of priority areas
for Europe, (ii) areas where EU intervention will be of benefit, providing added value (iii) linking directly city actions with results, and (iv) realistic in terms of achieving results within existing policy frameworks using existing policy instruments rather than creating new ones. They should also all contribute to growth and jobs by promoting attractive, competitive and dynamic cities. In these areas, joint strategies and initiatives to support local commitment should be developed. This requires cooperation between the Commission, Member States and cities.
Based on (a) the major EU political priorities (i.e., the Jobs, Growth and Investment Agenda; the Energy Union Strategy; the Digital Single Market, Migration and Democratic Change); (b) the input given by stakeholders through the public consultation; (c) Member States urban agenda priorities; (d) the priorities agreed jointly by cities, the Member States and the Commission in the programming of the European Structural and Investment Funds6; and (e) the wider framework of Cities of Tomorrow; the following areas appear as priorities:
1. Smart cities: an upgraded and more holistic Smart Cities and Communities7 agenda as a tool to better integrate and connect energy, transport, water, waste and a broader ICT dimension (encompassing skills, sectors and technologies), anchored in a wider urban development context and integrating new innovative solutions that contribute to its objective.
2. Green Cities: the urban dimension of the 7th environmental action plan focusing on the potential of green infrastructure and nature-based solutions to the climate and environmental related challenges of urban development.
3. Inclusive cities: supporting urban physical and economic regeneration to fight urban poverty and build equitable cities for all regardless of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, as well as addressing the challenges of migration, affordable housing and the socio-economic integration of marginalised communities.
These areas are not to work independently and in isolation from each other, and their impact on economic, environmental, climate, demographic, social and territorial issues need to be understood and considered. Good (city) governance and (urban) innovation are two key horizontal dimensions that need to be understood and promoted across all three areas
B. Effective application of
better regulation tools
It is necessary to assess urban impacts of new EU policy proposals to make sure they do not actually have an adverse or conflicting impact on cities. Legislation should be modelled around subsidiarity concerns by providing a general framework, but leaving the tools to Member States to adapt in line with regional and local requirements and the administrative and institutional set-up within Member States.
The top three thematic objectives in terms of volume of funding in support of urban development (Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of 17.12.2013) relate to the low-carbon economy (especially investment in energy efficiency and sustainable urban mobility); the preservation and protection of the environment (especially investment for the protection of natural and cultural heritage, and the improvement of the urban environment); and the promotion of social inclusion (especially investment for the regeneration of deprived communities).
6
To this end, the Commission services will explore how to best ensure that its impact assessment procedures respond to stakeholders demand for territorial impact assessment with a special attention to urban areas, using available tools8 and including stronger stakeholder involvement. This is in line with the Commission's priority on better regulation, which includes the revision of its impact assessment guidelines, as well as making sure proposals respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
The Commission’s better regulation package9, including the re-launched REFIT initiative, should further ensure that Commission services take due account of the territorial and urban impacts of draft legislation (e.g. for local public authorities). It should also further increase the opportunities for the interested parties to be involved in policy preparations from early stages, via reinforced stakeholder consultations.
C. Improve coherence and coordination of EU policies with an impact on cities, align existing EU instruments with priority areas
There are many excellent urban initiatives both at the EU and at the national level. They are, however, not always well integrated and coordinated. The Commission services should therefore strengthen the coherence of EU initiatives and coordinate them better, avoiding the duplication of effort, platforms and networks. Existing initiatives should be assessed, simplified, streamlined and better focused, to make them more user-friendly for cities, make them more efficient and to create more synergies between them. Possibilities to better exploit synergies and avoid overlaps with national initiatives should also be explored in cooperation with the Member States.
In this respect, the Commission services will examine how pilot initiatives in different policy areas can be up-scaled, for example, within the programmes co-financed by the European Structural and Investments Funds (ESIF). The new Urban Development Network10 can play an important role as link between EU sectorial initiatives and ESIF support to integrated actions based on holistic urban development strategies11. These strategies could be used by the cities to translate EU level actions and objectives to their local contexts.
Other bottom-up initiatives, such as the Covenant of Mayors and Mayors Adapt that build on local governments commitments, also provide a basis for up-scaling and mainstreaming good practice and innovative approaches.
Moreover, the Commission services should align their various tools and initiatives around the key EU objectives within the three priority areas. This should also include access to funding, for example through joint planning of calls. This would be easier and more transparent for urban authorities. For example, calls under the Urban Innovative
9
See e.g. 'Assessing territorial impacts: Operational guidance on how to assess regional and local impacts within the Commission Impact Assessment System' {SWD (2013) 3 final}
See 'Better regulation for better results - An EU agenda' {COM(2015) 215/3}
The urban development network will in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of 17.12.2013) promote capacity-building, networking and exchange of experience between urban authorities responsible for implementing sustainable urban development strategies or urban innovative actions supported by the ERFD.
Under the ERDF action in support of sustainable urban development (Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of 17.12.2013), cities have to develop strategies that set out integrated action to tackle economic, environmental, climate, demographic and social challenges. At least 5% of the national ERDF allocations under the Investment
8
10
Actions12 concentrating on the key priorities could complement and reinforce other Commission initiatives, such as Horizon 2020 and the Programme for Environment and Climate Action (LIFE). This also has a global dimension. EU cities should engage internationally with their counterparts around the world to share their experiences about managing urbanisation. The Global Covenant of Mayors or the EU-China partnership on smart cities and urban mobility provide good examples of international fora where cities share and exchange their experiences.
Cities often find it confusing to find their way through a maze of initiatives, rules and regulations. Efforts are needed to ensure that cities – including smaller and medium cities - have easier access to European funding, and to maximise the impact of different EU funding instruments addressing urban issues. The Commission services should also explore the possibilities of providing a single entry point, or one-stop-shop, for end users.
Mapping existing initiatives and funds targeting cities is an important step in this process. The urban portal13 will as of end of June 2015 be updated on a regular basis.
D. Improve urban
intelligence, benchmarking and monitoring
Monitoring and comparing results in cities will be central in assessing the progress of putting the EU Urban Agenda into place and the particular value EU actions can bring in the priority areas. But for this to happen, more comparable and reliable data on European cities is needed and should be exchanged between Member States. This means developing new data but above all efforts should be continued to consolidate the knowledge-base and harmonise existing data sources, making them more complementary and readily available.
Thanks to the collaboration between the Commission and the OECD on the definition of cities and degree of urbanisation (making it is easier to combine data from different sources), and to the development of remote sensing (production of high spatial resolution, including the urban atlas, built-up areas, and air pollution) and so-called big data, a growing source of detailed data can now be used to compare and benchmark cities. Urban-related research has also been sustained by the Union's Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. This knowledge base will be further enhanced through multidisciplinary European research on urban development supported by e.g., Horizon 2020 and the JPI Urban Europe. ESPON and the World bank are other important actors, working for instance jointly on poverty mapping. The Commission, supported by cities, can bring forward this important work.
Finally, the Commission services will continue to organise regular City Fora to report progress on all the above elements and to discuss the future developments of the EU Urban Agenda.
ERDF will support innovative actions in the area of sustainable urban development in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of 17.12.2013). Such actions shall include studies and pilot projects to identify or test new solutions, which address issues that are related to sustainable urban development and are of relevance at EU level.
12
4. Operational conclusions - next steps
As next steps towards a fully operational EU Urban Agenda, it is suggested continuing the dialogue and cooperation with stakeholders and Member States, and improving coordination of existing instruments and initiatives, with a view of:
a. identifying critical urban related issues (within the three identified areas) for which EU action is needed and provides a significant value added compared to action that can be taken at Member States level, including setting conducive framework conditions through better regulation and improved multi-level governance;
b. mapping the urban related Commission initiatives in the three areas, including a preliminary assessment of their effectiveness and efficiency, with a view to identify gaps, overlaps and synergies;
c. identifying the main actors, networks and platforms; including the relevant Member States level initiatives and platforms, with a view to streamline cooperation and exchange of good practice.
In parallel, the Commission services will:
> further develop the Commission’s portal on EU urban initiatives into a one-stop-shop
for cities as part of a modern and user-centric Commission web presence;
>* continue the methodological development of Territorial Impact Assessment and support specific assessment of urban impacts where relevant, including encouraging cities and their representatives to make best use of available tools for their involvement in the policy-making from the early stages;
>* continue to organise annual or biennial CITIES Fora to debate and report progress on the EU Urban Agenda;
>* strengthen its internal coordination of urban initiatives through its Inter-Service Group on urban and territorial development;
>* monitor and report progress of cities towards the EU objectives ;
> contribute to the Habitat III process and the New Global Urban Agenda, by the analytical input through the State of European Cities report , as well as by playing a lead role in the development of a joint EU position to promote shared EU urban priorities;
The concrete work and further reflections on how the EU Urban Agenda can best operate and what should be the role of the local, national and EU levels in its implementation and steering will be done in close cooperation with the Member States and especially the present Latvian and the forthcoming Luxemburgish and Dutch Presidencies. The Urban
14 See e.g. Regional Focus 1/2015, 'The Europe 2020 index: The progress of EU countries, regions and cities to the 2020 targets'.
15 The European cities report produced by the European Commission and UN-Habitat will be published in mid 2016 as an input to the Habitat III conference. It will show European cities in a global context and highlight their
Development Group16 within the framework of the intergovernmental cooperation on urban development will play an important role in this work.
The Commission services hold that these proposals respect subsidiarity and take due account of the heterogeneity of EU cities. An EU Urban Agenda does not require new regulation, but rather the implementation of existing policies and instruments at EU and Member State level in a better, simpler and more coherent way. The success of an EU Urban Agenda will hinge, above all, on the cities themselves, it depends on their commitment to put it into action and to ensure concrete progress on the ground.
16 The Urban Development Group (UDG) is the forum for cooperation between Member states on urban
Annex 1: Summary of replies per question
Q1: What are the main rationales for an EU urban agenda? Where can EU action bring most added value? What elements of urban development would benefit from a more con certed approach between different sectors and evels of governance?
Key messages
>* An overwhelming consensus on the need for an EU urban agenda;
>* Cities are essential to the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy which should be better reflected in EU policy;
>* T he EU urban agenda should provide an enabling framework allowing cities to fully contribute to the implementation of Europe 2020. EU
o strengthen coordination of policies and actors related to urban development supporting an integrated approach to
policymaking;
o ensure better regulation by more systematic assessment of impacts of new legislation on urban areas and stronger involvement of the key actors responsible for the
implementation of directives and legislation;
o support capacity building and knowledge sharing; and further develop the knowledgebase and make data on urban development more accessible;
>* Issues related to (i) social inclusion and quality of life; (ii) the environment and resource efficiency; (iii) energy and climate change; (iv) sustainable mobility and accessibility; and (v) competitiveness and local economic development should be prioritised for concerted action.
What a re the main rationales for an EU urban agenda?
There is an overwhelming support for an EU urban agenda. There is only one genuinely negative respondent (a pri vate/indiv idua l) and a few only moderately positive (e.g., the governments of Denmark and the United Kingdom). These respondents opinion contrast starkly to the majority including some very positive Member States, such as France, Luxemburg, Poland and Sweden. The main rationales for an EU urban agenda essentially concerns governance, policy coordination and coherence, and the key role cities have, not only as implementers of EU policies but as actors in the frontline tackling societal chal lenges.
“An EU urban agenda could serve to enhance the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of
policies through better coordination of policies, actors and governance levels and a better understanding of urban development contexts in the conception and
implementation of policies. It could strengthen cities’ engagement and ownership of EU
and national policymaking and implementation. It could support cities’ capacity for
linked to holistic local development objectives it could bring EU policymaking closer to the citizens. Finally, it could be instrumental in EU’s development aid policies and be a vehicle to promote global sustainability issues. The majority of EU policies have an urban dimension, directly or indirectly”.17
The EU urban agenda should ensure the sustainable development of the EU by enabling cities to implement Europe 2020 and address societal challenges that are concentrated in urban areas. It should serve to give recognition to the key role cities have for the implementation of national and EU policy objectives and ensure that sectorial policies better reflect urban realities. The EU urban agenda should provide a framework to ensure better coordination of sector policies impacting on urban areas and lead to improved Commission working procedures to ensure policy coherence, as suggested by many public authorities (including Finland, Poland and Sweden), and also voiced by ‘Other’ category actors. Other key aspects concern cities involvement in policy processes and, multi-level and multi-actor governance.
Many also see the EU urban agenda in a broader sense as a tool to reform policymaking to become more responsive to local contexts, and also as a means to bring EU closer to its citizens.
The opinions on the rationale vary slightly between categories of stakeholders but in a complementary way without generating contradictory messages. For instance, better coordination of EU policies is amongst the top three rationales for all stakeholders except for private/individuals, where it does not appear. It is also difficult to make a clear-cut distinction between different rationales as they often are similar and over-lapping, e.g. place-base policymaking, better integration of policies, better coordination, etc.
Where can EU action bring most added value?
EU support to knowledge exchange and transfer, cooperation and learning are considered important in the views of all respondents. This is closely linked to the strengthening of cities’ capacity for (structural) change, as well as the definition and support for a qualitatively better urban development model. Equally important is the development of the knowledge-base on urban development, including refined longitudinal data.
Supporting the territorial aspects of urban development also comes out as important, especially in the responses from public authorities and city associations. However, while a few regional respondents argue that it is important to focus on small and medium sized cities, other respondents from metropolitan regions argue that the EU can bring added-value by being more sensitive to metropolitan issues.
"Empowering cities and their surrounding regions to perform better as drivers for growth, as frontline managers of social inclusion and as key players in climate action will support Europe’s overall competitiveness and strengthen territorial cohesion18".
What elements of urban development would benefit from a more concerted approach between different sectors and levels of governance?
The question concerning which elements of urban development would benefit from a more concerted approach is closely linked to that of priorities in question 2. The analysis
Newry and Mourne District Council (UK).
17
therefore builds on the rich responses to both questions. The priorities suggested by the respondents correspond well to the Europe 2020 objectives and the challenges described in the Cities of Tomorrow — which some also refer to. There are no limited specific fields that stand out, but some broader themes can be identified: environmental issues, including land and resource efficiency, energy and climate issues, and social inclusion issues, including quality of life. Other issues that are mentioned by most stakeholder includes economic development, mobility, housing, territorial governance and demographic challenges. Again the respondents from different categories are somewhat complementary rather than contradictory:
• Private persons rank as most important social issues coupled with quality of life, followed closely by environmental quality and resource efficiency (including waste, water), and to a lesser extent by mobility and energy, CO2 reduction and clim ate issues.
• Civil society respondents propose several areas but only land-use and environmental issues receives strong support.
• Private enterprises emphasise mobility followed closely by environment and resource efficiency and energy and climate issues. The digital agenda, digitalisation of retail and smart cities are also mentioned.
• Public authorities emphasise the social dimension of urban development, and taken together quality of life, social inclusion issues and urban regeneration do m inates together with economic d evel opm ent and competitiveness in a broader sense ahead of environmental issues (green infrastructure, resource efficiency, land use, etc.) and energy and climate issues. Demographic challenges are also mentioned by several respondents, but to a lesser extent than the dom ina nt topics.
• Only environmental issues (including environmental management and green infrastructure) stand out am ongst the respondents fro m Academia .
• The respondents from international organi sations put forward energy and climate issues, just ahead of quality of life and social issues, as well as the more general challenges of Europe 2020 and Cities of Tomorrow.
• Finally the Other category of respondents emphasises social inclusion and quality of life issues taken together. Economic development and competitiveness related issues, incl uding jobs and public finances, are also considered im portant together with energy and climate issues. Several of the respondents also stress environmental issues, including resource efficiency.
Q2: Should an EU urban agenda focus on a limited number of urban challenges? Or, should an EU urban agenda provide a general framework to focus attention on the urban dimension of EU policies across the board, strengthening coordination between sectoral policies, city, national and EU actors?
Key messages
>* A majority would like to see a general framework combined with concerted actions in a limited set of priority areas; these priority areas
>* Wide consensus on the need to respect subsidiarity and avoid new regulation, the heterogeneity of EU cities requires a flexible framework;
>* Many operational proposals are put forward (e.g. focus on limited number of issues to achieve results, methods to support multi-level governance, use of territorial impact assessment and urban proofing, coordination mechanism and responsibilities, knowledge exchange & cooperation, role of the Urban Development Network and URBACT, etc.).
The agenda should create the framework for a more efficient urban dimension in the main EU-policies. At the same time, it should concentrate on a limited number of most important urban development themes, where mutual learning can be strengthened.
A large majority of the respondents would like to see general framework and within this group there is a majority advocating a combination of a general framework with concerted actions in a limited number of areas. The arguments for a combination are that although a general framework is needed, a focus on a limited number of pertinent challenges would make it possible to achieve results and demonstrate the value of the approach. Another argument is that a general framework alone is simply not enough in terms of effectiveness and would not meet the expectations of the key stakeholders.
"Limiter l’Urban Agenda à des considérations sur la governance et la coordination entre politiques sectorielles ne suffit pas; limiter l’Urban Agenda à un partage d’expériences ne remplirait pas les attentes des intéressés. aborder les thèmes les plus
porteurs, propager un partenariat et une coordination horizontale et verticale, identifier les points faibles de la situation actuelle.
The heterogeneity of EU cities in terms of development capacity, development paths, nature of challenges, etc., is put forward as an argument both for an approach focusing only on a limited number of challenges as well as the opposite, only a general framework. Flexibility is also needed in terms of focus and framing of priorities as challenges will evolve over time. There are some divergent opinions concerning whether the frameworks of the urban agenda should include all types of cities, including towns and municipalities (e.g., Latvia s position), or whether it should be targeted mainly at the urban areas as defined by the Commission and the OECD, also including metropolitan urban areas (e.g. Sweden's position).
Respecting the principle of subsidiarity, an EU urban agenda should be based on a practical and coordinated approach. It should be a framework for engaging cities and their networks directly at EU level in developi ng and delivering more joined up policies, as well as for strengthening the recognition and coordination of EU policies with an urban dimension. Urgent cha llenges in cities will change over time. An urban agenda must be flexible enough and able to respond to this.
The territorial dimension of urban development and the role of cities for the development of their surrounding regions is something that comes back in many contributions; including the link with the Territorial Agenda (TA2020).
19 Ministry of Employment and the Economy (FI)
Ministère du Développement durable et des Infrastructures (LU).
20
"L ’agenda urbain doit avoir pour objectif premier une meilleure territorialisation des
politiques comm unautaires, tant lors de la définition des principes stratégiques que lors de la création des outils. prise en compte des besoins locaux dans la définition et la mise
en Kuvre d’outils opérationnels (du type ITI ou DLAL) ".22
How should the urban agenda operate?
It should be a framework that embraces existing networks of cities such as Eurocities at an EU level, and Core Cities at the UK Member State level; [...] Empowers cities to deliver fully integrated urban development measures [...] a base for understanding challenges and barriers, as well as understanding good practice and what works in delivering the EU2020 targets"23
Respondents views on how the urban agenda should function, its scope and limits show a sliding scale of level of ambition from the minimalistic positions of Denmark and the UK - essentially supporting better use of existing structures and exchange of experience on a voluntary basis - to those that would like to see an urban strategy for the EU.
It is clear that the subsidiarity principle has to be respected and that the urban agenda must not be imposed through (new) legislation. Better and more coordinated use of existing instruments is also advocated (many point to the potential of the Urban Development Network). Some key elements emerge when it comes to the “h0W?” question:
• Strengthening the coordination within the commission through clearer responsibilities and the designation of an EU urban envoy or a Commissioner for EU urban policy; map and assess existing initiatives on urban matters.
• Carry out urban proofing of new policy initiatives through ex-ante territorial impact assessment;
• Focus on a limited set of areas to achieve results; identify shortcomings and common problems; de velop toolboxes to address the problems;
• Enable funding for cities; provide cities with single access point to the EU initiatives;
• Invest more in urban related research;
• Strengthen the partnership principle; provide guidance on multi-level governance;
• Build on the urban acquis; formulate a strategy based on the Cities of Tomorrow;
• Use a Covenant of Mayors-type approach to mobilise the local level; build on and
Cohesion policy.
L’association des Maires des Grandes Villes de France (AMGVF); L’association des Communautés urbaines de France (ACUF); L’association des Communautés de France (AdCF); La fédération des agences d’urbanisme (FNAU); L’association des Maires de Villes et Banlieues (AMVBF), FR
22
“We assume that the creation of a “political coordination body” dedicated to urban
policies, and the recognition of a proper competence to Cities, could represent the basis on which build the EU Urban Agenda. "24
The Association of Italian Municipalities suggests the dissemination of an Urban Charter to be provided by the Commission in order to declare the EU urban agenda an efficient model of EU urban governance and to bring together national governments. For Eixo Atlantico (Portugal) "it would be extremely interesting create an Urban Platform in each macro region, where the main cities and city networks in the territory concerned could be represented . Responses from public authorities show a general consensus for a better and more direct link of the EU with cities. Some public authorities suggest that the European Commission should have Urban Policy as its priority within a DG (or a dedicated DG). Furthermore the implementation of the Agenda should be sustained by procurement models to stimulate innovative solutions, by territorial impact assessment and key indicators to monitor its impact25. (#157, Spai n).
Q3: Is the European model of urban development as expressed in Cities of
Tomorrow a sufficient basis to take the work on the EU urban agenda further?
Key messages
>* Cities of Tomorrow presents a good model for the development of European cities, identifying key priority challenges and ways ahead; as such is a good basis for the development of the urban agenda;
> BUT the EU should not impose any model;
>* There is a strong demand for undertaking concrete actions and the implementations of ideas and principles contained.
"We fully agree that the urban development model expressed in “Cities of Tomorrow” is
a much-needed initiative to share common values on urban potentials and societal challenges. It notably raises awareness on key roles cities are playing within Europe. It emphasizes the right to the city as a mean to access social progress, democracy, diversity, and economic growth.
For the large majority of respondents the model expressed in Cities of Tomorrow is a good basis to build an EU Urban Agenda and it represents a good model for the development of urban areas in Europe. One of its strengths, in addition to identifying key challenges that cities face today and indicating ways forward to tackle them, is providing a flexible theoretical tool, combining different needs of cities and taking into account their heterogeneity. Furthermore it provides a holistic approach and points out the need for integrated strategies on urban matters.
The Leipzig Charter and the Toledo Declaration are also considered important tools to foster the urban dimension at the European level, and in this perspective Cities of Tomorrow is seen as a needed and effective step forward. Nonetheless, many stress that the EU should not impose a single urban development model. Furthermore the model needs to be strengthened by including clearer objectives and better definition of actors
24 Rome Capital.
.
25 Josep Miquel Piqué, Barcelona City Council
involved, it has to lead to concrete actions and be translated into implementation of the principles expressed.
"Cities of Tomorrow identifies the challenges linked to the high level of urbanisation in Europe. It sets out a vision of our future cities as inclusive, democratic, green and economically thriving and the governance models to achieve this objective."27
Q4: How can urban stakeholders better contribute to the policy development and implementation processes at EU level? Do cities need to be more involved in policymaking at regional, national and EU level? How?
Key messages
>* More urban stakeholder involvement is needed in policymaking at all levels; cities ownership and commitment of EU policy should be strengthened;
>* Urban stakeholders can provide knowledge, expertise and solutions to urban challenges;
> The EU
should support platforms for stakeholder networking.
"There
is a need for a transparent and effective exchange of views, and two-ways
communication in support of multi-level engagement and commitment to mutually agreed
objectives."28
Cities' ownership and engagement in policy making at all levels is demanded from virtually all respondents, where cities not only know better their needs but also can provide expertise and knowledge to tackle the challenges they face. Urban stakeholders can help by screening new policies impacting on cities, and they can provide knowledge and solutions to urban challenges. For networks such as CEMR and EUROCITIES the EU Urban Agenda should encourage the use of cities expertise and knowledge trough a continuous dialogue and collaborative approach, as in "the EIP on Smart Cities and Communities, cities involvement in the review of national education programmes at EU level and cities participation in the Commission’s expert group on air quality" (EUROCITIES).
Public authorities call for a more structured approach to policy development and the use of multilevel governance tools to guarantee an effective and better coordination and flow of knowledge.
How can cities be better involved?
"Involvement
of stakeholders at the national, regional and local level as well as
consulting them is essential to provide the possibility for a more integrated multi-level policy"29.
The creation of a stakeholder platform, a platform of interest groups or a network for urban development is put forward by different respondents from various countries as an
27 FIA Region I (Civil Society representative, BE).
Flemish Government (BE).
28
important tool to ensure coordination and concerted actions on concrete thematic objectives at all levels of governance. However, for civil society respondents there is no need to create new urban platform or forums, instead the focus should be on a better flow of information between EU and cities. Private enterprises consider that the Commission should not limit its role to policymaking, but ensure adequate financing in order to guarantee effective imple mentation of the proposed policies
Cities do face limits to cooperate between them and the EU is called to facilitate and support this process, by coordinating direct cities cooperation and exchange and by enforcing existing networks (such as CEMR and EUROCITIES). While cities and citizens are considered to be central in this participatory process, some respondents point out the need to broad the definition and involvement of urban stakeholders, specifically, urban governance needs the im ple mentatio n of civil society and local actors as stakeholders for the development of susta inable competences and competitiveness in central urban intervention areas such as culture, tourism, education, or e-government, and activities like planning, cooperation, project development (Council of Cities and Regions and the Urban Platform Danube Region.
Different practical ways on how to ensure a better stakeholder involvement are put forward. Public authorities for examples suggest a better use of local representative bodies (EUROCITIES, CEMR, Committee of the Regions), the creation of a stakeholder platform, a more structured dialogue EU-cities and urban stakeholders involvement in the Commission e xpert groups.
Q5: What are the best ways to support a stronger urban and territorial knowledge base and exchange of experience? What specific elements of the knowledge base need to be strengthened in order to better support policymaking?
Key messages
K Better use of existing knowledge (reduce fragmentation, promote knowledge sharing, co-learning and capacity building);
>* Strengthen existing EU cross-scientific networks and programmes and forge closer links to EU policy;
>* Ensure quality, comparability and access to urban data (extensive use of Urban Audit).
Virtually all respondents would like to see a stronger urban knowledge base at EU level. It is both about making better use of the existing knowledge as well as developing new data and knowledge. Existing tools and networks has to be used in a more effective way to gain synergies and reduce fragmentation. The urban complexity and the challenges cities face require new tools and methods and an effective cooperation among all relevant stakeholders, highlighting the need to support a multi discipli nary European research in urban development31.
30 Nicolas Erb on behalf of Alstom (Private Enterprise, BE).
"Europe's cities are engines for development and growth and as such need quality statistics and data also on a European level, to enable development and learning within and between cities and towns"32.
The availability of reliable and comparable urban data across the EU is a main concern. Urban statistics are considered fragmented without an effective data flow between Member States. Some highlight the need to have common indicators in order to better compare and measure urban development dynamics. They call for an active role of the EU in promoting "a single reliable source of data which can provide both a baseline position and future position to measure outcomes, and a mechanism to collect and share good practice that cities can use to both learn from each other and seek cities with which to co-operate and collaborate".33 A further developed and more readily accessible Urban Audit is suggested as one way forward. Existing programmes and networks in place such as URBACT, ESPON and the Covenant of Majors should be further strengthened and integrated.
"Already a number of useful initiatives are being implemented: Horizon 2020, ESPON, URBACT, EUKN, etc. Such initiatives should be continued, with stronger complementarity and greater focus on urban research, including both quantitative and qualitative territorial analysis"34.
In this context some respondents call for the creation of a permanent platform for cities cooperation responsible for promoting exchange of knowledge and good practices as well as acting as a platform to support knowledge creation. Individuals and Civil Society respondents propose capacity building for city administrators and knowledge sharing as ways to strengthening the urban knowledge base. Private enterprises point to the need of an integrated approach to enhance accessibility of knowledge and information assessing the urban agenda at city level and support citizens' contributions. For Suez Environment (France) the "EU urban agenda could create incentive for communities of knowledge to bring together city leaders to discuss city planning challenges and innovations", referring to the initiative Global Metropolitan Lab” developed by the World Bank as a good example.
"EU Urban Agenda could create incentive for communities of knowledge to bring together city leaders to discuss city planning challenges and innovations"35.
Public Authorities also stress the need to strengthen the use of expertise between policymakers at all levels. The Scottish Cities Alliance suggests that smart cities agenda could play a role in facilitating joint working between knowledge hubs and sectors among Member States. Civil Society respondents strongly call for a better involvement of cities in the Horizon 2020 programme, and more effective use and synergies of EU programmes and initiatives (EIP, Covenant of Mayors, URBACT etc.), as well as a stronger involvement of citizens in decision-making and evaluating their perceptions.
Concerning the elements of the knowledge base to be strengthening to support policy-making, individuals and civil society respondents identify education, immigration, resilience, urban heritage, energy efficiency, transport and social inclusion. For public authorities important elements are multiculturalism, human resources drainage, urban
32 Albert Edman, Strategic development officer, City of Umeå, Sweden.
33 Martin Eyres, Head of European Affairs, Liverpool City Council.
34 Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia.
sprawl, urban regeneration, transport. The EU could also play a role in creating awareness of the role that the territory plays in the implem entation of EU and national policies , coordinating and managing rural-urban data (cooperation with Eurostat and national agencies), as well as in providing a common methodology to evaluate citizens expectations and make urban initiatives more visible.
Q.6 What should be the roles of the local, regional, national and EU levels in the definition, development and implementation of an EU urban agenda?
Key messages:
>* EU can play a leading role in designing, defining the objectives and monitoring the implementation of the Urban Agenda;
>* EU should provide guiding principles, financial resources and technical assistance;
>* The national and local levels are mainly responsible for its implementation and provide feedbacks to the EU;
The need for multi-level governance is one aspect of the urban complexity which even varies from country to country in their specific characteristics. This puts high demands on the process of developing a common fra mework and i mpl ementation measures
T he EU Urban Agenda should better involve all levels of governance, by ensuring their coordination, in full respect of the subsidiarity principle and in line with the competences of each level. It should aim at ensuring an effective interaction between all levels of policy-making. It should facilitate participation of European cities networks as well as other relevant stakeholders such as industry and academia. Initiatives already in place, such as the Covenant of Mayors, can be used as models when defining and implementing the EU urban agenda.
All the levels should participate in the design, im ple mentatio n, monitoring, review of the EU urban agenda according to each competencies and functions
There is somehow a hierarchical view on what role of each level should be: the local level is responsible for implementing urban policies, the national level to facilitate this process, and the EU level to define guidelines, monitor and provide a platform of information flow and knowledge for all European cities. A shared view by all is that cities and local authorities should be supported (financially and technically) by the EU and the national level. The local level is where challenges are best known and priorities can best clearly defined - cities know best their needs and problems, as well as the solutions.
Private person/individual respondents provide mixed opinions on the role of each level of governance in defining the Urban Agenda, some argue for a bottom up approach with cities in the centre others see a more relevant role for the EU with a hierarchical division of competencies, while someone suggest a process of co-definition, co-development and co-implementation".
36 Joseph Gauci Malta Environment and Planning Authority.
37 Johan Skarendahl, IQ Samhällsbyggnad (IQS).
For civil society representatives the local level has a central role in the definition and implementation of the EU Urban Agenda; each level of governance should act according to its competencies. The EU role is to set clear objectives and ensure monitoring; in addition it should provide financial support and guidelines to improve local living conditions.
For private enterprises it is important to respect the competencies of each level. EU should support the sustainable development of cities, in particular through direct financial resources and technical support.
"The Urban Agenda needs to provide a framework for the European institutions – and crucially the Member States – to more effectively engage, include and empower cities and their city regions in policy development and delivery"39.
Public authorities, sees a clear and strong role for the EU to promote and strengthen the participation of local bodies at EU level, to provide a vision for urban development and coordinate the implementation of the urban agenda at the top level.
Annex 2: List of interest groups that have responded
| WHO | REPRESENTING | COUNTRY | WEBSITE |
| FIA Region I | 111 Motoring and Touring Clubs and their 38 million members in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. | Belgium | www.fiaregion1.com/">www.fiaregion1.com/ |
| Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil Club - (ADAC) | More than 18 million members (May 2012). Largest motorcyclist association in the world, with 1.5 million members. | Germany | www.adac.de/">www.adac.de/ |
| Association of Town, Regional and State Planning - (SRL) | A network of 2000 planning experts in Germany. | Germany | www.srl.de/">www.srl.de/ |
| European Federation of National Organisations working with the Homeless (FEANTSA) | 130 member organisations, working in close to 30 European countries, including 25 EU MSs. | Belgium | www.feantsa.org/spip.php?article9&lang">www.feantsa.org/spip.php?article9&lang =en |
| AGE Platform Europe | European network of more than 150 organisations of people aged 50+ representing directly over 40 million older people in Europe. | Belgium | www.age-platform.eu/about-age">www.age-platform.eu/about-age |
| L’Union sociale pour l’habitat | Représentative du secteur Hlm qui représente quelque 755 organismes Hlm à travers 5 fédérations. | France | www.union-habitat.org%25C2%25A0">www.union-habitat.org%C2%A0 |
| Association of Dutch Urban Designers and Planners | It represents 1000 personal members, 70 advisory agencies and 40 organisations. | Netherlands | www.bnsp.nl/">www.bnsp.nl/ |
| A Soul for Europe | More than 50 civil-society representatives from 24 countries from the cultural, political, business, research and media sectors. | Belgium | www.asoulforeurope.eu/aboutus/mission-statement">www.asoulforeurope.eu/about-us/mission-statement |
| European Forum for Urban Security (Efus) | A European network of 250 local authorities from 16 countries. | Belgium | efus.eu/en/about-us/about-efus/public/1450/ |
| IQ Samhällsbyggnad (IQS) | Swedish Centre for Innovation and Quality in the Built Environment. A privately organized cross-sectoral member association, with approximately 110 members in 2015. | Sweden | www.iqs.se/about_us%2523sthash.E3wzsutN">www.iqs.se/about_us#sthash.E3wzsutN. dpuf |
| German Confederation of Skilled Crafts | It represents the overall interests of the skilled crafts sector vis-à-vis the Bundestag, the Federal Government and other central authorities, the European Union and international organisations. | Germany | www.zdh.de/en/the-zdh">www.zdh.de/en/the-zdh |
23
| Association of Town & City Management International Downtown Association (ATCM) | ATCM is a unique organisation, with a membership that spans the private, public and third sectors. | United Kingdom | www.atcm.org/about_atcm/aboutatcm">https://www.atcm.org/about_atcm/aboutatcm |
| The European Youth Forum (YFJ) | YFJ is the platform of youth organisations in Europe. Representing 99 youth organisations, both National Youth Councils and International Non-Governmental Youth Organisations. The Youth Forum brings together tens of millions of young people from all over Europe. | Belgium | The European Youth Forum (YFJ) is the platform of youth organisations in Europe. Representing 99 youth organisations, both National Youth Councils and International Non-Governmental Youth Organisations. The Youth Forum brings together tens of millions of young people from all over Europe. |
| Dutch Retail Association | Represents the Dutch council for SME-retailers (MKB-Nederland). | Netherlands | www.detailhandel.nl/">www.detailhandel.nl/ |
| Austrian Association of Municipalities | The association consists of Länder sub-associations, represent the interest of small communes at federal level. About 99% of Austrian local governments are organized with the association by voluntary membership. | Austria | gemeindebund.at/ |
| Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions | The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions represents the governmental, professional and employer-related interests of Sweden's 290 municipalities and 20 county councils/regions. | Sweden | skl.se/tjanster/englishpages/aboutsalar.99 5.html |
| Eastern Norway County Network | Eastern Norway County Network is a voluntary cooperation between the eight county councils of Eastern Norway (Akershus, Buskerud, Hedmark, Oppland, Oslo, Telemark, Vestfold and Østfold). | Sweden | www.ostsam.no/909.Hovedside">www.ostsam.no/909.Hovedside |
| National Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI) | 7.318 Italian Municipalities, representing 90% of population (June 2013). | Italy | www.anci.it/index.cfm?layout=dettaglio">www.anci.it/index.cfm?layout=dettaglio &IdSez= 2419&IdDett=38 |
| Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) | Voice for local governments in Scotland (32 local authorities). | United Kingdom | www.cosla.gov.uk/about/decisionmaking-cosla">www.cosla.gov.uk/about/decision-making-cosla |
| Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield | Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield. | United Kingdom | - |
24
| Polis - European cities and regions networking for sustainable transport solutions | Polis is a network of European cities and regions (around 63) working together to develop innovative technologies and policies for local transport. | Belgium | www.polis-online.org/">www.polis-online.org/ |
| German County Association | The German County Association is the leading organization of all municipal 295 districts on the federal level. It represents 74% of the PTA, 68% of the population and 96% of German territory. | Germany | www.landkreistag.de/">www.landkreistag.de/ |
| European Construction Industry Federation - (FIEC) | Representing 33 National Member Federations. | Belgium | www.fiec.eu/">www.fiec.eu/ |
| AMGVF, ACUF, AdCF, FNAU, AMVBF | • L’association des Maires des Grandes Villes de France ( AMGVF) - 48 Cities • L’association des Communautés urbaines de France (ACUF) -17 communautés urbaines et métropoles • L’association des Communautés de France ( AdCF) - (1154 intercommunalités, dont 209 communautés d'agglomération, 4 communautés urbaines, 7 métropoles et 1 syndicat d'agglomération nouvelle) • La fédération des agences d’urbanisme (FNAU) - 52 organismes publics d'étude • L’association des Maires de Villes et Banlieues. ( AMVBF) - 2012 Cities | France | www.grandesvilles.org/">www.grandesvilles.org/. www.communautes-urbaines.com/">www.communautes-urbaines.com/. www.adcf.org/">www.adcf.org/. www.fnau.org/index.asp">www.fnau.org/index.asp. L’association des Maires de Villes et Banlieues. ( AMVBF) |
| The Association of German Cities | The Association of German Cities is the voice of cities and the national local-authority association of cities which are not belonging to a county as well as of most cities and towns within counties. 202 cities as direct members, including all autonomous German cities and three city states, and 16 state local government associations with about 3200 indirect member cities and towns. Twelve special members: regional groupings of local authorities, regional associations, professional associations. | Belgium | www.staedtetag.de/englisch/">www.staedtetag.de/englisch/ |
| Scottish Cities Alliance | The Scottish Cities Alliance is the collaboration of Scotland’s seven cities and the Scottish Government, strategically facilitated by the Scottish Council for Development & Industry. | United Kingdom | www.scottishcities.org/">www.scottishcities.org/ |
| Council of Cities and Regions (CoDCR) and the Urban Platform Danube Region (UPDR) | CoDCR is a platform for municipalities and regional government and a network that communicates its members’ interest towards other political institutions. | Austria | www.danubecities.eu/">www.danubecities.eu/ |
| European Landscape Contractors Association - (ELCA) | European Landscape Contractors Association, representing 22 national landscaping associations. | Germany | www.elca.info/en/default.aspx">www.elca.info/en/default.aspx |
25
| International Society of City and Regional Planner (ISOCARP) | International Society of City and Regional Planners from more than 80 Countries. | Netherlands | isocarp.org/join-isocarp/ |
| Energy cities | Energy Cities is the European Association of local authorities in energy transition. The association created in 1990 represents now more than 1,000 towns and cities in 30 countries. | France | www.energy-cities.eu/-Association,8">www.energy-cities.eu/-Association,8- |
| Peri-Urban Regions Platform Europe -(PURPLE) | It brings together regions from across the EU including: Dublin, Flanders, Frankfurt Rhein-Main, Île de France, Mazovia, MHAL (Province of Limburg), Catalonia, Nord Pas de Calais, Regio Randstad, Rhône-Alpes, Surrey in South East England, South Moravia, Stockholm, West Midlands and Wielkopolska. | France | www.purple-eu.org/home/">www.purple-eu.org/home/ |
| Association internationale Ruralité-Environnement-Développement | International association set up in 1980, Rurality-Environment-Development (R.E.D.) develops, through its network of members and partners in Europe, continuous exchanges on the rural policies and their implementation, with the double finality of a better ground efficiency and of a reinforced dialogue with the European institutions. | Belgium | www.ruraleurope.org/content/view/1/4/la">www.ruraleurope.org/content/view/1/4/la ng,english/ |
| Euroheat & Power | International association representing the District Heating and Cooling (DHC) and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) sector in Europe and beyond. Members from over thirty countries: including all existing national district heating associations in EU countries and the majority of new EU Member States; utilities operating DHC systems; industrial associations and companies; manufacturers; research institutes; consultants and other organisations involved in the CHP/DHC business. | Belgium | www.euroheat.org/">www.euroheat.org/ |
| Nordic Logistics Association | Danish Transport and Logistics, Norwegian Road Hauliers Association and Swedish Road Operators Association. one voice on behalf of more than 15.000 transport operators in the EU. | Belgium | nla.eu/ |
| International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) | More than 65,000 members in over 100 countries include shopping center owners, developers, managers, marketing specialists, investors, retailers and brokers, as well as academics and public officials. As the global industry trade association, ICSC links with more than 25 national and regional shopping center councils throughout the world. | United Kingdom | www.icsc.org/about">www.icsc.org/about |
| The Regional Studies Association | The Regional Studies Association works with its international membership to facilitate the highest standards of theoretical development, empirical analysis and policy debate of issues at this sub-national scale, incorporating both the urban and rural and different conceptions of space such as city-regions and interstitial spaces. | United Kingdom | www.regionalstudies.org/about">www.regionalstudies.org/about |
| Local Governments for Sustainability -(ICLEI) | ICLEI is the world’s leading network of over 1,000 cities, towns and metropolises committed to building a sustainable future. | Germany | www.iclei.org/iclei-global/who-isiclei">www.iclei.org/iclei-global/who-is-iclei l |
26
METREX
Architects' Council of Europe - (ACE)
European Regions Research and Innovation Network (ERRIN)
International Road
transport
Union (IRU)
European Public Real Estate Association (EPRA)
International Association of Public Transport (UITP)
European Foundation Centre’s Funders’ Forum on Sustainable Cities (FFSC)
The Association of German Chambers Commerce and Industry
Capital Cities
Europe-wide network for towns and cities with populations between 50,000 and 250,000. There are currently 17 towns and cities in membership of Eurotowns.
Network of European Metropolitan Regions and Areas. The Network has members from some 50 metropolitan regions and areas and partners in many others.
ACE is composed of 43 Member Organisations which are the national regulatory and professional representative bodies in the EU Member States, the accession countries, Switzerland and Norway. Through its members, the Architects’ Council of Europe
of over 545,000 architects from 31
countries in
Europe.
European Regions Research and Innovation Network, is a dynamic network of, currently, more than 90 European regions and their Brussels-based EU offices.
federation
of national Member Associations and Associate Members in
74 countries on the 5 continents, the IRU today represents the interests of bus, coach, taxi and truck operators worldwide, from large fleets to individual owner-operators.
European Public Real Estate Association. Company members represent EUR 250 billion worth of real estate assets.
UITP is a non-profit international association. It has 1,300 member companies giving access to over 14,000 contacts from 92 countries. Its members are public transport authorities and operators, policy decision-makers, research institutes and the public transport supply and service industry.
FFSC is a
philanthropy’s role and effectiveness in advancing sustainable and inclusive growth in cities; tackling urban poverty, promoting equitable development and opportunities; and strengthening local governance and citizen participation in local decision making.
CAAC currently represents more than 100 local entities and 7 million inhabitants of the European Atlantic seaboard. This network works with different institutions, to promote the role of cities in Europe and to highlight the specificity of the Atlantic Arc.
The central organisation for 80 Chambers of Commerce and Industry, CCI (Industrie- und Handelskammern, IHKs) in Germany. All German companies registered in Germany, with the exception of handicraft businesses, the free professions and farms, are required by law to join a chamber. DIHK speaks for more than three million entrepreneurs. They include not only big companies but also retailers and innkeepers. It does not represent any specific corporate group but all commercial enterprises in Germany.
Belgium
Belgium
Italy
Belgium
Belgium
Belgium
Belgium
Belgium
France
Germany
Belgium
eurotowns.org/
www.eurometrex.org/ENT1/EN/">www.eurometrex.org/ENT1/EN/
www.ace-cae.eu/about-us/m">www.ace-cae.eu/about-us/m ission-and-objectives/
www.errin.eu/content/about-us-0">www.errin.eu/content/about-us-0
www.iru.org/en_history_and_mission">https://www.iru.org/en_history_and_mission
www.epra.com/about-us/">www.epra.com/about-us/
www.uitp.org/organisation">www.uitp.org/organisation
www.efc.be/programmes_services/thema">www.efc.be/programmes_services/thema
networks/Sustainable%20cities/Pages/Home.as
www.atlanticcities.eu/index.php?lang=en">www.atlanticcities.eu/index.php?lang=en
www.dihk.de/en">www.dihk.de/en
27
px
and
| Regions Network (CCRN) | (EU) and the European Economic Area’s (EEA) Member States (MS). Its members are Amsterdam, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bratislava, Brussels Capital Region, Budapest, Copenhagen, London, Helsinki, Ile-de-France, Lazio, Madrid Region, Mazovia Region, Nicosia, Oslo Region, Prague, Riga, Sofia, Stockholm Region, Skopje, Tallinn, Vienna, Warsaw, Zagreb. | ||
| Bulgarian Cycling Association | Bulgarian Cycling Association. | Bulgaria | www.bulgaria-cycling.org/">www.bulgaria-cycling.org/ |
| The Protestant Church in Germany (EKD) | EKD is the federation of the 20 mostly independent Lutheran, Reformed or Uniate regional churches in Germany. From the total population of Germany, about 24 million belonged to one of the 16.100 parishes at the end of 2009. The Representative of the Council of the Protestant Church in Germany constitutes the diplomatic wing and therefore represents the protestant Church in Germany to the Republic of Germany and the EU. | Germany | www.ekd.de/english/">www.ekd.de/english/ |
| European Association for Investors in Non-Listed Real Estate Vehicles -(INREV) | INREV is Europe’s leading platform for sharing knowledge on the non-listed real estate industry. | Belgium | www.inrev.org/">https://www.inrev.org/ |
| Two public Authorities and 1 research institute | Cities of Antwerp and Rotterdam and the European Institute for Comparative Urban Research. | Netherlands | |
| European Federation of the Precast Concrete Industr (BIBM - Bureau International du Béton Manufacturé) | BIBM has 16 associate members, mainly national precast concrete associations. | Belgium | www.bibm.eu/">www.bibm.eu/ |
| Baden-Württemberg Cooperative Association | It is an association of cooperatives in Baden Württemberg. These cooperatives are supported by a total of 3.73 million people. | Germany | www.bwgv-info.de/">www.bwgv-info.de/ |
| Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) | CEMR is the oldest and broadest European association of local and regional government. We are the only organisation that brings together the national associations of local and regional authorities from 41 European countries and represents, through them, all levels of territories – local, intermediate and regional. | Belgium | www.ccre.org/en/article/introducing_ce">www.ccre.org/en/article/introducing_ce mr |
| CSR Europe | CSR Europe's network of 39 national partner organisations reaches out to more than 10,000 companies in Europe. | Belgium | www.csreurope.org/discover-ournetwork">www.csreurope.org/discover-our-network |
28
| Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG) and G4 and G32 (largest cities of the NL) | Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG) in cooperation with G4 and G32 (largest cities of the Netherlands). Representing around 400 municipalities. | Netherlands | |
| Housing Europe | Housing Europe is a non-for-profit international association of Belgian Law. Established in 1988 it's a network of 42 national & regional federations gathering about 41.400 providers in 22 countries who manage over 25 million homes, about 12% of existing dwellings in Europe. | Belgium | www.housingeurope.eu/">www.housingeurope.eu/ |
| Regional Association of Municipalities and Districts | The Silesian Union of Municipalities and Districts is a voluntary association of municipalities and districts of the Śląskie Voivodeship. At present the Union is formed by 127 units of territorial self-government (117 municipalities and 10 districts) and its range covers the area inhabited by approximately 4 million people. | Poland | www.silesia.org.pl/index.php?lan=en">www.silesia.org.pl/index.php?lan=en |
| Villes de France (Cities of France) | Representing 200 French local public authorities. | France | www.villesdefrance.fr/Equipe-rubrique">www.villesdefrance.fr/Equipe-rubrique- 16-9 |
| French Chambers of Trade and Crafts. | Chambers of trades and crafts are administrative public institutions, it consists of 107 institutions. | France | www.artisanat.fr/Quisom">www.artisanat.fr/Quisom mesnous/tabid/ 151/Default.aspx |
| Knowledge Centre for Flemish Cities | Knowledge Centre for Flemish Cities representing the 13 main Flemish Cites: Aalst, Antwerp, Bruges, Genk, Ghent, Hasselt, Kortrijk, Leuven, Mechelen, Oostende, Roeselare, Sint-Niklaas, Turnhout. | Netherlands | www2.vlaanderen.be/pps/english/role_kc _eng.htm l |
| Fédération Nationale des Travaux Publics (FNTP) | FNTP gathers 7800 Public Works companies. It represents businesses of all sizes, specialties and regions who build and maintain public works (which include public buildings, transport infrastructure, public spaces, public services, and other, usually longterm, physical assets and facilities) throughout the territory, and facilities serving populations. It brings together entrepreneurs, professionals of Public Services, through its structures that coordinate actions and sharing of expertise of nearly 2,000 volunteer professionals. | France | www.fntp.fr/travaux-publics/pf_5000/lafederation">www.fntp.fr/travaux-publics/pf_5000/la-federation |
| German Association for Housing, Urban and Spatial Development | The German Association for Housing, Urban and Spatial Development is a politically independent registered association with an approved non-profit status. | Germany | www.deutscher-verband.org/">www.deutscher-verband.org/ |
| Austrian Association of Cities and Towns | The Austrian Association of Cities and Towns represents 252 members, including all towns with more than 10,000 inhabitants. The smallest city member accounts for 1,000 inhabitants. | Austria | www.staedtebund.gv.at/index.php?id=85">www.staedtebund.gv.at/index.php?id=85 04 |
29
| National Council of Polish Chamber of Town Planners | National Council of Polish Chamber of Town Planners. | Poland | www.izbaurbanistow.pl/">www.izbaurbanistow.pl/ |
| Dutch association of social housing organisations (AEDES) | As the Dutch housing association, Aedes represents the interests of 345 social housing organisations from its offices in The Hague and Brussels. | Netherlands | www.aedes.nl/binaries/downloads/vereni">www.aedes.nl/binaries/downloads/vereni ging/about-aedes/20130807-dutch-social- housing-in-a-nutshell.pdf |
| SME Groups Germany | It is the top political federation of cooperating medium-sized companies in trade, crafts and services as well as manufacturing industry in Germany and Europe. It gathers 230,000 small businesses in around 320 composite groups of different legal form. | Germany | www.mittelstandsverbund.de/Verband/Zi">www.mittelstandsverbund.de/Verband/Zi ele-und-Aufgaben/DER- MITTELSTANDSVERBUND-Stark-fuer-den-kooperierenden-Mittelstand-E2387.htm |
| EUROCITIES | A European network organisation asbl (Europe's large cities). It brings together the local governments of over 130 of Europe's largest cities and 40 partner cities, that between them govern 130 million citizens across 35 countries. | Brussels | www.eurocities.eu/eurocities/about_us">www.eurocities.eu/eurocities/about_us |
| Association of Estonian Cities (AEC) | AEC is a voluntary union established for representing the common interests and arranging co-operation of cities and rural municipalities. Ensuring development of local governments through joint activities is the main goal of the AEC. | Estonia | www.ell.ee/862">www.ell.ee/862 |
| GenderSTE | GenderSTE is a network of policy makers and experts committed to promoting a fairer representation of women and better integration of gender analysis in research and innovation. Our members represent government bodies, research organizations, universities, non-profits, and private companies from 40 countries, in Europe and beyond, as well as international organizations. | Belgium? | www.genderste.eu/">www.genderste.eu/ |
| The Federal Chamber of German Architects (BAK) | BAK is the umbrella organization of the Architects Chambers of the 16 German Länder – bodies of public law. BAK represents nationally and internationally the interests of more than 124,600 architects (as of January 1st, 2011). Among them a majority of 87 per cent works as construction architects, 6 per cent work as landscape architects, 4 per cent are registered as interior designers and 3 per cent as urban planners. | Berlin | www.ixpos.de/IXPOS/Navigation/EN/M">www.ixpos.de/IXPOS/Navigation/EN/M eta/partner,did=418080.html |
| European Real Estate Forum (EREF) | The European Real Estate Forum is an informal alliance of organisations with an interest in institutional investment in European real estate, including investors, fund and asset managers, property professionals and property companies. | Belgium | www.europeanrealestateforum.eu/">www.europeanrealestateforum.eu/ |
| Orgalime | Representing Interests of Mechanical, Electrical & Electronic, Metalworking & Metal Articles Industries. Orgalime's member federations directly or indirectly represent some 130,000 companies of an industry employing some 10 million people. | Belgium | www.orgalime.org/page/about-us">www.orgalime.org/page/about-us |
30
Annex 3: EU Urban initiatives (preliminary list) Initiatives with a direct impact on urban development
| DGs / AGENCIES INVOLVED | INITIATIVE / STRATEGY | LINK |
| MOVE | Green Paper 'Towards a New Culture for Urban Mobility' (2006). | europa.eu/legislation_summaries/transport |
| MOVE | ELTIS: the main European portal on Urban mobility. | www.eltis.org">www.eltis.org |
| MOVE | • Communication “Urban Mobility Package”. • 4 SWDs specific aspects of urban mobility. | ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban |
| MOVE | Expert Group on Urban Mobility (launched in October 2014). | ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do= group Detail.gro upDetai l&g roupID=3165 |
| MOVE | Directive 2014/94/EU on 'Clean cars in cities'. | eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0094&from = EN) |
| MOVE | European Mobility Campaign (as of 2015) | www.mobilityweek.eu/">www.mobilityweek.eu/ |
| MOVE, EASME | European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans | eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0094&from = EN |
| MOVE | Network Programme CIVITAS ("Cleaner and Better Transport in Cities"). | www.civitas-initiative.org">www.civitas-initiative.org |
| RTD | Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2014-2015 Call for Proposals Mobility for Growth (Call 2014) | Call information: ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop h2020-mg-2014_singlestage_b.html Urban-related transport activities: ec.europa.eu/research/transport/projects |
| RTD | Recent urban-related FP7 transport projects (see web links). | www.opticities.com/">www.opticities.com/ www.tide-innovation.eu/en/">www.tide-innovation.eu/en/ www.urban-mobility-solutions.eu/">www.urban-mobility-solutions.eu/ |
| RTD (Coordinated by UITP) | IT for Public Transport Initiative (standards and practices for on board plug-and-play of IT-systems for public transport) | itxpt.org/en/home |
| RTD | The Urban Electric Mobility Initiative (UEMI) | unhabitat.org |
| JRC | Urban ITS (Intelligent Transport Systems) and smart cars in smart cities | ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/its/road |
31
| ENV, REGIO, JRC, EEA, CoR + City networks such as ICLEI, EUROCITES. | 7th Environmental Action Programme Priority 8. Sustainable cities: "Working together for common solutions" | ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/7eap ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/proposal |
| ENV | Green Capital Award (given each year to a city) | www.europeangreencapital.eu">www.europeangreencapital.eu |
| ENV | Report on Biodiversity Strategy (including urban environment, 2013) | ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity |
| ENV | European Green Leaf Initiative (award to cities on green growth) | ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital |
| ENV | Urban Waste Water Directive 91/27/EEC | ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste |
| ENV, CLIM, REGIO, RTD, ECHO | COM(2013)249 'GI – Enhancing Europe's Natural Capital' (Green Infrastructure in urban, peri-urban and rural areas). | ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems |
| ENV | Funding instrument for sustainable cities in the next phase of LIFE | ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/ |
| SANTE | ECHI-Statistics. Data tool on health (data on annual urban population average exposure to outdoor air pollution) | ec.europa.eu/health/indicators/echi/list/index_en |
| MOVE, GROW, JRC, EEA, EIONET | Directive 2002/49/EC - Environnemental Noise Directive. | ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/directive |
| ENV + Several EU funded projects for cities | Green Public Procurement Communication (2008). | www.covenantofmayors.eu">www.covenantofmayors.eu) |
| ENV + GROW (thematic group) | Communication on Sustainable Buildings (COM/2014/0445) | ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/buildings |
| EEA + Federal Office for the Environment of Switzerland | Project on Preventing the increase of Urban Sprawl in Europe (investigate the degree of urban sprawl in Europe) | An EEA’s technical report on urban sprawl in Europe will be published in 2015 |
| ENER | The Covenant of Mayors committed to local sustainable energy. | www.eumayors.eu">www.eumayors.eu |
| CLIMA | Mayors Adapt: the Covenant of Mayors initiative on adaptation to climate change | mayors-adapt.eu/ |
| CLIMA, DEVCO + ICLEI, UN Habitat. | Cooperation Project Promoting Low Emission Urban Development Strategies in Emerging Economy Countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and Indonesia) | urbanleds.iclei.org/ |
| ENER, EIB | European Local Energy Assistance (ELENA) scheme (up to 90% of eligible costs) with EIB, on sustainable energy investments. | www.eib.org/elena">www.eib.org/elena |
| RTD | Intelligent transport systems (ITS), applications and technologies for Smart Cities. | ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/life-and-work |
32
| RTD | Initiative Energy-Efficient Buildings Public-Private Partnership to improve energy performances of buildings | ec.europa.eu/research/industrial technol og ies/energ y effic ie nt-buildings en.htm l |
| ENV | Funding for sustainable cities in the next phase of LIFE+. | ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/lifeplus |
| JRC | Sustainable and Resilient Urban Living. Integrated assessment methodologies at an urban scale | https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/air-quality |
| JRC | European map of settlements | land.copernicus.eu/pan-european. |
| ENV + REGIO (on urban development) | • Soil Thematic Strategy (COM(2006) 231) • Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (COM(2011) 571) | eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0046 ec.europa.eu/environment/resource effic i ency/ab out/ro adm ap/index en.htm |
| ENER | Smart Cities and Communities (SCC) European Innovation Partnership. | ec.europa.eu/energy/technology/initiatives |
| RTD | SEiSMiC Project - Societal Engagement in Science, Mutual learning in Cities project funded by FP7. | SEiSMiC: www.seismicproject.eu/">www.seismicproject.eu/ Science in Society part of FP7: ec.europa.eu/research/science-society Mobilising and Mutual Learning Action Plans of the SiS programme: ec.europa.eu/research/science-society |
| RTD | New R&I Policy Agenda on Innovating Cities with Nature (launched in 2014). | ec.europa.eu/research/environment |
| EAC | The European Capital of Culture | ec.europa.eu/culture/our-program mes-and-actions/capitals/european-capitals-of-culture en.htm |
| EAC | The European Heritage Label | ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions |
| REGIO | Urban Innovative Actions | |
| REGIO | Urban Development Network | |
| REGIO | Support to sustainable urban development (Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of 17.12.2013) | |
| REGIO | URBACT - European exchange and learning programme promoting sustainable urban development (500 cities, 29 countries involved). | www.urbact.eu">www.urbact.eu |
| REGIO, GROW | EU Earth monitoring programme (GMES) - DG ENTR - DG REGIO | www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what">www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what |
| REGIO; EEA | URBAN ATLAS (pan-European comparable land use and land cover data for Large Urban Zones) | www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/urban-atlas">www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/urban-atlas |
| ESTAT | Urban Audit- data collection covering 187 variables for participating cities with more than 50.000 inhabitants | epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal |
33
| ESTAT | Annual data for all cities combined in a country as part of the degree of urbanisation. | epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/regi on c ities/degree urbanization/ methodology deg urb |
| ESTAT | Chapter on European cities in the annual Eurostat regional yearbook. In 2016, a flagship publication on European Cities will be launched. | Eurostat database with indicators on around 1000 European cities. Data visualisation with the tool 'City Statistics Illustrated' |
| REGIO | Perception Survey on quality of life in European cities (2007-2010, 2013). | ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/activity/urban/audit |
| EEAS, ENER, REGIO | EU-China Urbanisation Partnership on Sustainable Urbanization (2012); EU-China Mayors Forum | eeas.europa.eu/delegations/china/eu chi na/sustaina ble ur ban isati on/susta ina ble urban isation.htm ec.europa.eu/regional po li c y/cooperate/i ntern ation al/chin a en.cfm |
| REGIO | URBELAC - Joint initiative between the EC and the Inter-American Development Bank focusing on urban challenges. | ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate |
| DEVCO | CIUDAD - Sustainable Urban Development programme aims to help local governments in the ENPI region address urban development problems in a sustainable manner | www.ciudad-programme.eu/grant.php?lang=1">www.ciudad-programme.eu/grant.php?lang=1 |
| REGIO Report Cities of tomorrow - challenges, visions, ways forward. ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/conferences | ||
| EEA | • Technical Paper: Europe - Urban sprawl (2015). • Report Resources efficient cities (2015). • Green infrastructure inside and around cities – Working Paper 2015 | To be published in 2015 |
| EEA | Green infrastructure inside and around cities | Technical Report on environmental impacts of tourism to be published in 2015 |
| EEA | Maps of air quality | www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/air-quality/map">www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/air-quality/map www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/air-quality/map">www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/air-quality/map |
| EEA | Urban adaptation to climate change | climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/ |
| EEA | Cities’ typology and indicators on urban sustainability | |
| RTD | Joint Programming Initiative Urban Europe Initiative of 12 participating European countries to better coordinate urban-related research and innovation programmes. | www.jpi-urbaneurope.eu/">www.jpi-urbaneurope.eu/ jpi-urbaneurope.eu/documents/ |
| EMPL, REGIO, + (ESPON,WB) | Poverty Mapping - support MSs to target Structural Funds programmes at the areas most in need. | |
| MOVE | Public consultation on the urban dimension of the EU transport policy (September 2012) | ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms |
34
Initiatives with an indirect impact
on urban development
| DGs / AGENCIES INVOLVED | INITIATIVE / STRATEGY | LINK |
| MOVE | White Paper 'Towards a single European Transport Area' (2011). | ec.europa.eu/transport/strategies |
| JRC | Directive 2014/94/EU - Alternative Fuel Infrastructure deployment | eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0094. |
| MOVE | The new TEN-T Guidelines (2 regulations on transport infrastructures) | ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure |
| ENV | Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 on invasive alien species | eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOL_2014_317_R_0003 |
| ENV | Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC | ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework |
| ENV | Innovation Partnership on Water | www.eip-water.eu/working-groups">www.eip-water.eu/working-groups; for |
| ENV | • Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC • Waste Stream Specific Directives (packaging Directive 94/62/EC, WEEE 2012/19/EU, batteries 2006/66/EC) • Landfill Directive 199/31/EC | ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/ eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31999L0031 |
| ENER | Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure | eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri =OJ:L:2013:115:0039:0075:en:PDF |
| ENV | Thematic strategy on air pollution (supplement to current legislation) | europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment |
| EEA | Air quality maps for Europe (to be closed at the beginning of March 2015). | Maps of air quality |
| ENV | Directives 2008/50/EC & 2004/107/EC on Air quality | Lessons learnt from the implementation of air quality legislation at urban level |
| SANTE | ECHI-Statistics. Data tool on health (data on annual urban population average exposure to outdoor air pollution) | ec.europa.eu/health/indicators/echi/list/index_en |
| MOVE, GROW, JRC, EEA, EIONET | Directive 2002/49/EC - Environnemental Noise Directive. | ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/directive |
| ENV + Several EU funded projects for cities | Green Public Procurement Communication (2008). | www.covenantofmayors.eu">www.covenantofmayors.eu) |
35
| ENER | Smart Grids | ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics |
| SANTE, CNECT | European Innovation Partnership on Active & Healthy Ageing (EIP-AHA) | ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union |
| SANTE | Food Waste 2015: various initiatives on Good practices in food waste prevention and reduction | ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste |
| SANTE | EU Health programme on health inequalities. Joint action on health inequalities with 15 MSs and Norway. | www.health-inequalities.eu/HEALTHEQUITY/EN/home/">www.health-inequalities.eu/HEALTHEQUITY/EN/home/ ec.europa.eu/health/social_determinants/policy |
| CLIMA | EU Adaptation Strategy: • Communication reviewing challenges and opportunities of adaptation. • Commission SWD on specific sectors such as infrastructure and migration. | Adaptation Strategies for European Cities www.ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/docs">www.ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/docs |
| CLIMA | The European Unit's central portal for information on adaptation to climate change. | www.climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu">www.climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu |
| CLIMA | Web platform: Climate Adapt launched in March 2012. | www.climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu">www.climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu |
| GROW | European Service Innovation Centre – initiative to improve awareness amongst policy-makers of the contribution of service innovation and service firms to economic development. | ec.europa.eu/enterprise/esic |
| GROW | Policy Initiative 'European Creative Industries' (on innovation vouchers, better access to finance and cluster excellence & cooperation). | www.eciaplatform.eu/">www.eciaplatform.eu/ |
| RTD | "Innovating for Sustainable Growth: a Bioeconomy for Europe" (COM, 2012) | ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/ |
| MARKT | Retail Action Plan (study on freedom of establishment of the divergent national rules on commercial and spatial planning). | europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-78_en |
| AGRI | Forthcoming studies/evaluations: -Study on rural tourism (2016). -Evaluation of CAP on habitats, landscapes and biodiversity (2017) -Synthesis of the ex-post evaluations of RD 2007-2013 (2017). -Employment and growth in rural areas. -Eurobarometer survey CAP: a socio-demographic (urban/rural) | ec.europa.eu/agriculture/evaluation. ec.europa.eu/agriculture/evaluation |
| EEA | • Performance of water utilities beyond compliance. • Good practice guide on quiet areas • Noise in Europe 2014 | www.eea.europa.eu/publications">www.eea.europa.eu/publications www.eea.europa.eu/publications">www.eea.europa.eu/publications www.eea.europa.eu/publications">www.eea.europa.eu/publications |
36
s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dae-toolbox
| JRC | • Eye@RIS3 online database • European ICT Poles of Excellence (EIPE) • Stairway to Excellence (S2E) • LUISA (Land Use-based Integrated Sustainability Assessment’ modelling platform) • RHOMOLO • TRANS-TOOLS platform • SHERPA | s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/eye-ris is.jrc.ec. europa. eu/p ages/ISG/E IPE .html ec.europa.eu/program m es/horizo n2020/ sa.jrc.ec. europa. eu/?pa ge_id = 763 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/regional-economic-analysis-and-modelling. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/transport-sector-economic-analysis?search https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/articles-journals/integrated-assessment-tool- define-effective-air-quality-policies-regional-scale?search |
| GROW | European Cluster Observatory – Mapping of 38 traditionally-defined economic sectors. | www.clusterobservatory.eu">www.clusterobservatory.eu |
37