BETA


2004/2258(INI) Urban dimension in the context of enlargement

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead REGI BEAUPUY Jean Marie (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Committee Opinion FEMM KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU Rodi (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 052

Events

2006/07/13
   EC - Document attached to the procedure
Details

In July 2006, the Community Strategic Guidelines for Cohesion were adopted, which stated that in future the main priority of the Cohesion Policy would be to create jobs and stimulate growth. At the same time the Cohesion policy promotes an “integrated approach” to development and recognises the need to deliver not only on growth and jobs but also on social and environmental goals. This Commission Staff Working Document focuses on the Cohesion Policy and its role vis-à-vis Europe’s cities and the contribution of urban spaces to stimulating growth and jobs in the regions. The purpose of this working document is to offer Member States, regional authorities and local authorities some points for discussion when preparing the new round of Cohesion Policy programmes. Towns, cities and metropolitan areas, after all, drive economic growth in Europe thereby creating innovation and employment.

For further information on related matters, see:

- AVC/2006/0131 : A summary of the proposed Strategic Guidelines.

- AVC/2004/0163 : A summary of Council Regulation 1083/2006/EC laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund.

- AVC/2004/0166 : A summary of Council Regulation 1084/2006/EC establishing a Cohesion Fund.

In the past Cohesion Policy has contributed significantly to urban regeneration, funding, in particular, improved transport networks, waste water treatment plants and energy efficiency schemes. It has done so together with a number of other financial institutions including the European Investment Bank (EIB); the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).

In this Paper, the Commission has identified four key issues which challenge the EU’s urban environment and which require urgent attention. They are: Transport, accessibility and mobility; Access to services and amenities; the natural and physical environment; and the cultural sector.

Access and mobility.

Accessibility is crucial in terms of access to markets. At the same time cities are expected to ensure clean, efficient, affordable and effective intra-urban mobility – both within the city centre and with the urban and rural periphery. The proposed guidelines for action include, inter alia :

- Making the best use of all the transport infrastructure, seeking co-ordination between the various transport modes and the promotion of the least polluting modes of transport.

- Linking cities in peripheral locations to major airports and other Trans-European Transport Networks (TENs) axes.

- To co-ordinate transport planning, construction and land-use. New projects should form part of an integrated transport strategy for the urban area. Issues requiring further attention include road safety, noise reduction and improved air quality.

- Improving the affordability, efficiency and effectiveness of public transport.

- Promoting the use of cycling, walking and other “soft” forms of transport.

- Taking account of those unable to drive such as the old, young and those with mobility impairments.

Access to service facilities.

Well-working and affordable health, social, training and public administration services are vital to urban competitiveness, business location and quality of life. In summary, the guidelines for action include:

- Investing in modern, efficient and affordable services with easy on-line access.

- The provision of good child-care services.

- Helping disadvantaged groups access key services such as healthcare and social services.

- Requiring cities to rely on new technologies to bring innovative and effective solutions to public services.

The Natural and Physical Environment.

City and urban residents want to live and work in cities where both the natural and built environment are of the highest quality. Important factors include clean air, quiet and clean public spaces and green spaces. Although housing in itself has not previously been eligible for funding under the Structural Funds, the new provisions state that, under certain conditions, the new Member States may seek approval for housing funding, where it is estimated that some 40% of citizens live in communist-era housing. Many homes need renovation due to low energy efficiency, poor maintenance and related health problems. Further, certain housing-related activities will be eligible for funding in all of the Member States. These include: rehabilitation of common spaces, demolition of deteriorating buildings, security and crime prevention measures, energy and water efficiency, support of social inclusion measures such as proximity to health and education centres. Also requiring attention under this heading are actions which improve urban air quality and action to reduce noise pollution. The proposed guidelines for action include:

- Rehabilitating derelict brown field sites and renovating public spaces.

- Co-ordinating land use policies between all actors be they operating at a Community, national, regional or local level.

- Investing in actions which help achieve compliance on EU legislation relating to air quality, waste-water treatment, waste management, water supply and environmental noise. Investing in programmes which reduce congestion, transport demand and public transport networks.

- Investing in the effective use of energy in urban areas.

Culture.

A long term cultural vision can act as an essential link in a city’s plans for economic and social development. Cultural, artistic and scientific activities should be part of an integrated approach to city planning and urban regeneration – including the use of vacant brown field sites. The Commission, therefore, sets out the following guidelines:

- Promoting vibrant cultural activities based on the availability of facilities.

- Promoting an active cultural policy to help bridge the divides between communities.

The document also sets out a list of other policies which are eligible for funding under the Cohesion Policy and which require attention when preparing the new round of programmes. Thus, focus needs to be given to: supporting innovation entrepreneurship and the knowledge economy; supporting SME’s and micro-enterprises; promoting and stimulating more jobs but also better jobs; improving employability by raising levels of educational achievements and training; promoting social inclusion and equal opportunities; offering increased security; and managing migration.

2006/07/13
   EC - Follow-up document
Details

The Community Strategic Guidelines 2007-2013 pay particular attention to specific needs of certain zones, such as urban and rural areas. The guidelines encourage an “integrated approach” to Cohesion Policy so that it encourages not only growth and jobs, but also pursues social and environmental objectives. The importance of urban questions has been recognised under successive presidencies of the Union and the European Parliament welcomed the incorporation of sustainable urban development in Cohesion Policy. Parliament also requested that Council ensure the follow up of this measure in the framework of the annual report on the implementation of the strategy, in line with Articles 29 and 30 laying doing general provisions on the Structural Funds. With the present Communication, the Commission seeks to meet these requests.

The Community Strategic Guidelines define the areas of intervention where it would be appropriate to give a priority to the preparation of Operational programmes for Cohesion Policy for 2007-2013. This Communication stresses certain specific aspects of the urban dimension which may be relevant in this context. It is complemented by a Commission staff working paper (please see the summary of 13/07/2006) which develops the analyses and provides background to the suggestions for actions made in this Communication. The national authorities concerned are invited to make use of the Communication in their discussions with relevant partners, in particular local authorities and the regions. The proposals for actions cover a large number of areas and reflect the possibilities for intervention by the Structural Funds. These can vary according to whether the cities belong to the regions benefiting from the convergence Objective or regional competitiveness and employment Objective.

The paper discusses the importance of attractive cities for jobs and growth. The challenges to be met vary from one city to the next. Some cities have to solve the problems caused by population growth, increase in property prices, lack of available land, traffic congestion, and overstretched public services. Other cities suffer from population loss, dereliction, too few jobs or low quality of life. At least four key issues require attention: transport, accessibility and mobility; access to services and amenities; the natural and physical environment; the cultural sector. It proposes guidelines for actions under each of these headings. (Please refer to the summary of 13/07/2006.)

The Commission goes on to discuss measures to support innovation, entrepreneurship and the knowledge economy. Cities often naturally provide a stimulating environment for innovation and businesses to flourish and there are steps they can take to further foster this environment. The added value of city-level actions is that they have more information on the specificities of the business environment and are able to carry out smaller scale complex actions tackling multiple interlinked problems. Guidelines for actions are proposed under two main headings: actions for SMEs and micro-enterprises, and innovation and the knowledge economy promoting growth.

The need for more and better jobs is also covered and guidelines are presented under two headings:

- the Paradox of Cities: many jobs, yet high unemployment: the paradox is that cities concentrate both needs and opportunities. Highly qualified people are over-represented in cities, so are those with very low skills and levels of qualifications;

- improving employability by raising levels of educational achievement and training.

The Commission emphasises the importance of disparities within cities . The urban paradox is also reflected in disparities between neighbourhoods. The Urban Audit shows that almost all cities where unemployment is at a level of 10% or higher, have certain areas within which unemployment rates are at least double the city average. In some cases, unemployment rates reach up to 60%. Within such deprived neighbourhoods, high unemployment is compounded by multiple deprivations in terms of poor housing, poor environment, poor health, poor education, few job opportunities and high crime rates. Guidelines are proposed under the following headings: promoting social inclusion and equal opportunities; and increased security for citizens.

With regard to governance , the Commission proposes guidelines under the following headings:

- for cities and regions, what is required is flexible co-operation between the different territorial levels. Cities must find forms of governance which respect the institutional organisation of each Member State and which are able to manage all aspects of urban development;

- the integrated approach to sustainable urban development: urban development is a complex and long term process. Cities should integrate this development in a long term perspective in order to maximise the many factors of success. The success of the URBAN Community Initiative is in no small measure due to the integrated approach. URBAN has targeted social and economic cohesion removing barriers to employability and investment at the same time as promoting social and environmental goals. The mobilisation of a broad range of partners with different skills has underpinned this approach;

- citizen participation: this is a democratic imperative - the engagement of local residents and civil society in urban policy can give legitimacy and effectiveness to government actions;

- networks and exchange of experience.

Finally, guidelines are proposed for financing urban renewal . Urban renewal has been extensively supported by the EU Structural Funds. In the framework of the new regulations for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund and the European Social Fund (ESF) the managing authorities of operational programmes will be able to finance a wide range of urban development projects. Urban development may also be supported by the Initiatives JASPERS, JEREMIE and JESSICA. This will allow for an increase in the leverage of public resources by attracting contributions from the private sector.

2006/01/10
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2005/11/24
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2005/10/13
   EP - Text adopted by Parliament, single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted a resolution based on an own-initiative report drafted by Jean-Marie BEAUPUY (ALDE, FR) on the urban dimension in the context of enlargement. (Please see the summary of 13/09/2005.) The resolution was adopted with 540 votes in favour, 29 against with 36 abstentions. Parliament stated that towns and cities and urban agglomerations or areas, including small and medium-sized ones, have a central role to play in achieving the revised Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives. It called on the Commission to move towards a horizontal application of the urban dimension and towards coordination between the departments of the Commission which are concerned with urban issues, such as the Regional Policy, Enterprise and Industry, Competition, Energy and Transport, Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Research, Environment, Education and Culture Directorates-General. The approach must be based on identifying specific problems of the urban situation in each field of action and at the same time highlighting the positive impacts of those policies on local contexts. Parliament went on to call on the Commission and Member States to announce the setting up, in parallel with the social dialogue and the civil dialogue, a "spatial dialogue". This would enable regional and local authorities to take part in decision-making relating to policies in the urban sphere, particularly in the framework of cohesion policy and the management of the Structural Funds. The Commission was asked to propose models for sustainable urban development which would be accessible to all towns and cities. The urban perspective of Objective 2 should receive more attention in financial and territorial terms. Parliament felt that an important part of this perspective was the development of urban areas with problems associated with economic growth, social cohesion and environmental pollution. Lastly, Parliament called on the Commission to pay specific attention to the role of towns and cities in drawing up the reports on the impact of cohesion policy on the achievement of the revised goals of the Lisbon agenda.

2005/10/13
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2005/10/13
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2005/10/13
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted a resolution based on an own-initiative report drafted by Jean-Marie BEAUPUY (ALDE, FR) on the urban dimension in the context of enlargement. (Please see the summary of 13/09/2005.) The resolution was adopted with 540 votes in favour, 29 against with 36 abstentions. Parliament stated that towns and cities and urban agglomerations or areas, including small and medium-sized ones, have a central role to play in achieving the revised Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives. It called on the Commission to move towards a horizontal application of the urban dimension and towards coordination between the departments of the Commission which are concerned with urban issues, such as the Regional Policy, Enterprise and Industry, Competition, Energy and Transport, Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Research, Environment, Education and Culture Directorates-General. The approach must be based on identifying specific problems of the urban situation in each field of action and at the same time highlighting the positive impacts of those policies on local contexts. Parliament went on to call on the Commission and Member States to announce the setting up, in parallel with the social dialogue and the civil dialogue, a "spatial dialogue". This would enable regional and local authorities to take part in decision-making relating to policies in the urban sphere, particularly in the framework of cohesion policy and the management of the Structural Funds. The Commission was asked to propose models for sustainable urban development which would be accessible to all towns and cities. The urban perspective of Objective 2 should receive more attention in financial and territorial terms. Parliament felt that an important part of this perspective was the development of urban areas with problems associated with economic growth, social cohesion and environmental pollution. Lastly, Parliament called on the Commission to pay specific attention to the role of towns and cities in drawing up the reports on the impact of cohesion policy on the achievement of the revised goals of the Lisbon agenda.

Documents
2005/10/13
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2005/09/21
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2005/09/21
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2005/09/13
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The committee adopted the own-initiative report by Jean-Marie BEAUPUY (ALDE, FR) on the urban dimension in the context of enlargement. The report noted that towns and cities and urban agglomerations or areas, including small and medium-sized ones, had a central role to play in achieving the revised Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives. It said that urban policy development priorities must continue to be reinforced at Member State and regional level after enlargement, to include housing and revitalisation of urban areas, infrastructure, transport, tourism, the environment, waste disposal, water supply, culture, training, education, social care and health.

MEPs stressed that there were great disparities in terms of urban policy between the 25 Member States, particularly following the most recent enlargement to include 10 new Member States which often had no clear and comprehensive urban policy at national or regional level. Although urban development did not fall within the direct remit of the EU, the Union was nevertheless responsible for policies which directly influenced sustainable urban development, such as regional and cohesion policy, transport, the environment, employment and social affairs, etc. The report added that the urban perspective of Objective 2 "should receive more attention in financial and territorial terms".

The committee pointed out that cities and urban agglomerations or areas represented 78% of the EU population and that both the most complex and the most common problems were concentrated in such areas (social exclusion, spatial and ethnic segregation, housing shortage, insecurity, drugs, pollution, contaminated former industrial sites, traffic, unemployment, lack of competitiveness, poverty, demographic changes, etc.). Towns and cities were also the places where the future was built: universities, research centres etc. MEPs concluded that urban planning should take account of the specific nature of European cities in terms of demographics and quality of life, incorporating a wide spectrum of policies and opportunities involving citizens and, in particular, young people and women.

2005/07/11
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2005/07/06
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2005/05/31
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2005/01/25
   EP - KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU Rodi (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in FEMM
2005/01/19
   EP - BEAUPUY Jean Marie (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in REGI
2005/01/13
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading

Documents

Votes

Rapport Beaupuy A6-0272/2005 - résolution

2005/10/13 Outcome: +: 540, 0: 36, -: 29
DE IT FR ES PL GB NL PT HU EL BE AT CZ SK IE LT DK FI LV CY EE SI LU MT SE
Total
82
56
64
48
40
66
23
21
20
20
21
16
19
13
12
11
12
11
8
6
6
5
5
4
16
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
225
2

Denmark PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Finland PPE-DE

2

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

2
icon: PSE PSE
163

Czechia PSE

For (1)

1

Slovakia PSE

2

Ireland PSE

1

Lithuania PSE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PSE

Abstain (1)

1

Malta PSE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
76

Hungary ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

3

Latvia ALDE

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

Against (1)

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
40

Italy Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
32

France GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Greece GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

2
icon: UEN UEN
19

Lithuania UEN

2

Denmark UEN

Abstain (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
24

Italy IND/DEM

For (1)

1

France IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Czechia IND/DEM

1

Ireland IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Denmark IND/DEM

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2
icon: NI NI
26

Poland NI

Against (1)

3

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (2)

4

Belgium NI

3

Austria NI

Against (1)

1

Czechia NI

1

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
rapporteur
name: BEAUPUY Jean Marie date: 2005-01-19T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
date
2005-01-19T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: BEAUPUY Jean Marie group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Women's Rights and Gender Equality
committee
FEMM
rapporteur
name: KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU Rodi date: 2005-01-25T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Women's Rights and Gender Equality
committee
FEMM
date
2005-01-25T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU Rodi group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2005-272&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2005-0272_EN.html
docs/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-387
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2005-0387_EN.html
docs/5/body
EC
docs/6/body
EC
docs/7/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2006/0928/COM_SEC(2006)0928_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2006/0928/COM_SEC(2006)0928_EN.pdf
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2005-272&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2005-0272_EN.html
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-387
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2005-0387_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2005-01-13T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: FEMM date: 2005-01-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Women's Rights and Gender Equality rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU Rodi body: EP responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2005-01-19T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: ALDE name: BEAUPUY Jean Marie
  • date: 2005-09-13T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: FEMM date: 2005-01-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Women's Rights and Gender Equality rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU Rodi body: EP responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2005-01-19T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: ALDE name: BEAUPUY Jean Marie type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2005-09-21T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2005-272&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A6-0272/2005 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2005-10-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=4248&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20051013&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-387 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0387/2005 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
date
2005-01-19T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: BEAUPUY Jean Marie group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
FEMM
date
2005-01-25T00:00:00
committee_full
Women's Rights and Gender Equality
rapporteur
group: PPE-DE name: KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU Rodi
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Women's Rights and Gender Equality
committee
FEMM
date
2005-01-25T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU Rodi group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
True
committee
REGI
date
2005-01-19T00:00:00
committee_full
Regional Development
rapporteur
group: ALDE name: BEAUPUY Jean Marie
docs
  • date: 2005-05-31T00:00:00 docs: title: PE359.885 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2005-07-06T00:00:00 docs: title: PE360.204 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2005-07-11T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE357.886 title: PE357.886 committee: FEMM type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2005-09-21T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2005-272&language=EN title: A6-0272/2005 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP
  • date: 2005-10-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-387 title: T6-0387/2005 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2006:233E:SOM:EN:HTML title: OJ C 233 28.09.2006, p. 0020-0127 E summary: The European Parliament adopted a resolution based on an own-initiative report drafted by Jean-Marie BEAUPUY (ALDE, FR) on the urban dimension in the context of enlargement. (Please see the summary of 13/09/2005.) The resolution was adopted with 540 votes in favour, 29 against with 36 abstentions. Parliament stated that towns and cities and urban agglomerations or areas, including small and medium-sized ones, have a central role to play in achieving the revised Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives. It called on the Commission to move towards a horizontal application of the urban dimension and towards coordination between the departments of the Commission which are concerned with urban issues, such as the Regional Policy, Enterprise and Industry, Competition, Energy and Transport, Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Research, Environment, Education and Culture Directorates-General. The approach must be based on identifying specific problems of the urban situation in each field of action and at the same time highlighting the positive impacts of those policies on local contexts. Parliament went on to call on the Commission and Member States to announce the setting up, in parallel with the social dialogue and the civil dialogue, a "spatial dialogue". This would enable regional and local authorities to take part in decision-making relating to policies in the urban sphere, particularly in the framework of cohesion policy and the management of the Structural Funds. The Commission was asked to propose models for sustainable urban development which would be accessible to all towns and cities. The urban perspective of Objective 2 should receive more attention in financial and territorial terms. Parliament felt that an important part of this perspective was the development of urban areas with problems associated with economic growth, social cohesion and environmental pollution. Lastly, Parliament called on the Commission to pay specific attention to the role of towns and cities in drawing up the reports on the impact of cohesion policy on the achievement of the revised goals of the Lisbon agenda. type: Text adopted by Parliament, single reading body: EP
  • date: 2005-11-24T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=4248&j=0&l=en title: SP(2005)4593 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
  • date: 2006-01-10T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=4248&j=1&l=en title: SP(2005)4849 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
  • date: 2006-07-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2006/0928/COM_SEC(2006)0928_EN.pdf title: SEC(2006)0928 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=SECfinal&an_doc=2006&nu_doc=928 title: EUR-Lex summary: In July 2006, the Community Strategic Guidelines for Cohesion were adopted, which stated that in future the main priority of the Cohesion Policy would be to create jobs and stimulate growth. At the same time the Cohesion policy promotes an “integrated approach” to development and recognises the need to deliver not only on growth and jobs but also on social and environmental goals. This Commission Staff Working Document focuses on the Cohesion Policy and its role vis-à-vis Europe’s cities and the contribution of urban spaces to stimulating growth and jobs in the regions. The purpose of this working document is to offer Member States, regional authorities and local authorities some points for discussion when preparing the new round of Cohesion Policy programmes. Towns, cities and metropolitan areas, after all, drive economic growth in Europe thereby creating innovation and employment. For further information on related matters, see: - AVC/2006/0131 : A summary of the proposed Strategic Guidelines. - AVC/2004/0163 : A summary of Council Regulation 1083/2006/EC laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund. - AVC/2004/0166 : A summary of Council Regulation 1084/2006/EC establishing a Cohesion Fund. In the past Cohesion Policy has contributed significantly to urban regeneration, funding, in particular, improved transport networks, waste water treatment plants and energy efficiency schemes. It has done so together with a number of other financial institutions including the European Investment Bank (EIB); the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). In this Paper, the Commission has identified four key issues which challenge the EU’s urban environment and which require urgent attention. They are: Transport, accessibility and mobility; Access to services and amenities; the natural and physical environment; and the cultural sector. Access and mobility. Accessibility is crucial in terms of access to markets. At the same time cities are expected to ensure clean, efficient, affordable and effective intra-urban mobility – both within the city centre and with the urban and rural periphery. The proposed guidelines for action include, inter alia : - Making the best use of all the transport infrastructure, seeking co-ordination between the various transport modes and the promotion of the least polluting modes of transport. - Linking cities in peripheral locations to major airports and other Trans-European Transport Networks (TENs) axes. - To co-ordinate transport planning, construction and land-use. New projects should form part of an integrated transport strategy for the urban area. Issues requiring further attention include road safety, noise reduction and improved air quality. - Improving the affordability, efficiency and effectiveness of public transport. - Promoting the use of cycling, walking and other “soft” forms of transport. - Taking account of those unable to drive such as the old, young and those with mobility impairments. Access to service facilities. Well-working and affordable health, social, training and public administration services are vital to urban competitiveness, business location and quality of life. In summary, the guidelines for action include: - Investing in modern, efficient and affordable services with easy on-line access. - The provision of good child-care services. - Helping disadvantaged groups access key services such as healthcare and social services. - Requiring cities to rely on new technologies to bring innovative and effective solutions to public services. The Natural and Physical Environment. City and urban residents want to live and work in cities where both the natural and built environment are of the highest quality. Important factors include clean air, quiet and clean public spaces and green spaces. Although housing in itself has not previously been eligible for funding under the Structural Funds, the new provisions state that, under certain conditions, the new Member States may seek approval for housing funding, where it is estimated that some 40% of citizens live in communist-era housing. Many homes need renovation due to low energy efficiency, poor maintenance and related health problems. Further, certain housing-related activities will be eligible for funding in all of the Member States. These include: rehabilitation of common spaces, demolition of deteriorating buildings, security and crime prevention measures, energy and water efficiency, support of social inclusion measures such as proximity to health and education centres. Also requiring attention under this heading are actions which improve urban air quality and action to reduce noise pollution. The proposed guidelines for action include: - Rehabilitating derelict brown field sites and renovating public spaces. - Co-ordinating land use policies between all actors be they operating at a Community, national, regional or local level. - Investing in actions which help achieve compliance on EU legislation relating to air quality, waste-water treatment, waste management, water supply and environmental noise. Investing in programmes which reduce congestion, transport demand and public transport networks. - Investing in the effective use of energy in urban areas. Culture. A long term cultural vision can act as an essential link in a city’s plans for economic and social development. Cultural, artistic and scientific activities should be part of an integrated approach to city planning and urban regeneration – including the use of vacant brown field sites. The Commission, therefore, sets out the following guidelines: - Promoting vibrant cultural activities based on the availability of facilities. - Promoting an active cultural policy to help bridge the divides between communities. The document also sets out a list of other policies which are eligible for funding under the Cohesion Policy and which require attention when preparing the new round of programmes. Thus, focus needs to be given to: supporting innovation entrepreneurship and the knowledge economy; supporting SME’s and micro-enterprises; promoting and stimulating more jobs but also better jobs; improving employability by raising levels of educational achievements and training; promoting social inclusion and equal opportunities; offering increased security; and managing migration. type: Document attached to the procedure body: EC
  • date: 2006-07-13T00:00:00 docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2006&nu_doc=385 title: EUR-Lex title: COM(2006)0385 summary: The Community Strategic Guidelines 2007-2013 pay particular attention to specific needs of certain zones, such as urban and rural areas. The guidelines encourage an “integrated approach” to Cohesion Policy so that it encourages not only growth and jobs, but also pursues social and environmental objectives. The importance of urban questions has been recognised under successive presidencies of the Union and the European Parliament welcomed the incorporation of sustainable urban development in Cohesion Policy. Parliament also requested that Council ensure the follow up of this measure in the framework of the annual report on the implementation of the strategy, in line with Articles 29 and 30 laying doing general provisions on the Structural Funds. With the present Communication, the Commission seeks to meet these requests. The Community Strategic Guidelines define the areas of intervention where it would be appropriate to give a priority to the preparation of Operational programmes for Cohesion Policy for 2007-2013. This Communication stresses certain specific aspects of the urban dimension which may be relevant in this context. It is complemented by a Commission staff working paper (please see the summary of 13/07/2006) which develops the analyses and provides background to the suggestions for actions made in this Communication. The national authorities concerned are invited to make use of the Communication in their discussions with relevant partners, in particular local authorities and the regions. The proposals for actions cover a large number of areas and reflect the possibilities for intervention by the Structural Funds. These can vary according to whether the cities belong to the regions benefiting from the convergence Objective or regional competitiveness and employment Objective. The paper discusses the importance of attractive cities for jobs and growth. The challenges to be met vary from one city to the next. Some cities have to solve the problems caused by population growth, increase in property prices, lack of available land, traffic congestion, and overstretched public services. Other cities suffer from population loss, dereliction, too few jobs or low quality of life. At least four key issues require attention: transport, accessibility and mobility; access to services and amenities; the natural and physical environment; the cultural sector. It proposes guidelines for actions under each of these headings. (Please refer to the summary of 13/07/2006.) The Commission goes on to discuss measures to support innovation, entrepreneurship and the knowledge economy. Cities often naturally provide a stimulating environment for innovation and businesses to flourish and there are steps they can take to further foster this environment. The added value of city-level actions is that they have more information on the specificities of the business environment and are able to carry out smaller scale complex actions tackling multiple interlinked problems. Guidelines for actions are proposed under two main headings: actions for SMEs and micro-enterprises, and innovation and the knowledge economy promoting growth. The need for more and better jobs is also covered and guidelines are presented under two headings: - the Paradox of Cities: many jobs, yet high unemployment: the paradox is that cities concentrate both needs and opportunities. Highly qualified people are over-represented in cities, so are those with very low skills and levels of qualifications; - improving employability by raising levels of educational achievement and training. The Commission emphasises the importance of disparities within cities . The urban paradox is also reflected in disparities between neighbourhoods. The Urban Audit shows that almost all cities where unemployment is at a level of 10% or higher, have certain areas within which unemployment rates are at least double the city average. In some cases, unemployment rates reach up to 60%. Within such deprived neighbourhoods, high unemployment is compounded by multiple deprivations in terms of poor housing, poor environment, poor health, poor education, few job opportunities and high crime rates. Guidelines are proposed under the following headings: promoting social inclusion and equal opportunities; and increased security for citizens. With regard to governance , the Commission proposes guidelines under the following headings: - for cities and regions, what is required is flexible co-operation between the different territorial levels. Cities must find forms of governance which respect the institutional organisation of each Member State and which are able to manage all aspects of urban development; - the integrated approach to sustainable urban development: urban development is a complex and long term process. Cities should integrate this development in a long term perspective in order to maximise the many factors of success. The success of the URBAN Community Initiative is in no small measure due to the integrated approach. URBAN has targeted social and economic cohesion removing barriers to employability and investment at the same time as promoting social and environmental goals. The mobilisation of a broad range of partners with different skills has underpinned this approach; - citizen participation: this is a democratic imperative - the engagement of local residents and civil society in urban policy can give legitimacy and effectiveness to government actions; - networks and exchange of experience. Finally, guidelines are proposed for financing urban renewal . Urban renewal has been extensively supported by the EU Structural Funds. In the framework of the new regulations for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund and the European Social Fund (ESF) the managing authorities of operational programmes will be able to finance a wide range of urban development projects. Urban development may also be supported by the Initiatives JASPERS, JEREMIE and JESSICA. This will allow for an increase in the leverage of public resources by attracting contributions from the private sector. type: Follow-up document body: EC
events
  • date: 2005-01-13T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2005-09-13T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP summary: The committee adopted the own-initiative report by Jean-Marie BEAUPUY (ALDE, FR) on the urban dimension in the context of enlargement. The report noted that towns and cities and urban agglomerations or areas, including small and medium-sized ones, had a central role to play in achieving the revised Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives. It said that urban policy development priorities must continue to be reinforced at Member State and regional level after enlargement, to include housing and revitalisation of urban areas, infrastructure, transport, tourism, the environment, waste disposal, water supply, culture, training, education, social care and health. MEPs stressed that there were great disparities in terms of urban policy between the 25 Member States, particularly following the most recent enlargement to include 10 new Member States which often had no clear and comprehensive urban policy at national or regional level. Although urban development did not fall within the direct remit of the EU, the Union was nevertheless responsible for policies which directly influenced sustainable urban development, such as regional and cohesion policy, transport, the environment, employment and social affairs, etc. The report added that the urban perspective of Objective 2 "should receive more attention in financial and territorial terms". The committee pointed out that cities and urban agglomerations or areas represented 78% of the EU population and that both the most complex and the most common problems were concentrated in such areas (social exclusion, spatial and ethnic segregation, housing shortage, insecurity, drugs, pollution, contaminated former industrial sites, traffic, unemployment, lack of competitiveness, poverty, demographic changes, etc.). Towns and cities were also the places where the future was built: universities, research centres etc. MEPs concluded that urban planning should take account of the specific nature of European cities in terms of demographics and quality of life, incorporating a wide spectrum of policies and opportunities involving citizens and, in particular, young people and women.
  • date: 2005-09-21T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2005-272&language=EN title: A6-0272/2005
  • date: 2005-10-13T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=4248&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2005-10-13T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20051013&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2005-10-13T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-387 title: T6-0387/2005 summary: The European Parliament adopted a resolution based on an own-initiative report drafted by Jean-Marie BEAUPUY (ALDE, FR) on the urban dimension in the context of enlargement. (Please see the summary of 13/09/2005.) The resolution was adopted with 540 votes in favour, 29 against with 36 abstentions. Parliament stated that towns and cities and urban agglomerations or areas, including small and medium-sized ones, have a central role to play in achieving the revised Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives. It called on the Commission to move towards a horizontal application of the urban dimension and towards coordination between the departments of the Commission which are concerned with urban issues, such as the Regional Policy, Enterprise and Industry, Competition, Energy and Transport, Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Research, Environment, Education and Culture Directorates-General. The approach must be based on identifying specific problems of the urban situation in each field of action and at the same time highlighting the positive impacts of those policies on local contexts. Parliament went on to call on the Commission and Member States to announce the setting up, in parallel with the social dialogue and the civil dialogue, a "spatial dialogue". This would enable regional and local authorities to take part in decision-making relating to policies in the urban sphere, particularly in the framework of cohesion policy and the management of the Structural Funds. The Commission was asked to propose models for sustainable urban development which would be accessible to all towns and cities. The urban perspective of Objective 2 should receive more attention in financial and territorial terms. Parliament felt that an important part of this perspective was the development of urban areas with problems associated with economic growth, social cohesion and environmental pollution. Lastly, Parliament called on the Commission to pay specific attention to the role of towns and cities in drawing up the reports on the impact of cohesion policy on the achievement of the revised goals of the Lisbon agenda.
  • date: 2005-10-13T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
    procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
    Old
    REGI/6/25238
    New
    • REGI/6/25238
    procedure/legal_basis/0
    Rules of Procedure EP 052
    procedure/legal_basis/0
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
    procedure/subject
    Old
    • 4.70.04 Urban policy, town and country planning
    New
    4.70.04
    Urban policy, cities, town and country planning
    8.20.26
    Enlargement's regional point of view
    procedure/title
    Old
    The urban dimension in the context of enlargement
    New
    Urban dimension in the context of enlargement
    procedure/subject/0
    Old
    4.70.04 Town and country planning
    New
    4.70.04 Urban policy, town and country planning
    activities
    • date: 2005-01-13T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: FEMM date: 2005-01-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Women's Rights and Gender Equality rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU Rodi body: EP responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2005-01-19T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: ALDE name: BEAUPUY Jean Marie
    • date: 2005-09-13T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: FEMM date: 2005-01-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Women's Rights and Gender Equality rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU Rodi body: EP responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2005-01-19T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: ALDE name: BEAUPUY Jean Marie type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
    • date: 2005-09-21T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2005-272&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A6-0272/2005 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
    • date: 2005-10-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=4248&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20051013&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2005-387 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0387/2005 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
    committees
    • body: EP responsible: False committee: FEMM date: 2005-01-25T00:00:00 committee_full: Women's Rights and Gender Equality rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU Rodi
    • body: EP responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2005-01-19T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: ALDE name: BEAUPUY Jean Marie
    links
    other
      procedure
      dossier_of_the_committee
      REGI/6/25238
      reference
      2004/2258(INI)
      title
      The urban dimension in the context of enlargement
      legal_basis
      Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
      stage_reached
      Procedure completed
      subtype
      Initiative
      type
      INI - Own-initiative procedure
      subject
      4.70.04 Town and country planning