BETA


2010/2158(INI) European urban agenda and its future in cohesion policy

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead REGI VLASÁK Oldřich (icon: ECR ECR) MAZZONI Erminia (icon: PPE PPE), COZZOLINO Andrea (icon: S&D S&D), PAKARINEN Riikka (icon: ALDE ALDE), DELLI Karima (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE)
Committee Opinion TRAN ROSBACH Anna (icon: EFD EFD) Inés AYALA SENDER (icon: S&D S&D), Michael CRAMER (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), Jaromír KOHLÍČEK (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 052

Events

2011/10/03
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2011/06/23
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2011/06/23
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2011/06/23
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 603 votes to 41, with 31 abstentions, a resolution on the European Urban Agenda and its Future in Cohesion Policy.

Parliament recalls that the EU contributes through its policies to the sustainable development of urban areas, and that in addition to national urban policies under the principle of subsidiarity, a European urban policy should be defined . The economic crisis of the last few years has heightened disparities and social exclusion in vast peripheral metropolitan areas. It is for this reason that the Parliament supports the establishment of the Urban Agenda.

Context of the urban dimension : Parliament notes that the European Urban Agenda comprises on the one hand the urban dimension of EU policies, in particular cohesion policy, and on the other hand the intergovernmental strand of European-level efforts to coordinate the urban policies of Member States. It calls for this coordination to be strengthened between the decision-making levels and for a greater involvement of local authorities. It also calls for the consolidation of the urban dimension and the promotion of sustainable urban development and integrated approaches by reinforcing and developing instruments to implement the 2007 Leipzig Charter on the European sustainable city and for more cities to be involved in this project. On the matter of urban development, Members highlight the fact that a range of other EU policies (such as environment, transport and energy) and programmes have a strong impact on urban development. They therefore stress the need for a better understanding of the territorial impact of policies.

Local needs and/versus European priorities : Parliament stresses that urban areas, which contain 73% of Europe’s population, generate around 80% of the GDP and consume up to 70% of the energy in the Union and are the major centres of innovation, knowledge and culture, thanks, among other things, to the presence of SMEs. Only cities with high-quality services and adequate infrastructure can attract and promote forward-looking activities with high added value. However, it also bears the costs of economic productivity (urban sprawl, concentration, congestion, pollution, land use, climate change, energy insecurity, housing crisis, spatial segregation, crime, migration etc.) and are affected by major social imbalances (high unemployment, social insecurity and exclusion, social polarisation etc.). Measures are therefore needed to develop sustainable, smart, inclusive investments that are appropriate to each individual city’s particular needs.

Parliament calls for a European dimension to cohesion policy that embodies the concept of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and focuses on a threefold objective:

to help urban areas develop their basic physical infrastructure as a precondition for growth in order fully to exploit their potential contribution to economic growth in Europe, diversification of the economic base and energy and environmental sustainability; to help urban areas modernise their economic, social and environmental characteristics through smart investment in infrastructure and services based on technological advancements; to regenerate urban areas by reclaiming industrial sites and contaminated land , while bearing in mind the need for links between urban and rural areas.

Members favour ‘ smarter urban development ’ making the maximum use of ITCs, intelligent transport systems, energy efficiency of buildings, the sustainable regeneration of urban areas, etc. More generally, they stress the importance of using available funding to implement programmes promoting renewable energies. They also call for social innovation of disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

Multi-level governance and the partnership principle : Parliament reiterates its view that one of the weaknesses of the Lisbon Strategy was the lack of well-functioning multi-level governance and the insufficient involvement of regional and local authorities and civil society in the EU2020 Strategy . It calls for the greater involvement of the political leaders of key urban areas and associations of local and regional authorities in all stages of Cohesion Policy decision-making. It suggests, in particular, that the local authorities draw up concrete programmes of action under their specific development strategies.

Parliament considers that multi-level governance, regional planning and the partnership principle are the most effective tools to prevent sectorialisation and fragmentation of development policies. It calls on Member States specifically to promote contacts and the exchange of good practices on rural-urban strategies because urban areas are not isolated elements within their regions: they are closely linked to their surrounding functional, suburban or rural areas.

In parallel, Parliament underlines the positive role that is played by cross-border cooperation, transnational cooperation and the URBACT initiative playing the networking of cities and calls in particular for the urban dimension of the European territorial cooperation objective to be enhanced in the 2014-2020 period.

It also stresses that the ‘urban regeneration’ process and the ‘integrated approach’ could lead to a new ‘ urban alliance ’ that brings together all stakeholders involved in the ‘city building’ process, based on consensus and improved governance. It also reiterates its call on the Commission to create an ‘ Erasmus for local and regional elected representatives ’ exchange programme in order to encourage the transfer of good practice in strategic local and urban development.

Sub-delegation of responsibilities : Parliament takes the view that the Member States should guarantee sufficient budgetary resources to reach the goals of the Cohesion Policy and EU 2020 Strategy. They should moreover make use of the option of subdelegated responsibilities in the implementation and evaluation of the Cohesion Policy, without prejudice to the financial responsibility of the managing authorities and Member States. For the next programming period, Members suggest the implementation of independent operational programmes managed by particular urban areas , joint operational programmes covering the urban areas of particular Member States, global grants or ring-fencing of urban measures and resources within specific regional operational programmes. Members also recommend that the share of resources attributed to urban actions should be left to the discretion of programme designers particularly where a region is predominantly rural and weakly urbanised.

Integrated strategic planning : Parliament advocates integrated strategic planning principles, as they can help local authorities move on from thinking in terms of 'individual projects' to more strategic intersectoral thinking. It stresses the added value and innovative nature – particularly for disadvantaged neighbourhoods – of this ‘bottom-up’ approach. Parliament calls on the Commission to:

prepare a study comparing the practice to date of individual Member States regarding integrated strategic planning and, on the basis of the outcome of the study, to draw up specific EU guidelines for integrated urban development planning practice; make integrated urban planning legally binding if EU funds are used for co-financing projects; step up technical assistance towards improved integrated development planning boost the synergies with energy, environmental and energy policies.

Parliament also urges local authorities to initiate new public-private partnerships and innovative urban infrastructural development strategies so as to attract investment and stimulate business activity. It recalls the need to have sufficient funding available for disadvantaged areas of cities.

Comprehensive financial planning : given the current austerity measures, Parliament recalls the need to improve the efficiency of investments and for the better coordination of all public and private funding available at all levels. It advocates comprehensive financial planning at local level as an indivisible component of integrated development planning. All beneficiaries of public funds are also called upon, in line with the concept of result orientation, to sign up strictly to the ‘money for projects, instead of projects for money’ principle.

Once again, Parliament asks that there be more flexible conditions foreseen for cross-financing between the ERDF and the ESF in order to encourage their use and draw particular attention to the complementary nature of these funds. It also stresses the promising role of new financial engineering instruments based on the principles of ‘projects for money’ and ‘money for projects’ put in place during the current programming period and calls on the Commission to pursue the idea in the future. Members believe that the interest rates of EIB financial tools should be made lower in comparison with commercial loans to this end.

Members call on the Commission to ensure that financial flows between the European, national and sub-national level are organised in the most efficient and flexible way in the future. They believe that in the future it should be ensured by means of regulations that Member States are more clearly obliged to use pre-financing for payments to public beneficiaries such as urban authorities.

Lastly, they call on the Commission to aim at the best possible harmonisation of rules for particular EU funds and programmes under which urban and local development projects are eligible for co-financing.

Documents
2011/06/23
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2011/06/01
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2011/06/01
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2011/05/26
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The Committee on Regional Development adopted the own-initiative report by Oldřich VLASÁK (ECR, CZ) on European Urban Agenda and its Future in Cohesion Policy.

Members note that cities possess unique architectural and cultural potential, as well as considerable powers of social integration, and thus contribute to the social balance. The economic crisis of the last few years has heightened disparities and social exclusion in metropolitan areas. This is the reason why Members support the development of an urban agenda the main aspects of which would be the following:

Context of the urban dimension: Members note that the European Urban Agenda comprises on the one hand the urban dimension of EU policies, in particular cohesion policy, and on the other hand the intergovernmental strand of European-level efforts to coordinate the urban policies of Member States. They call for this coordination to be strengthened between the decision-making levels and for a greater involvement of local authorities. They also call for the consolidation of the urban dimension and the promotion of sustainable urban development and integrated approaches by reinforcing and developing instruments to implement the 2007 Leipzig Charter on the European sustainable city and for more cities to be involved in this project. On the matter of urban development, Members highlight the fact that a range of other EU policies (such as environment, transport and energy) and programmes have a strong impact on urban development. They therefore stress the need for a better understanding of the territorial impact of policies.

Local needs and/versus European priorities : Members stress that urban areas, which contain 73% of Europe’s population, generate around 80% of the GDP and consume up to 70% of the energy in the Union and are the major centres of innovation, knowledge and culture, thanks, among other things, to the presence of SMEs. Only cities with high-quality services and adequate infrastructure can attract and promote forward-looking activities with high added value. However, they also bear the costs of economic productivity (urban sprawl, concentration, congestion, pollution, land use, climate change, energy insecurity, housing crisis, spatial segregation, crime, migration etc.) and are affected by major social imbalances (high unemployment, social insecurity and exclusion, social polarisation etc.). Measures are therefore needed to develop sustainable, smart, inclusive investments that are appropriate to each individual city’s particular needs.

Members call for a European dimension to cohesion policy that embodies the concept of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and focuses on a threefold objective:

to help urban areas develop their basic physical infrastructure as a precondition for growth in order fully to exploit their potential contribution to economic growth in Europe, diversification of the economic base and energy and environmental sustainability; to help urban areas modernise their economic, social and environmental characteristics through smart investment in infrastructure and services based on technological advancements; to regenerate urban areas by reclaiming industrial sites and contaminated land , while bearing in mind the need for links between urban and rural areas.

Members favour ‘smarter urban development’ making the maximum use of ITCs, intelligent transport systems, energy efficiency of buildings, the sustainable regeneration of urban areas, etc. More generally, they stress the importance of using available funding to implement programmes promoting renewable energies. They also call for social innovation of disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

Multi-level governance and the partnership principle : Members reiterate their view that one of the weaknesses of the Lisbon Strategy was the lack of well-functioning multi-level governance and the insufficient involvement of regional and local authorities and civil society in the EU2020 Strategy . They call the greater involvement of the political leaders of key urban areas and associations of local and regional authorities in all stages of Cohesion Policy decision-making. They suggest, in particular, that the local authorities draw up concrete programmes of action under their specific development strategies.

They consider that multi-level governance, regional planning and the partnership principle are the most effective tools to prevent sectorialisation and fragmentation of development policies. They call on Member States specifically to promote contacts and the exchange of good practices on rural-urban strategies because urban areas are not isolated elements within their regions: they are closely linked to their surrounding functional, suburban or rural areas.

In parallel, Members underline the positive role that is played by cross-border cooperation, transnational cooperation and the URBACT initiative, in particular, and call for the urban dimension of the European territorial cooperation objective to be enhanced in the 2014-2020 period.

They also stress that the ‘urban regeneration’ process and the ‘integrated approach’ could lead to a new ‘ urban alliance ’ that brings together all stakeholders involved in the ‘city building’ process, based on consensus and improved governance.

Sub-delegation of responsibilities : Members take the view that the Member States should guarantee sufficient budgetary resources to reach the goals of the Cohesion Policy and EU 2020 Strategy. They should moreover make use of the option of subdelegated responsibilities in the implementation and evaluation of the Cohesion Policy, without prejudice to the financial responsibility of the managing authorities and Member States. For the next programming period, Members suggest the implementation of independent operational programmes managed by particular urban areas , joint operational programmes covering the urban areas of particular Member States, global grants or ring-fencing of urban measures and resources within specific regional operational programmes. They also recommend that the share of resources attributed to urban actions should be left to the discretion of programme designers particularly where a region is predominantly rural and weakly urbanised.

Integrated strategic planning : Members advocate integrated strategic planning principles, as they can help local authorities move on from thinking in terms of 'individual projects' to more strategic intersectoral thinking. They stress the added value and innovative nature – particularly for disadvantaged neighbourhoods – of this ‘bottom-up’ approach. They call on the Commission to:

prepare a study comparing the practice to date of individual Member States regarding integrated strategic planning and, on the basis of the outcome of the study, to draw up specific EU guidelines for integrated urban development planning practice; make integrated urban planning legally binding if EU funds are used for co-financing projects; step up technical assistance towards improved integrated development planning boost the synergies with energy, environmental and energy policies.

Members also urge local authorities to initiate new public-private partnerships and innovative urban infrastructural development strategies so as to attract investment and stimulate business activity. They recall the need to have sufficient funding available for disadvantaged areas of cities.

Comprehensive financial planning : given the current austerity measures, Members recall the need to improve the efficiency of investments and for the better coordination of all public and private funding available at all levels. They advocate comprehensive financial planning at local level as an indivisible component of integrated development planning. All beneficiaries of public funds are also called upon, in line with the concept of result orientation, to sign up strictly to the ‘money for projects, instead of projects for money’ principle.

Once again, Members ask that there be more flexible conditions foreseen for cross-financing between the ERDF and the ESF in order to encourage their use and draw particular attention to the complementary nature of these funds. They also stress the promising role of new financial engineering instruments based on the principles of ‘projects for money’ and ‘money for projects’ put in place during the current programming period and call on the Commission to pursue the idea in the future. Members believe that the interest rates of EIB financial tools should be made lower in comparison with commercial loans to this end.

Members call on the Commission to ensure that financial flows between the European, national and sub-national level are organised in the most efficient and flexible way in the future. Lastly, they call on the Commission to aim at the best possible harmonisation of rules for particular EU funds and programmes under which urban and local development projects are eligible for co-financing.

2011/04/18
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2011/03/23
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2010/12/01
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2010/09/09
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2010/07/12
   EP - ROSBACH Anna (EFD) appointed as rapporteur in TRAN
2010/06/03
   EP - VLASÁK Oldřich (ECR) appointed as rapporteur in REGI

Documents

Votes

A7-0218/2011 - Oldřich Vlasák - Vote unique

2011/06/23 Outcome: +: 603, -: 41, 0: 31
DE IT FR ES PL RO GB HU CZ BG BE SE EL NL AT SK PT IE LT DK FI SI MT LU EE LV CY
Total
90
68
65
47
46
29
67
20
20
17
21
18
20
25
17
13
21
10
10
13
11
6
5
4
3
3
6
icon: PPE PPE
244

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

2

Malta PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

For (1)

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Latvia PPE

For (1)

1
2
icon: S&D S&D
174

Netherlands S&D

3

Finland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
74

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

2
3

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
50

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5
3

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1
icon: ECR ECR
54

Hungary ECR

For (1)

1

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

1

Denmark ECR

Abstain (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
23

Greece EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Denmark EFD

Against (1)

1

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
25

France NI

2

Spain NI

1

Romania NI

For (1)

1

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

2

Belgium NI

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
31

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
AmendmentsDossier
158 2010/2158(INI)
2010/11/11 TRAN 55 amendments...
source: PE-452.758
2011/04/18 REGI 103 amendments...
source: PE-462.880

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: VLASÁK Oldřich date: 2010-06-03T00:00:00 group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
date
2010-06-03T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: VLASÁK Oldřich group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
shadows
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Transport and Tourism
committee
TRAN
rapporteur
name: ROSBACH Anna date: 2010-07-12T00:00:00 group: Europe of Freedom and Democracy abbr: EFD
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Transport and Tourism
committee
TRAN
date
2010-07-12T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: ROSBACH Anna group: Europe of Freedom and Democracy abbr: EFD
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-218&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0218_EN.html
docs/4/body
EC
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-218&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0218_EN.html
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-284
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2011-0284_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2010-09-09T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: MAZZONI Erminia group: S&D name: COZZOLINO Andrea group: ALDE name: PAKARINEN Riikka group: Verts/ALE name: DELLI Karima responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2010-06-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: ECR name: VLASÁK Oldřich body: EP responsible: False committee: TRAN date: 2010-07-12T00:00:00 committee_full: Transport and Tourism rapporteur: group: EFD name: ROSBACH Anna
  • date: 2011-05-26T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: MAZZONI Erminia group: S&D name: COZZOLINO Andrea group: ALDE name: PAKARINEN Riikka group: Verts/ALE name: DELLI Karima responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2010-06-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: ECR name: VLASÁK Oldřich body: EP responsible: False committee: TRAN date: 2010-07-12T00:00:00 committee_full: Transport and Tourism rapporteur: group: EFD name: ROSBACH Anna type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2011-06-01T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-218&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0218/2011 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2011-06-23T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=20196&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=20110623&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-284 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0284/2011 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
commission
  • body: EC dg: Regional and Urban Policy commissioner: HAHN Johannes
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Regional Development
committee
REGI
date
2010-06-03T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: VLASÁK Oldřich group: European Conservatives and Reformists abbr: ECR
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
REGI
date
2010-06-03T00:00:00
committee_full
Regional Development
rapporteur
group: ECR name: VLASÁK Oldřich
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Transport and Tourism
committee
TRAN
date
2010-07-12T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: ROSBACH Anna group: Europe of Freedom and Democracy abbr: EFD
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
TRAN
date
2010-07-12T00:00:00
committee_full
Transport and Tourism
rapporteur
group: EFD name: ROSBACH Anna
docs
  • date: 2010-12-01T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE450.692&secondRef=02 title: PE450.692 committee: TRAN type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2011-03-23T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE462.535 title: PE462.535 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2011-04-18T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE462.880 title: PE462.880 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2011-06-01T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-218&language=EN title: A7-0218/2011 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP
  • date: 2011-10-03T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=20196&j=0&l=en title: SP(2011)8296 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2010-09-09T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2011-05-26T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP summary: The Committee on Regional Development adopted the own-initiative report by Oldřich VLASÁK (ECR, CZ) on European Urban Agenda and its Future in Cohesion Policy. Members note that cities possess unique architectural and cultural potential, as well as considerable powers of social integration, and thus contribute to the social balance. The economic crisis of the last few years has heightened disparities and social exclusion in metropolitan areas. This is the reason why Members support the development of an urban agenda the main aspects of which would be the following: Context of the urban dimension: Members note that the European Urban Agenda comprises on the one hand the urban dimension of EU policies, in particular cohesion policy, and on the other hand the intergovernmental strand of European-level efforts to coordinate the urban policies of Member States. They call for this coordination to be strengthened between the decision-making levels and for a greater involvement of local authorities. They also call for the consolidation of the urban dimension and the promotion of sustainable urban development and integrated approaches by reinforcing and developing instruments to implement the 2007 Leipzig Charter on the European sustainable city and for more cities to be involved in this project. On the matter of urban development, Members highlight the fact that a range of other EU policies (such as environment, transport and energy) and programmes have a strong impact on urban development. They therefore stress the need for a better understanding of the territorial impact of policies. Local needs and/versus European priorities : Members stress that urban areas, which contain 73% of Europe’s population, generate around 80% of the GDP and consume up to 70% of the energy in the Union and are the major centres of innovation, knowledge and culture, thanks, among other things, to the presence of SMEs. Only cities with high-quality services and adequate infrastructure can attract and promote forward-looking activities with high added value. However, they also bear the costs of economic productivity (urban sprawl, concentration, congestion, pollution, land use, climate change, energy insecurity, housing crisis, spatial segregation, crime, migration etc.) and are affected by major social imbalances (high unemployment, social insecurity and exclusion, social polarisation etc.). Measures are therefore needed to develop sustainable, smart, inclusive investments that are appropriate to each individual city’s particular needs. Members call for a European dimension to cohesion policy that embodies the concept of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and focuses on a threefold objective: to help urban areas develop their basic physical infrastructure as a precondition for growth in order fully to exploit their potential contribution to economic growth in Europe, diversification of the economic base and energy and environmental sustainability; to help urban areas modernise their economic, social and environmental characteristics through smart investment in infrastructure and services based on technological advancements; to regenerate urban areas by reclaiming industrial sites and contaminated land , while bearing in mind the need for links between urban and rural areas. Members favour ‘smarter urban development’ making the maximum use of ITCs, intelligent transport systems, energy efficiency of buildings, the sustainable regeneration of urban areas, etc. More generally, they stress the importance of using available funding to implement programmes promoting renewable energies. They also call for social innovation of disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Multi-level governance and the partnership principle : Members reiterate their view that one of the weaknesses of the Lisbon Strategy was the lack of well-functioning multi-level governance and the insufficient involvement of regional and local authorities and civil society in the EU2020 Strategy . They call the greater involvement of the political leaders of key urban areas and associations of local and regional authorities in all stages of Cohesion Policy decision-making. They suggest, in particular, that the local authorities draw up concrete programmes of action under their specific development strategies. They consider that multi-level governance, regional planning and the partnership principle are the most effective tools to prevent sectorialisation and fragmentation of development policies. They call on Member States specifically to promote contacts and the exchange of good practices on rural-urban strategies because urban areas are not isolated elements within their regions: they are closely linked to their surrounding functional, suburban or rural areas. In parallel, Members underline the positive role that is played by cross-border cooperation, transnational cooperation and the URBACT initiative, in particular, and call for the urban dimension of the European territorial cooperation objective to be enhanced in the 2014-2020 period. They also stress that the ‘urban regeneration’ process and the ‘integrated approach’ could lead to a new ‘ urban alliance ’ that brings together all stakeholders involved in the ‘city building’ process, based on consensus and improved governance. Sub-delegation of responsibilities : Members take the view that the Member States should guarantee sufficient budgetary resources to reach the goals of the Cohesion Policy and EU 2020 Strategy. They should moreover make use of the option of subdelegated responsibilities in the implementation and evaluation of the Cohesion Policy, without prejudice to the financial responsibility of the managing authorities and Member States. For the next programming period, Members suggest the implementation of independent operational programmes managed by particular urban areas , joint operational programmes covering the urban areas of particular Member States, global grants or ring-fencing of urban measures and resources within specific regional operational programmes. They also recommend that the share of resources attributed to urban actions should be left to the discretion of programme designers particularly where a region is predominantly rural and weakly urbanised. Integrated strategic planning : Members advocate integrated strategic planning principles, as they can help local authorities move on from thinking in terms of 'individual projects' to more strategic intersectoral thinking. They stress the added value and innovative nature – particularly for disadvantaged neighbourhoods – of this ‘bottom-up’ approach. They call on the Commission to: prepare a study comparing the practice to date of individual Member States regarding integrated strategic planning and, on the basis of the outcome of the study, to draw up specific EU guidelines for integrated urban development planning practice; make integrated urban planning legally binding if EU funds are used for co-financing projects; step up technical assistance towards improved integrated development planning boost the synergies with energy, environmental and energy policies. Members also urge local authorities to initiate new public-private partnerships and innovative urban infrastructural development strategies so as to attract investment and stimulate business activity. They recall the need to have sufficient funding available for disadvantaged areas of cities. Comprehensive financial planning : given the current austerity measures, Members recall the need to improve the efficiency of investments and for the better coordination of all public and private funding available at all levels. They advocate comprehensive financial planning at local level as an indivisible component of integrated development planning. All beneficiaries of public funds are also called upon, in line with the concept of result orientation, to sign up strictly to the ‘money for projects, instead of projects for money’ principle. Once again, Members ask that there be more flexible conditions foreseen for cross-financing between the ERDF and the ESF in order to encourage their use and draw particular attention to the complementary nature of these funds. They also stress the promising role of new financial engineering instruments based on the principles of ‘projects for money’ and ‘money for projects’ put in place during the current programming period and call on the Commission to pursue the idea in the future. Members believe that the interest rates of EIB financial tools should be made lower in comparison with commercial loans to this end. Members call on the Commission to ensure that financial flows between the European, national and sub-national level are organised in the most efficient and flexible way in the future. Lastly, they call on the Commission to aim at the best possible harmonisation of rules for particular EU funds and programmes under which urban and local development projects are eligible for co-financing.
  • date: 2011-06-01T00:00:00 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=A7-2011-218&language=EN title: A7-0218/2011
  • date: 2011-06-23T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=20196&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2011-06-23T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20110623&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2011-06-23T00:00:00 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=P7-TA-2011-284 title: T7-0284/2011 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 603 votes to 41, with 31 abstentions, a resolution on the European Urban Agenda and its Future in Cohesion Policy. Parliament recalls that the EU contributes through its policies to the sustainable development of urban areas, and that in addition to national urban policies under the principle of subsidiarity, a European urban policy should be defined . The economic crisis of the last few years has heightened disparities and social exclusion in vast peripheral metropolitan areas. It is for this reason that the Parliament supports the establishment of the Urban Agenda. Context of the urban dimension : Parliament notes that the European Urban Agenda comprises on the one hand the urban dimension of EU policies, in particular cohesion policy, and on the other hand the intergovernmental strand of European-level efforts to coordinate the urban policies of Member States. It calls for this coordination to be strengthened between the decision-making levels and for a greater involvement of local authorities. It also calls for the consolidation of the urban dimension and the promotion of sustainable urban development and integrated approaches by reinforcing and developing instruments to implement the 2007 Leipzig Charter on the European sustainable city and for more cities to be involved in this project. On the matter of urban development, Members highlight the fact that a range of other EU policies (such as environment, transport and energy) and programmes have a strong impact on urban development. They therefore stress the need for a better understanding of the territorial impact of policies. Local needs and/versus European priorities : Parliament stresses that urban areas, which contain 73% of Europe’s population, generate around 80% of the GDP and consume up to 70% of the energy in the Union and are the major centres of innovation, knowledge and culture, thanks, among other things, to the presence of SMEs. Only cities with high-quality services and adequate infrastructure can attract and promote forward-looking activities with high added value. However, it also bears the costs of economic productivity (urban sprawl, concentration, congestion, pollution, land use, climate change, energy insecurity, housing crisis, spatial segregation, crime, migration etc.) and are affected by major social imbalances (high unemployment, social insecurity and exclusion, social polarisation etc.). Measures are therefore needed to develop sustainable, smart, inclusive investments that are appropriate to each individual city’s particular needs. Parliament calls for a European dimension to cohesion policy that embodies the concept of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and focuses on a threefold objective: to help urban areas develop their basic physical infrastructure as a precondition for growth in order fully to exploit their potential contribution to economic growth in Europe, diversification of the economic base and energy and environmental sustainability; to help urban areas modernise their economic, social and environmental characteristics through smart investment in infrastructure and services based on technological advancements; to regenerate urban areas by reclaiming industrial sites and contaminated land , while bearing in mind the need for links between urban and rural areas. Members favour ‘ smarter urban development ’ making the maximum use of ITCs, intelligent transport systems, energy efficiency of buildings, the sustainable regeneration of urban areas, etc. More generally, they stress the importance of using available funding to implement programmes promoting renewable energies. They also call for social innovation of disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Multi-level governance and the partnership principle : Parliament reiterates its view that one of the weaknesses of the Lisbon Strategy was the lack of well-functioning multi-level governance and the insufficient involvement of regional and local authorities and civil society in the EU2020 Strategy . It calls for the greater involvement of the political leaders of key urban areas and associations of local and regional authorities in all stages of Cohesion Policy decision-making. It suggests, in particular, that the local authorities draw up concrete programmes of action under their specific development strategies. Parliament considers that multi-level governance, regional planning and the partnership principle are the most effective tools to prevent sectorialisation and fragmentation of development policies. It calls on Member States specifically to promote contacts and the exchange of good practices on rural-urban strategies because urban areas are not isolated elements within their regions: they are closely linked to their surrounding functional, suburban or rural areas. In parallel, Parliament underlines the positive role that is played by cross-border cooperation, transnational cooperation and the URBACT initiative playing the networking of cities and calls in particular for the urban dimension of the European territorial cooperation objective to be enhanced in the 2014-2020 period. It also stresses that the ‘urban regeneration’ process and the ‘integrated approach’ could lead to a new ‘ urban alliance ’ that brings together all stakeholders involved in the ‘city building’ process, based on consensus and improved governance. It also reiterates its call on the Commission to create an ‘ Erasmus for local and regional elected representatives ’ exchange programme in order to encourage the transfer of good practice in strategic local and urban development. Sub-delegation of responsibilities : Parliament takes the view that the Member States should guarantee sufficient budgetary resources to reach the goals of the Cohesion Policy and EU 2020 Strategy. They should moreover make use of the option of subdelegated responsibilities in the implementation and evaluation of the Cohesion Policy, without prejudice to the financial responsibility of the managing authorities and Member States. For the next programming period, Members suggest the implementation of independent operational programmes managed by particular urban areas , joint operational programmes covering the urban areas of particular Member States, global grants or ring-fencing of urban measures and resources within specific regional operational programmes. Members also recommend that the share of resources attributed to urban actions should be left to the discretion of programme designers particularly where a region is predominantly rural and weakly urbanised. Integrated strategic planning : Parliament advocates integrated strategic planning principles, as they can help local authorities move on from thinking in terms of 'individual projects' to more strategic intersectoral thinking. It stresses the added value and innovative nature – particularly for disadvantaged neighbourhoods – of this ‘bottom-up’ approach. Parliament calls on the Commission to: prepare a study comparing the practice to date of individual Member States regarding integrated strategic planning and, on the basis of the outcome of the study, to draw up specific EU guidelines for integrated urban development planning practice; make integrated urban planning legally binding if EU funds are used for co-financing projects; step up technical assistance towards improved integrated development planning boost the synergies with energy, environmental and energy policies. Parliament also urges local authorities to initiate new public-private partnerships and innovative urban infrastructural development strategies so as to attract investment and stimulate business activity. It recalls the need to have sufficient funding available for disadvantaged areas of cities. Comprehensive financial planning : given the current austerity measures, Parliament recalls the need to improve the efficiency of investments and for the better coordination of all public and private funding available at all levels. It advocates comprehensive financial planning at local level as an indivisible component of integrated development planning. All beneficiaries of public funds are also called upon, in line with the concept of result orientation, to sign up strictly to the ‘money for projects, instead of projects for money’ principle. Once again, Parliament asks that there be more flexible conditions foreseen for cross-financing between the ERDF and the ESF in order to encourage their use and draw particular attention to the complementary nature of these funds. It also stresses the promising role of new financial engineering instruments based on the principles of ‘projects for money’ and ‘money for projects’ put in place during the current programming period and calls on the Commission to pursue the idea in the future. Members believe that the interest rates of EIB financial tools should be made lower in comparison with commercial loans to this end. Members call on the Commission to ensure that financial flows between the European, national and sub-national level are organised in the most efficient and flexible way in the future. They believe that in the future it should be ensured by means of regulations that Member States are more clearly obliged to use pre-financing for payments to public beneficiaries such as urban authorities. Lastly, they call on the Commission to aim at the best possible harmonisation of rules for particular EU funds and programmes under which urban and local development projects are eligible for co-financing.
  • date: 2011-06-23T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/regional_policy/index_en.htm title: Regional and Urban Policy commissioner: HAHN Johannes
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
New
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
REGI/7/03651
New
  • REGI/7/03651
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
  • 4.70.02 Cohesion policy, Cohesion Fund
  • 4.70.04 Urban policy, town and country planning
New
4.70.02
Cohesion policy, Cohesion Fund (CF)
4.70.04
Urban policy, cities, town and country planning
procedure/title
Old
European urban agenda and its future in Cohesion Policy
New
European urban agenda and its future in cohesion policy
other/0/dg/title
Old
Regional Policy
New
Regional and Urban Policy
procedure/subject/1
Old
4.70.04 Town and country planning
New
4.70.04 Urban policy, town and country planning
procedure/subject/0
Old
4.70.02 Cohesion, Cohesion Fund
New
4.70.02 Cohesion policy, Cohesion Fund
activities
  • date: 2010-09-09T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: MAZZONI Erminia group: S&D name: COZZOLINO Andrea group: ALDE name: PAKARINEN Riikka group: Verts/ALE name: DELLI Karima responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2010-06-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: ECR name: VLASÁK Oldřich body: EP responsible: False committee: TRAN date: 2010-07-12T00:00:00 committee_full: Transport and Tourism rapporteur: group: EFD name: ROSBACH Anna
  • date: 2011-05-26T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: MAZZONI Erminia group: S&D name: COZZOLINO Andrea group: ALDE name: PAKARINEN Riikka group: Verts/ALE name: DELLI Karima responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2010-06-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: ECR name: VLASÁK Oldřich body: EP responsible: False committee: TRAN date: 2010-07-12T00:00:00 committee_full: Transport and Tourism rapporteur: group: EFD name: ROSBACH Anna type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2011-06-01T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-218&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0218/2011 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2011-06-23T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=20196&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=20110623&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-284 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0284/2011 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
committees
  • body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: MAZZONI Erminia group: S&D name: COZZOLINO Andrea group: ALDE name: PAKARINEN Riikka group: Verts/ALE name: DELLI Karima responsible: True committee: REGI date: 2010-06-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Regional Development rapporteur: group: ECR name: VLASÁK Oldřich
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: TRAN date: 2010-07-12T00:00:00 committee_full: Transport and Tourism rapporteur: group: EFD name: ROSBACH Anna
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/regional_policy/index_en.htm title: Regional Policy commissioner: HAHN Johannes
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
REGI/7/03651
reference
2010/2158(INI)
title
European urban agenda and its future in Cohesion Policy
legal_basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
stage_reached
Procedure completed
subtype
Initiative
Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
type
INI - Own-initiative procedure
subject