EUROPEAN COMMUNITY ACTION
IN DEPRIVED URBAN AREAS:
CURRENT SITUATION AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
Laurent Ghékiere, October 1998
CECODHAS - European Legislation Committee
Urban policy is not a Community matter in the sense of coming under European
treaties. Nevertheless, nearly 80% of the EU’s population live in urban areas and, in a
practical sense, a great many of the Commission’s financial programmes and
measures are concentrated in these urban zones. The policies made at European Union
level therefore have multiple, yet hard to quantify, repercussions on towns and cities.
One notes the policies directed towards competitiveness and employment, in favour of
social and economic cohesion, and others which promote the inclusion of cities into
trans-European networks, and finally policies encouraging sustainable development
and a high quality of life.
The reform of structural funds, which is set to be passed between now and the end of
the first quarter of 1999 with a view to its application from 2000 to 2006, will define a
new framework of European financial measures for urban areas.
For the regime covering the 1996-99 period, urban zones are mainly either in the
remit of Community Initiative Programmes (URBAN CIP, INTEGRA CIP) or of
innovative projects such as UPPs - Urban Pilot Projects. In support of a discussion on
“the urban question” made public through its Communication of 6th May 1997, the
Commission has opened up the debate and proposes, in its overall settlement plan for
structural funds (March 1998), to integrate measures in urban zones within the
framework of a new Objective 2 and not to re-run the URBAN CIP. A plan of action
for sustainable urban development will be made public shortly and will form the
subject of a wide-ranging debate at the European Urban Forum which will be held in
Vienna on 26th and 27th November 1998 in the presence of several European
Commissioners. An urban audit on the quality of life in European cities is scheduled
for publication in June 1999.
Recap on the current situation
The programmes directed at deprived urban areas came about following a lengthy
period of discussion started in 1989 on the initiative of the DG V on the urban
environment and social exclusion.
Attention has in fact gradually been given over, in the context of EU structural
policies, to the socio-economic effects of geographical segregation within urban
zones. First, and on the Commission’s initiative, Urban Pilot Projects (article 10 of
ERDF regulations) were used to apply innovative approaches to problems in towns
and cities. These experiments led the Commission to launch the URBAN Community
Initiative in 1994 within the framework of Structural Funding. This Initiative seeks to
establish partnerships in disadvantaged neighbourhoods within urban areas to solve
developmental problems through the implementation of integrated programmes. It has
helped draw attention to the issue of geographical segregation in cities. According to
the Commission, the concentration of unemployed and other socially vulnerable
groups in specific districts has in fact reached disturbing proportions in several cities
of the EU.
The URBAN Community Initiative has a budget of around ECU 850 million for
1994-99 thanks to which programmes have been instigated in 115 European cities.
Aside from the positive contribution to socio-economic factors, URBAN is intended
to act as a catalyst for getting attention turned to the issues of social exclusion and
segregation in cities and engendering an understanding of the best ways to intervene.
Aside from the URBAN Community Initiative, more and more measures found in
Community support frameworks and in individual documents on the scheduling of
structural funds, as proposed by Member States, are linked with measures for
generating sustainable economic development, job opportunities and generally more
favourable living conditions in deprived urban areas.
The Commission has also widened the possibilities for action in troubled urban areas
by authorising the granting of supplementary State aid to locally based small
businesses, so as to promote investment and job creation1.
Since the reform of the Union’s structural policies in 1989, thinking has changed.
This change has taken the form of a stronger and stronger realisation that it is
necessary to integrate regional development and measures to stop social segregation
in cities into overall policy.
The actions relating to the Structural Fund’s objectives 1 and 2 were made to tackle
issues in deprived neighbourhoods and to ensure that they too could benefit from new
opportunities in their region.
The Structural Funds Settlement Project 2000-2006
According to this document from March 1998, dealing with settlement proposals for
structural funds between 2000 and 2006, the measures being taken by the Community
with the help of Structural Funds aim to realise three priority objectives:
1)
promoting the development and structural adjustment of regions that are behind
in development - hereafter referred to as “objective 1”;
See “Control of State aid to business in deprived urban neighbourhoods”, ESA(96)1706. Furthermore, the
benefits that may be granted to these businesses are eligible for application of the rule relating to “de minimis” aid
as part of Community control of benefits to SMEs and guidelines concerning employment aid.
1
2)
supporting an economic and social turnaround in areas with structural problems,
hereafter referred to as “objective 2”;
3)
supporting the adaptation and modernisation of policies and systems for
education, training and employment, hereafter referred to as “objective 3”. This
objective’s financial effect is not limited to the regions or zones concerned by
objectives 1 and 2 and creates a political reference framework for all actions
promoting human resources nationally, without being affected by regional
factors.
The regions covered by objective 2 are areas suffering structural problems with
economic and social reconversion and whose population or area is of a considerable
size. They include zones in socio-economic transition in the industrial and service
sectors, rural areas in decline, deprived urban zones and fishing-dependent areas in
financial difficulties.
The Commission defines deprived urban zones as follows:
They are densely populated zones that meet one or more of the following criteria:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
a level of long-term unemployment that is above the EU average;
a high level of poverty, including a vulnerable housing situation;
a particularly deteriorated environmental situation;
a high crime rate;
a low level of education among the population.
To achieve this, the ERDF could finance in particular “investments in infrastructure”
relating to the renovation of urban areas that have deteriorated.
Plan of action for sustainable urban development
In parallel to the settlement plan, the Commission is soon due to publish a plan of
action for sustainable urban development that defines the main thrust of the
Community’s responses to 4 major challenges set out for urban zones:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Reconciling employment and economic competitiveness in a globalized
context
Tackling social exclusion in urban areas
Improving the urban environment and promoting sustainable urban
development
Developing the dynamic running of cities and encouraging citizenship
(self-governance)
The main guidelines of this plan of action are as follows:
• subsidiarity
• integration
• partnership
• environmental sustainability and efficiency
• market efficiency and job creation
The proposed forms of action for this plan will mainly be:
• proposing of urban policy tools,
• recommendations on the use of structural funds,
• and, possibly, acts of legislation.
The Vienna Urban Forum
The Vienna Urban Forum will debate these approaches and the plan of action. The
forum, which is to welcome 600 people, will be organised around 9 workshops:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
aims for urban areas and European policy outlook
promotion of social integration in urban areas
the city: place of innovation and training
the urban environment and sustainable development
strengthening of urban-rural co-operation
creation of new job opportunities in cities
productivity in urban areas, economic growth and European regional policy
urban accessibility and sustainable development
for good governance in urban areas
Future prospects
The Commission’s new approach to urban issues, which is integrated in a
continuation of measures taken since 1989, offers new prospects:
• it includes deprived urban zones as a priority objective for structural
funding,
• it specifically includes poor housing conditions as a criterion for defining
deprived urban zones,
• it therefore contributes to making investments in infrastructure eligible for
ERDF in the context of renovating these urban areas.
From the above point of view, there has been significant progress. At the same time,
and according to contact with the DG XVI, the plan of action for sustainable urban
development will have nothing to do with the question of housing. This will
eventually be assessed following a long internal debate by the Commission between
those who advocate the inclusion of housing in eligible operations (the assessment of
URBAN operations has shown that, in fact, to renovate a deprived urban area without
dealing with housing significantly limits the real, long-term impact of the measures
taken) and those who advocate subsidiarity.
It therefore seems, from this second point of view, that little progress can be expected.
At the same time, two points should be made more clear:
• the reference to poor housing conditions: the Commission retains its criteria
for defining a deprived urban zone yet rejects any measures to improve the
condition of the actual housing there…
• investment in infrastructure: what does the Commission mean by
infrastructures? Does it include housing?
If an integrated input on housing seems hard to sustain at the moment, particularly
given the EU’s expansion and the debates on subsidiarity, could one not seek to
propose to the Commission that certain types of very specific housing-related
measures (restructuring, demolition, etc.) be made eligible for structural funding,
which would help meet the Commission’s objectives? Such a line is expected to be
taken by CECODHAS with a view to submitting this to the Urban Forum.
Furthermore, it seems important to rapidly set up a lobby in each country for
influencing the zoning process which is now in force with each Member State
delimiting the urban zones in question.
References
European Commission, La question urbaine, orientations pour un débat,
Communication, COM97 197 final, 6.5.98
European
Commission,
Green
Paper
on
Brussels-Luxembourg, 1990, CD-NA-12902-FR-C.
the
urban
environment,
Eurostat, Le concept statistique de la ville en Europe, Luxembourg 1992,
CA-70-91-758-FR-C.
European Commission, Urbanisation and the Functions of Cities in the European
Community, Brussels-Luxembourg, 1992, CX-75-92-259-EN-C.
European Commission, Europe 2000+, Coopération pour l’aménagement du territoire
européen, Brussels-Luxembourg, 1994. CX-86-94-117-FR-C.
European Commission, First report on economic
Brussels-Luxembourg, 1996. CM-97-96-928-FR-C.
and
social
cohesion,
European Commission, Un réseau pour les citoyens. Comment tirer parti du potentiel
des transports publics de passagers en Europe?, Green Paper, Brussels-Luxembourg,
1996, C3-93-95-564-FR-C.
European Commission, Villes durables européennes, report of the urban
environmental experts’ group, Brussels, 1996. CR-97-96-055-FR-C.
Commission Communication, “Services d’intérêt général en Europe”, 1996.
CM-98-96-697-FR-C.
European Commission, The Europe of Cities - Community Action in urban zones,
1997
European Environmental Agency, Europe’s Environment: Statistical Compendium for
the Dobris Assessment, Brussels-Luxembourg, 1995.
CR-80-93-339-EN-C.