Who Proposes What Within the European Institutions?

MEETING OF THE PRESIDENTS & DIRECTORS/SECRETARIES GENERAL OF THE CLUB OF EUROPEAN METROPOLITAN CCI’S MAY 30TH - 31TH 2013 BRUSSELS

Thursday May 30th

Towards a European metropolitan policy. Who proposes what within the European institutions?

Emma Udwin Staff Member of Commissioner Hahn In charge of urban policy. (Notes taken by the organization during the speech)

A. General remarks

- The urban dimension of European policy is raised by the actual commissioner to the place it deserves on the agenda of the European Commission. A large part of the 2020 agenda can simply not be delivered without the larger cities. Smart sustainable development in Europe is only doable when it is implemented in the larger cities.

- The commission has no definition of metropolises and does not separate the metropolitan areas from cities in general.

- Commissioner Hahn, who is very committed with the urban dimension of the European policy, made two major changes in the organization of the European political approach on urban matters.

- He changed the name of the General Directorate in “regional and urban policy”. The European policy was until now mainly concentrated on regional policy, and lacked a strong urban dimension

- When Hahn came in as a commissioner, he found a lot of different DG touching on cities, but operating separately. (17) Urban policy is not only urban planning, but also low carbon energy, smart sustainable development, smart transport, the digital agenda, inclusive policy, jobs, etc. An urban agenda could not be successfully executed, unless you bring all this elements together under one group and concentrate this group on urban policy.

Hahn persuaded President Barosso that the variety of objectives in the urban agenda has to be formally coordinated throughout the different European policies. They convinced the general directorates to accept a coordination in a more coherent way. The interservice-group on urban

policy (re-)started and was attended at a sufficient high level. The group took this item seriously. Because of this move, it took a little bit more time to have the agenda serious.

B On the substance:

* The New Urban agenda for Europe is a part of Multifinancial Framework and the Cohesion policy. But the commissioner is working in a continuum. The agenda concerns not just this commission. More will come next year (2014). There will be a text for Mr. Hahn’s successor.

Member states are asking the commission to launch a new urban agenda already now, including the next steps for Europe. The presidencies at the start of the next commission - Italy (July-December 2014) , Latvia (January-June 2015) and Luxembourg. (July-December 2015) - will be asked to feed the new commission with proposals for the continuation of the urban agenda.

Also outside Europe, this agenda is appealing. The UN proposed the EU commission to coordinate the European input in Habitat 3 Conference, scheduled for 2016. This is a big event that occurs once every 20 years.

* New philosophy for the program 2014-2020

In the past finance program, a great deal of the money was spend on behalf of the states. It has been spend on good ideas, but it was not clear what the commission got for that money. So a more strategic agenda was a must. The commission operated in shared management and had been rather flexible on subjects. Fundamental to the reform is a determination to be more strategic in the way the money is spent and to be able to measure better the success of the projects. In a nutshell: more regular monitoring of targets, and also ex-ante analyses. At the end of the period, the commission will be more able to prove what was achieved.

* Basic principles

A Thematic concentration: don’t spread your money thinly, but on priority areas.

1. Innovation

The key points in the reform : Revitalisation of cities Is one of the options. Another is ICT

A richer region will receive less. A poor region can select in a longer list. Regions will be obliged to concentrate a certain proportion at the key areas for improving growth and competitiveness. Support for innovation in the broadest sense. Not only “innovation made by men in with coats”, but rather ”how to find new niches and how make existing sectors more competitive”.

2. SME’s

3. Low carbon economy: transport bringing is makes a big difference.

B. A certain minimum percentage of 5% in every country should be spend on integrated investments in sustainable urban development.

This minimum should be spent on an integrated pioneering in investments across sectors. Those can be metropolitan projects. For example: low carbon and transport, planned together in the urban area. Member states can do it the way they want: ITI integrated territorial investment, but also through a “dedicated operational program”, a Community-Led Local Development (CLLD – existing since 1991) or any type of multi feed priority access to urban projects

States have to prove what they do for next financial period 2014-2020. This is important piece of work. But at least 5% of the budget should be devoted to this new way of work. In this way, 5% is a floor not a ceiling, it is a floor. The Commission hopes it will be more.

Member states have to tell, during the negotiations, how they propose to go about it, how they choose areas and what are the plans. Maybe states want to do this new approach e.d. in Brixton on London and not London as a whole; or Schaerbeek and not Brussels. But they can also choose a larger project.

The details will have to come out when de commission will negotiate the operational program. They will be different because states have different profiles: Finland is not Germany. We already know that Italy plans for metropolitan areas.

C Build up new expertise on this integrated approach. Point is build up know how on ITI.

New expertise on this new approach road has to be tested by the cities in the program and communicated in the Urban Development Network – UD D

UDN will be made up by those cities nominated for a more integrated approach. Role exchange experience and learn about pioneering in this way of working. Network is a conference once a year ? They hope it will be more. Research from urban and Espon must be integrated and this research from Espon must be fed in this cities and in the cities not nominate cities nominated for more integrated approach. Pioneering or building expertise

CCI’s can talk to their city authority to go along this process. There is nothing that has to stop other cities coming on stream once the UDN started.

D Another innovation the commission proposed has been confirmed. Some money will be set aside for urban innovative actions. 330 million: not much but more than before and will be handled and managed directly by the European commission with partners successful in a competitive process. Two calls for proposals. Field of those proposals are not yet determined. Roam for maneuver is still to be determined little bit ; very procedural a dedicated or internet (act impact ???)

Call for proposals and these players want to stay happy to select the rules of part of the urban development network of i

What is the role of the Club according to Mrs Udwin?

- In the ITI, cities must work with private sector in some way. You cannot pitch in the 5 % Your role is working with city authority

- Innovative actions : political entity will pitch, but they can only do it in partnership.

- This does not mean that CCI’s can be a part of the network. This will be a network composed only with direct partners of the commission, and that is not yet a CCI. “Don’t be too hanged up if you are not a part.”

- Maximalize the ITI . Urbact must be maximized. - You will be important partners in the work rolling out the new programs in the development of EIDF. Energy efficiency, etc.