Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice

An Ambitious Urban Agenda?

EUKN Secretariat Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice An Ambitious Urban Agenda?

EUKN Secretariat ISBN/EAN: 978-94-90967-05-5 NUR: 740 Published by: European Urban Knowledge Network P.O. Box 90750 2509 LT The Hague The Netherlands [email protected] www.eukn.org

Credits photopraphy: Cover photo, Shutterstock / page 26, iStockphoto page 44, iStockphoto / page 57, Eva da Costa page 60, Nicosia Municipality / page 63, EPAMSA page 68, iStockphoto / page 75, Jorge Miranda

Book production: Wardy Poelstra, Amsterdam Design: www.kruit.nl Lay-out: Inkahootz, Amsterdam Print: Drukarnia Biały Kruk Milewscy sp. j., Bialystok

This publication has been co-funded by the Europe Direct Information Centre - Warsaw

Foreword 6

Introduction 8

Analysis: The Urban Dimension of Cohesion Policy 11

In the Spotlight: Mr. Peter Berkowitz 24

Smart Case Studies: MIQUA: Microfinance for Poor Quarters in German Cities (Germany) 28 Buda Fabric: A Renovated Factory Linking Economy and Culture (Belgium) 31 Revitalising the Nieuwe Binnenweg in Rotterdam (The Netherlands) 34 Revamping Brasov through Jessica 4 Cities (Romania) 37

In the Spotlight: Mr. Paul Bevan 41

Sustainable Case Studies: Revitalising Two Parks in the Karlín District of Prague (Czech Republic) 46 East London Eco-Hub: A Model for Urban Environmental Change (United Kingdom) 49 CATCH-MR: Cooperative Approaches to Transport Challenges in Metropolitan Regions 52 The Construction of the First Metro Line in Warsaw (Poland) 55 Urban Regeneration Projects in Nicosia (Cyprus) 59 Ecopôle: An Eco-Friendly Development Project (France) 62

In the Spotlight: Ms Petra Hainzová 65

Inclusive Case Studies: La Mina Neighbourhood: Combining Urban Planning with Social Action (Spain) 70 Zambujal Melhora: A Participatory Approach for Urban Development (Portugal) 74 CIPU: National Information Unit for Urban Policy (Luxembourg) 78 The Inclusion of the Suburban Area of Aarhus (Denmark) 82

Conclusions: The Urban Dimension of Cohesion Policy 84

About the Authors 86

References 87

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 5 Foreword

The Polish Presidency of the Council of the European Union comes at a particular moment in the European agenda when the new shape of EU policies will be formally presented by the European Commission and then discussed. Poland, as a country rapidly closing the gap in economic and social development through efficient implementation of Cohesion Policy, sees that it has a special role to play during the negotiations on the new programming period.

One of the Polish Presidency’s ambitions in the area of future Cohesion Policy post 2013 is to present proposals for the strengthening of the territorial dimension of the Europe 2020 Strategy. These proposals aim at translating the principles of the new Territorial Agenda 2020 into practical arrange- ments within Cohesion Policy. Particular attention will be paid to the Urban Dimension of Cohesion Policy, including specific proposals for instruments supporting urban development.

The European territory is characteristic of a remarkable urban settlement structure. Most jobs, businesses institutions and universities are located in cities and towns. On the other hand, besides opportunities there are also concentrated in these areas many challenges such as environmental degradation, congestion, social exclusion and high unemployment. Therefore, it is necessary for the Cohesion Policy to respond to this situation with a clearly marked position for urban areas and with dedicated instruments supporting their development.

In the next programming period an integrated approach to urban development based on experience with the implementation of the current article 8 of the ERDF Regulation should be further promoted and developed. The Urban Dimension should be visible within the Cohesion Policy framework, in the regulations and in the specific guidelines. Moreover, the implementation of integrated urban development should be made sufficiently attractive for local, regional and national authorities. And, there should be incentives for the managing authorities to implement such development.

Furthermore, there is a strong need to reinforce a more flexible attitude in delivering urban development strategies. In this context, there is a need to introduce mechanisms allowing the integration of resources from different funding streams which would facilitate the implementation of integrated comprehensive urban strategies consisting of various types of projects (flexibility in programming and management of funds).

As regards the Urban Dimension of future Cohesion Policy the Polish Presidency organized a series of meetings where this issue were tackled. Even before it acceded to the Presidency Poland invited experts from EU Member States to discuss different issues relevant for the future Cohesion Policy as regards its Urban Dimension. For this purpose Poland set up a Working Group on the urban dimension of Cohesion Policy which met four times in the first half of 2011. On the basis of the discussions held during these meetings a group of experts prepared a Background Report on the Urban Dimension of Cohesion Policy post 2013. The discussion on the Urban Dimension of Cohesion Policy was continued in a formal way during the Polish Presidency at the Meeting of Directors General and subsequently

6 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice Ministers responsible for urban development, Cohesion Policy and territorial cohesion. Also within the Effective Instruments Supporting Territorial Development conference proposals for instruments for urban areas were presented and discussed.

The EUKN publication and the conference entitled “The Urban Dimension of Cohesion Policy: lessons learned from integrated urban projects” will be the final input of the Polish Presidency to the debate on the future Urban Dimension of the Cohesion Policy. I do hope that all our efforts to strengthen support for cities and towns within the Cohesion Policy will bear fruit after 2013.

Piotr Zuber

Director of the Department of Structural Policy Coordination Polish Ministry of Regional Development

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 7 Introduction

In 2009, a few months after the collapse of the Lehman Brothers bank, the global professional services firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers launched a broad campaign that ended with the pay-off: “Never waste a good crisis. Time for a reset.” Intended or not, the pay-off referred to the Rahm’s doctrine, named after President Obama’s chief of staff, who responded to the financial crisis by saying: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. It’s an opportunity to do things you could not do before.” Rahm’s doctrine was not new; as a matter of fact it goes back to Machiavelli who, in the early 16th century, already observed: “Never waste the opportunities offered by a good crisis.”

Today, we are still in the middle of the crisis. Of a series of crises. The financial crisis has affected the real economy. People have lost jobs, capital, sometimes even their homes. The global economy is at a turning point. Not just because of the shaky economic outlook on both sides of the Atlantic. Other grand challenges also require a “great reset”, to quote Richard Florida’s latest book: the environment, health and aging, demographic changes, the housing market. Although inequality is falling globally, it is increasing locally, even within EU Member States. Unemployment figures vary between 3.7% and 21.2%.

Whether we call it a great reset or not, most people agree that this is the time to work on in-depth reforms. This will be possible only with strong leadership within each and every level of governance, capacity building and awareness raising.

A Link in a Chain: Cities Taking up Global Challenges It has been said before: cities are both part of the problem and part of the solution. In a recent study, the American urban economist Edward Glaeser made a case that cities will eventually make us richer, smarter, greener, healthier and happier.

In a European context, cities also play a vital role in the challenges of the 21st century. Cities are home to the majority of jobs, firms and higher education institutes and their action is decisive in bringing about social cohesion. They are also the focal point of innovation, entrepreneurship and economic growth, areas in which the EU 2020 Strategy has set ambitious goals.

At the same time, Europe observes serious challenges in cities. Cities are confronted with rising inequalities within urban areas or neighbourhoods relating to poverty, social exclusion and environmental issues. Some cities have to deal with matters relating to population growth, increases in property prices, lack of available land, traffic congestion, and overstretched public services. Yet other cities suffer from population loss, dereliction, unemployment or poor quality of the physical environment.

In order to moderate this contradiction, it is widely recognised that there is a strong need to take into account the Urban Dimension of EU policies and especially of Cohesion Policy. The main objective of Cohesion Policy is to narrow the gap between different regions (and urban areas), more precisely

8 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice between less-favoured regions and affluent ones. It is an instrument of financial solidarity and a powerful force for economic integration. In this light, Cohesion Policy plays and will continue to play an important role in the process of supporting the development of Europe’s towns and cities.

Strategic Programming: Rowing in the Same Direction In general terms, the initiatives and programmes within Cohesion Policy focus on four main objectives: (1) increasing economic prosperity and employment in towns and cities; (2) promoting equality, social inclusion and regeneration in urban areas; (3) protecting and improving the urban environment, in order to achieve local and global sustainability; and (4) contributing to good urban governance and local empowerment.

These strategic, common goals are linked to the EU2020 strategy, which aims for a smart, sustainable and inclusive Europe. This thematic concentration is meant to create a mass that ensures a better visibility of EU-funded projects, and a greater impact. In this way, EU2020, Cohesion Policy and local projects all become part of the same picture, and reinforce each other’s effects.

Cohesion Policy: Funding Schemes and Main Objectives The EU’s Regional Policy has a budget of €347 million for the current programming period, and consists of three separate funding schemes from which cities can benefit: the European Regional Devel- opment Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF); and the Cohesion Fund.

These three budgets are drawn on in order to achieve three main objectives: 1. Convergence: solidarity among regions (81.5% of the budget) The aim is to reduce regional disparities by supporting regions with a per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) below 75% of the EU average. Additionally, several Member States qualify for “phasing out” support. 2. Regional Competitiveness and Employment (16% of the budget) This objective means the creation of jobs by promoting competitiveness and by making areas more attractive to business. Regions with a GDP above the 75% threshold can benefit from this fund, which works with a “phasing in” system as well. 3. European Territorial Cooperation (2.5% of the budget) This objective encourages cross-border cooperation that would not happen without Cohesion Policy.

These funds and objectives are linked in the following way:

Objectives Structural Funds and instruments

Convergence ERDF ESF Cohesion Fund

Regional Com- ERDF ESF petitiveness and Employment

European Territo- ERDF rial Cooperation

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 9 In this system, funding for the Urban Dimension is available for all cities and towns: even within urban areas of relative affluence, challenges relating to the exclusion and deprivation of segments of society must be met. Through Cohesion Policy actions can be developed to improve circumstances in these pockets of poverty.

The Urban Dimension in Practices throughout Europe This publication aims to demonstrate the projects cities have been enabled to develop with the different budgets of Cohesion Policy. Fourteen case studies have been selected that mark how the Urban Dimension has been put into practice, and how that support in its turn created a Europe which is a bit smarter, more inclusive and sustainable than before. This is the backbone of this publication; in the same way that cities are key to achieving EU2020 policy ambitions. These case studies give a varied snapshot of opinions, expectations and experiences with Cohesion Policy. Taken together, these practical experiences show how the challenges of the 21st century are being faced at the local level.

We owe our gratitude to all the project leaders working on these initiatives, whose valuable input has shaped this publication. We are grateful, too, for the time the interviewees have made for us. Finally, we would like to thank the City of Warsaw for its kind assistance in the publishing process.

10 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice Analysis: The Urban Dimension of Cohesion Policy

In recent years, the various Presidencies of the Council of the European Union have developed a keen interest in the ways in which cities can contribute to development within the EU, and in what way the Commission can support cities in taking up this role. The year 2000 was a milestone in this respect, since the “Multiannual Programme of Co-operation in Urban Affairs within the European Union” was proposed by the French Presidency. Urban policy is not a competence of the EU, but this work aimed to help cities to translate the main policy objectives defined at the European level into practical actions at the local level, and to create a common framework for urban actions. The URBACT network is a well-known fruit of this Programme.

Subsequent Presidencies have taken this Lille Agenda to the next level: the Rotterdam “Urban Ac- quis” (2004) encouraged regions to identify their unique development potential and the role cities can play in strengthening competitiveness and reducing disparities within Europe. In this context, the European Urban Knowledge Network (EUKN) was founded, its key objective being to stimulate knowledge exchange on urban practices, policy and research. The ensuing Bristol Accord (2005) encouraged the creation of sustainable communities across Europe, and emphasised the key role that the cultural and economic assets of cities play in this respect. Moreover, an important achievement of this Accord was that it put the issues of skills and capacity building on the European agenda. Programmes such as Erasmus for Local Governors show that there is still an interest in this topic.

The 2007 Leipzig Charter emphasised that an integrated approach is a vital principle for development in the European Union. An integrated approach should ensure that policy measures in one field yield benefits in adjacent policy spheres as well: a shift to a sustainable economy should for instance create green collar jobs (possibly for minorities or other disadvantaged groups), decrease emissions, and lower energy dependency. In relation to the current effects of the crises, which compel all authorities to make the most of every euro of public money, the benefits of the Charter are clear: “by pooling knowledge and financial resources, scarce public funds can be more effectively used, and (…) investments can be better coordinated”. The ensuing French Presidency sought to detail the ideas expressed in the Leipzig Charter, and following the Marseille Statement (2008) the “Reference Frame- work for Sustainable European Cities” was developed (to be launched in 2012) to provide cities with tools to elaborate and monitor sustainable and integrated urban policies.

In 2010 the Toledo Declaration further endorsed the need to link EU2020 goals with urban policies. Through its emphasis on the integrated approach as the strategic tool to address the current urban challenges and implement the objectives of the EU2020 strategy in urban contexts, this declaration takes the Leipzig Charter a step further. Additionally, the declaration explicitly calls for a move towards a joint urban working programme or “European Urban Agenda”.

The above political statements and high level reports led to an agreement on an update of the 2007 Territorial Agenda under the Hungarian Presidency (2011), a process which the forthcoming Polish Presidency also supported. The resulting document, the TA2020 “Towards an Inclusive, Smart and

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 11 Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions”, defines six strategic orientations for territorial development. By pursuing these six priorities, individual cities should be able to benefit from the Smart, Sustain- able and Inclusive growth that EU2020 means to foster.

In summary, from an intergovernmental point of view the prominent role of cities is acknowledged; it is even explicitly stated that support from cities – or the “motors of the European economy” – is crucial for attaining policy ambitions defined at the EU level.

The Commission has been moving towards the same thought process in recent years. As it is, a large proportion of the European population lives in cities, a fact which led the Commission to emphasise as early as in 2004 its support for participative, integrated strategies to tackle the high concentration of economic, environmental and social problems affecting urban areas.

When in 2010 the EU2020 Strategy was published, the role that cities should be able to play in achieving policy ambitions was not neglected. At the close of the Strategy the Commission states that working together towards the objectives of the Strategy is essential: “all national, regional and local authorities should implement the partnership, closely associating parliaments, as well as social partners and representatives of civil society, contributing to the elaboration of national reform programmes as well as to its implementation. By establishing a permanent dialogue between various levels of government, the priorities of the Union are brought closer to citizens, strengthening the ownership needed to deliver the Europe 2020 Strategy.” Even so, institutions such as CEMR and EUROCITIES have voiced concerns about the practical implementation of this extended role for cities which, for all the rhetoric, remains only vaguely defined.

This permanent dialogue can be structured by means of multilevel governance: policy making is necessarily dispersed across a broad range of actors at local, regional, national and European levels. In- terest groups, politicians, governments, private institutions and many more actors are all understood to harbour knowledge which needs to be included in policy making and implementation. The art of working together is not confined just to the EU and national levels: multilevel governance is the tool for achieving progress on policy alignment throughout Europe. In this light, the Belgian Presidency advocated a new way of thinking about Multilevel Urban Governance in the twin publication entitled “Multilevel Urban Governance: Handbook Theory and Practice”.

The Fifth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion (2010) in its turn gives specific importance to the role of cities, functional geographies, areas facing specific geographical or demographic problems and macro-regional strategies. In this light, urban authorities are envisaged as playing a greater role in designing and implementing operational programmes, and in making decisions on spending. An ambitious urban agenda is being called for from the Commission’s point of view as well.

Urban policy as such is not a competence of the European Commission, but it is agreed on an intergovernmental as well as Commission level that cities have an important role to play with regard to the EU2020 objectives. Therefore, even if the right to hold detailed decisions on urban policy remains at the national (and regional) level, there is a need for a clearly marked position for cities in Cohesion

12 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice Policy. Thus it is necessary to develop a policy and accompanying management system which would organise this process of multilevel governance.

The Urban Dimension in the Previous Funding Period (2000-2006) In 1994 URBAN, the Urban Community initiative of the ERDF, was launched to tackle in an integrated way the high concentration of social, environmental and economic problems that were increasingly found in urban agglomerations. Positive results from this programme, as well as from the preceding Urban Pilot Projects I and II, led to the decision to continue this approach by introducing URBAN II in 2000. This programme was aimed at supporting the implementation of innovative socio-economic development models for the regeneration of troubled urban areas. The objectives of the new Com- munity initiative were: • To formulate and implement innovative strategies for sustainable economic and social regeneration of small and medium-sized towns and cities or of distressed urban neighbourhoods in larger cities; • To enhance and exchange knowledge and experience in relation to sustainable urban regeneration and development in the areas concerned.

Urban II was jointly financed by the Commission and the Member States. For 2000-06, the Commu- nity’s contribution to the initiative amounted to R 730 million, exclusively from the ERDF, for a total investment of R 1.6 billion, covering a population of some 2.2 million.

Projects which were financed included initiatives to: • Improve living conditions, for example by renovating buildings and creating green areas; • Create jobs, for example in environment, culture, and services to the population; • Integrate the less-favoured social classes into education and training systems; • Develop environmentally friendly public transport systems; • Create effective energy management systems and make greater use of renewable energy; • Use information technologies.

The ex post evaluation of this second round of the URBAN Community Initiative showed that the programme supported stabilisation and positive changes, which case studies as well as stakeholders attributed to the URBAN II Initiative. Furthermore, the initiative yielded several important lessons which could benefit future urban projects: 1. The key factor underlying successful projects was local ownership and partnerships. These projects were selected according to local perceptions of need, which ensured commitment from local players; 2. Support from larger partners by means of expertise-sharing and administrative backing was crucial as well; 3. While URBAN contributed to change, it was but one of the policy drivers; 4. Local development measures can be effective, but expectations need to remain realistic and limited to the local context; 5. URBAN programmes should be aligned with local, regional and national policies; 6. An area of administrative weakness was monitoring. Programmes planned an average of 59 indicators each, but 35% were not collected. A focus on a few relevant indicators with consistent follow-up was recommended.

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 13 The La Mina neighbourhood is situated in the Sant Adrià de Besòs district, a municipality in the Barcelona metropolitan area. It was built in the 1970s to offer new housing opportunities for populations living in the different slum neighbourhoods of Barcelona. Since La Mina became stuck in a downward spiral, in the 80s and 90s the first intervention plans were introduced. These action plans lacked coordination however, and did not have enough capacity to respond to the long-term issues of the neighbourhood. In the URBAN I programming period, a Transformation Plan based on urban and social revitalisation was introduced. Results in term of increased social cohesion were achieved, as well as a higher employment rate.

An interesting element of the 2000-2006 period is the URBACT programme, which since 2003 has supported the exchange of knowledge and experience on sustainable urban development across the EU by stimulating networking between cities. The main instrument of URBACT I was the so-called “thematic network” consisting of cities cooperating on a topic, 21 of which were established; given that only ten to twelve networks were anticipated, this measure proved very popular. A thematic network is a project that stimulates capacity building and the exchange of experience in an excellent way, though the dissemination activities of the networks are somewhat less developed. Furthermore, URBACT I provided funding for studies, training projects, working groups and the deployment of experts to promote the sharing of experiences.

All in all, urban programming in Cohesion Policy gained momentum in the 2000-2006 programming period, and constituted an important policy learning process for urban projects to be developed in future instances.

The Urban Dimension in the Current Funding Period (2007-2013) The URBAN initiatives were recognised as potent initiatives in stimulating an integrated approach to urban challenges. In the 2007-2013 funding period the European Commission decided to mainstream the approach, with a view to expanding the role of towns and cities by integrating the Urban Dimen- sion fully into the ERDF Operational Programmes. All Member States were asked to elaborate a Na- tional Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF), a document which “ensures that the assistance from the Funds is consistent with the Community Strategic Guidelines on the one hand, and the national reform programmes on the other”. The NSRF is detailed in Operational Programmes, which can be sectoral, regional or territorial by nature. These Operational Programmes describe several “Priotity Axes” for their actions, among which the Urban Dimension has become one of the possible priority areas.

On the positive side, this enabled all cities and regions in Member States to apply the successful URBAN approach to issues of varying thematic orientations. And in practice, many ERDF programmes did develop an Urban Dimension, and addressed challenges in urban areas.

On the negative side, emphasis on integrated urban development declined, with urban development operations showing a strong tendency towards sectoral investment. In addition, programmes for the 2007-2013 period showed little evidence of the direct involvement of local governments, either in developing an operational programme or in putting it into practice. Most cities have but a limited

14 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice role to play in programme-related decision making processes, and in governing the budgets destined for investment within their territory.

The 2007-2013 programming period did offer many broad possibilities for improving governance structures and for bringing the fruits of the mainstreamed URBAN initiative into practice again, though it has been said that “mainstreaming” turned out to be “marginalising” in practice. Nev- ertheless, programming in Member States such as France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands is showing a strong and well developed Urban Dimension.

The Importance of an Integrated Approach One aspect which has been emphasised as an important goal for Cohesion Policy is the integrated approach. The Leipzig Charter strongly promoted this approach, and gave it a clear position on the EU agenda. The integrated approach emphasises that promoting development requires the close coordination of public policies. Singling out one policy area, for example transport, does not make sense without taking into account environmental, social and economic policy areas. Recent research has shown that economic growth does not simply depend on the availability of resources but on how interdependent factors of growth can effectively be managed.

Furthermore, the performance of one region in one particular sector can often be closely linked to the performance of another. In this respect, regional economic development strategies need to avoid being developed in isolation. Integration requires a place-based approach, because it is only at the ground level that different sectoral interventions can be integrated. There can be sectoral cooperation in the capital of a country or a region, but any integration necessarily remains theoretical. It is only at project level that the specificities of a given place can be taken into account and where synergies can be created.

CATCH-MR (Cooperative Approaches to Transport Challenges in Metropolitan Regions) is an INTERREG IVC project running from January 2010 until December 2012, with a total budget of € 2 million. This project aims to develop an integrated view on sustainable transport solutions. Past projects were generally focussed on a single aspect of transport, or were carried out from a single thematic perspective. Instead, the partners in CATCH-MR will view mobility issues from the angle of land-use planning, public transport stimulation methods and the use of renewable energy in transport vehicles.

A promising initiative for assisting local governments in this process of integrating local policies was launched in 2008 in Marseille, where the Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities to foster the implementation of the Leipzig Charter at local level was established. On a voluntary basis, it will offer cities a practical tool to help them to apply an integrated approach when developing strategies and projects and to balance different needs and interests. The framework is currently in its testing phase, in which 66 cities evaluate the degree to which it is meeting their needs. Full implementation of the Reference Framework is expected in 2012.

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 15 The current regulations do not include incentives or obligations relating to the elaboration of integrated development plans. Most activities financed under the Cohesion Policy are implemented primarily in a sectoral manner, an approach for which many positive arguments can also be made. Still, given the obstacles cities need to overcome when they are forced to apply for funds in the same way as all beneficiaries and do not have a guarantee that they will receive funds for all planned projects (which would generate the added value of an integrated approach), the case study section of this publication shows that there are nonetheless shining examples of locally integrated approaches to be found.

Finally, an integrated approach also offers challenges for those working on the ground. Adopting an integrated approach requires policymakers creatively to seek synergetic strategies, without being diverted by the relative ease of spending resources on individual sectors. This requires the setting of objectives and targets based on an analysis of the challenges faced within the area. For example, the role of a transport system in facilitating the achievement of wider economic, social and environmental objectives needs to be considered, possibly on several spatial scales as well.

Another challenge relating to an integrated approach is that evaluation will be more difficult. The quantitative, rigorous impact evaluation is made harder by integration, since integrating different sectoral interventions means that interventions are multi-component. Assessing packages presents a problem: it is unclear which of these components caused what part of the desired effects, and it remains a question which elements should be continued or changed. Given the emphasis on an integrated approach and the EC reporting regimes, a solution for this needs to be considered in the light of the programming period ahead.

In order to achieve an integrated approach, financial engineering is important as it allows cities to combine several funding streams within one programme, and thus to pursue aims of various types within that programme. In the 2007-2013 period, four new instruments were adopted that were tailored to strengthening the Urban Dimension: • JASPERS (Joint Assistance in Supporting Projects in European Regions) The main objective of this programme is to provide technical expertise to the twelve EU Member States which joined the EU in 2004 and 2007 (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hun- gary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia). It is designed to support them in better preparing projects which will be financed by EU Structural Funds. The aim is to increase the quality and timely submission of projects to be approved by national authorities and the Commission. JASPERS’ assistance, which is provided free of charge, is geared towards accel- erating the absorption of the available funds. • JEREMIE (Joint European Resources for Micro to Medium Enterprises) This resource promotes SME access to finance, which can be troublesome without this fund. JEREMIE offers EU Member States, through their national or regional Managing Authorities, the opportunity to use part of the EU Structural Funds to finance small and medium-sized enterprises by means of equity, loans or guarantees, through a revolving Holding Fund acting as an umbrella fund. • JESSICA (Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas) This fund supports sustainable urban development and regeneration through financial engineering mechanisms. Member States can choose to invest some of their EU structural fund allocations

16 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice in revolving funds to help recycle financial resources to accelerate investment in Europe’s urban areas. Projects include the redevelopment of brownfield sites, energy efficiency improvements and new urban infrastructure. • JASMINE (Joint Action to Support Micro-finance Institutions in Europe) This instrument aims to provide both technical assistance and financial support to non-bank micro-credit providers and to help them to improve the quality of their operations, to expand and to become sustainable. JASMINE seeks also to promote good practices in the field of microcredit and to draft a code of good conduct for micro-credit institutions.

In the current period, these instruments have remained somewhat underused. In the next funding period however, better communication about the possibilities these instruments offer and the ways in which cities can apply for them should stimulate a higher level of local usage.

Grants were allocated to the Brasov area in order to rehabilitate the city as part of its focus on restoring the tourist industry. Part of the financing for this project came from the Urbact II programme entitled Jessica 4 Cities (J4C). This programme is aimed at promoting sustainable investment, growth and jobs in Europe’s urban areas. Other cities and regions which received funding from this programme are: Tuscany (Italy), Greater Manchester (UK), Porto Vivo (Portu- gal), Poznan (Poland), and Athens (Greece). In Brasov five projects were carried out with ERDF funding: namely: the rehabilitation of Rasnov Historic Centre, the rehabilitation of the Coresi business and congress centre, the rehabilitation of the Patria cinema as a cultural centre and the philharmonic orchestra, the extension of parking capacity and construction of the public transport terminus in Poiana Brasov, which is the tourist resort, and the regeneration of the Codlea business centre. For Brasov the issue was focused primarily on rehabilitating the old Romanian city for its inhabitants as well as for the tourist industry.

The Urban Dimension in the Next Funding Period (2014-2020) Given the discrepancy between the considerable possibilities Cohesion Policy is currently offering for urban projects and the limited development of the Urban Dimension in practice in the Operational Programmes, many possible adaptations for the next funding period are being suggested. The Pol- ish Presidency has published an informative paper in this regard entitled “Background Report on the Urban Dimension of the Cohesion Policy post 2013”. The following six proposals are closely related to the policy recommendations made in that publication.

1. Allowing for Urban Policies on Different Spatial Scales The appropriate scaling of a policy matter is by no means a straightforward task. Administrative boundaries have limited relevance when one is dealing with several important issues that the cities must face, and this problem works in three ways. Cohesion Policy should acknowledge the importance of various territorial scales in developing urban policy on three levels: 1) a neighbourhood level, 2) the level of an urban agglomeration, and 3) on a European scale.

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 17 In the first place, a focus on the neighbourhood level yielded positive results during the URBAN Com- munity Initiative, and lives on in the place-based approach. It is generally felt that the focus on the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods within a city should be sustained, as was emphasised in the Leipzig Charter and also the Toledo Declaration.

On the other hand, cities also need to face problems which are better dealt with on a higher level in cooperation with the regional or national government, for instance when considering mobility issues or economic development plans. This suggests that the funding within the urban policy schemes should not be available just for cities individually, but rather for the complete Functional Urban Areas (FUAs). This is a principle which probably could be easily accepted, but its implementation raises important practical difficulties. FUA-level institutions (entities which might become beneficiaries of the available funding) exist in only a few European agglomerations. It is relatively easy to indicate who might implement the metro-scale project in the Metropolitan Region of Hannover or Stuttgart or in the case of French communautés d’agglomération. But in many other cases (such as agglomerations round many Italian, Polish, Czech or Hungarian cities), where there is no formal legal framework for metropolitan cooperation, the issue is much more complicated.

Even in cases when metropolitan institutions have been established, their territorial limits are sometimes questioned and the degree of coordination among the administrations forming a FUA is not always sufficient. One option to counter the absence of metropolitan government might be the institution of an ad hoc agreement of relevant municipal governments which on a voluntary basis agree to delegate the responsibility for contracting and project implementation to the “leader of the consortium”.

A third and final issue relating to the territorial scope of interventions is the issue of “divided cities” (or even divided metropolitan areas) where a functional area crosses national boundaries. The existence of such cases calls for separate funding schemes for cross-border cooperation. Including these in the design of new urban policy instruments would be justified as this type of integration and co-operation can create a critical mass justifying development and reducing economic, social and ecological fragmentation, while at the same time building mutual trust and social capital.

2. Programming and Implementation – A Stronger Profile for Cities A central issue that has emerged from the current programming period is that cities have been included on a very modest scale in programming and managing the funds that were to be used within their jurisdiction. The regions preparing their policy statements did consult local governments, but the procedures for these consultations were not always clear and the voice of cities was not always listened to or taken sufficiently into account.

Applying the subsidiarity principle in a thorough manner implies that the development of urban policy requires allowing cities a real impact on the final shape of the policy adopted. It should also be discussed whether cities are to have a greater role to play in the management of relevant funds. A recommendation being made is that cities and their representations (such as national associations of cities or European level institutions such as CEMR or Eurocities) should be included from the early stage of policy making.

18 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice 3. Innovative Financial Mechanisms In order for cities to gain a more powerful role with regard to investments within their jurisdictions, it is necessary to give them more freedom to decide on how to deal with their intrinsic problems. They need more discretion in making decisions on the ways of implementing particular projects and – even more important – more flexibility in managing funds.

Greater flexibility can be imagined to be achieved in two different ways: the idea of the wider use of “global grants” for cities and – on the other hand – the idea of combining resources from various funding streams (such as ERDF and ESF) to finance comprehensive programmes consisting of various types of projects.

The global grant instrument was used in both the 2000-2006 and the present programming period, though this regulation alone was not sufficient to encourage the Member States or regions to sub- delegate responsibility to the local level. This type of instrument could yield great benefits for cities: • Application of the integrated urban development approach: complementarity of interventions carried out within the urban area; • Implementation of the strategic vision of the city; • Inclusion of local government in the process of the programming and management of structural funds, and hence shifting the decision-making level closer to citizens.

Global grants can be understood as tasking the cities with the administration of a budget for Op- erational Programmes financed under Structural Funds. In practice, they would resemble a sort of sub-programme implemented by cities, yet they would be coordinated by Managing Authorities. Co- ordination by and the participation of Managing Authorities at the central and regional level is indispensable to ensure or strengthen the functional links of a city with its region and the whole country.

Another way to increase flexibility in funds management concerns the combining of resources from various funding streams (such as ERDF and ESF) to finance comprehensive programmes consisting of various types of projects. Hitherto, comprehensive programmes have had to be fragmented, reflecting the fact that management logic (applying, contracting and reporting procedures) was driven by the different routines of various funding sources, making it difficult to achieve integrated implementation of the programme and making flexible adjustments to the changing environment impossible.

4. Territorial Diversity Needs to be Coupled with a Strategically Oriented Place-Based Approach Cities across Europe have much in common, yet they are of very different natures as well – and these differences reflect their particular national and local development histories. Different mixes of opportunities and threats are inherent in every city, and have consequences for the types of policy that need to be developed. Setting strict priorities which must be met throughout Europe might lead to the illogical deployment of efforts and resources.

This means that Member States, in coordination with their cities and regions, should always be allowed to identify and address the issues that are most relevant to their urban systems. This does not rule out the need for central goals towards which all ERDF funding should be dedicated. Creating a certain “mass” of investments can give cities or regions a critical push in the right direction, whereas

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 19 stretching funding over an inexhaustible range of priorities will fail to yield clear results. Strategic programming allowing local interpretations is key.

5. Target Areas of Cohesion Policy The European urban field is extremely diversified. It includes the whole spectrum starting from small, local urban centres to big cities and their associated metropolitan areas. Each Member State has its specific urban structure and associated features: in some countries big city issues call for the most urgent intervention, while in others the development of small towns is more important. This is why the decision on which areas should benefit from urban policy programmes should largely be left to the discretion of Member States, in consultation with regions and cities.

Selection methods remain a sensitive matter, however. Two commonly used methods, based on statistical data and a competitive approach, each have their drawbacks. In many countries there is a lack of neighbourhood level statistical data, and precisely those areas in greatest need of funding are likely to find themselves in difficulties when trying to win a policy competition.

6. Knowledge Dissemination and Networking Are Central to Policy Learning Regardless of the exact form of the future Urban Dimension of Cohesion Policy in the next programming period, cities and towns should have the ability to use an instrument that can facilitate knowledge dissemination, networking and capacity building. The URBACT Programme has turned out to be an effective tool for supporting the networking of EU cities. Over the years, the URBACT Programme has developed a life and legitimacy of its own – it started as a platform of cities involved in the URBAN Initiative and evolved into a more general EU-level networking and exchange programme in the area of sustainable urban development. Additionally, the European Urban Knowledge Network (EUKN) provides a key platform from which knowledge and experience in integrated urban development can be disseminated.

The Dot on the Horizon: EU2020 The EU2020 Strategy also highlights the role of Cohesion Policy as a key means of delivering smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in the Member States and regions. The EU2020 Strategy entitled “A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth” describes several challenges which need to be faced throughout Europe, and towards which cohesion spending needs to be focussed. The overarch- ing objective of Cohesion Policy being the harmonious development of the Union and its regions, it makes an important contribution to the strategic objectives of the EU2020 Strategy, which are: • Smart Growth, by increasing competitiveness especially in less developed regions; • Inclusive growth, by promoting employment and improving people´s well-being; • Green growth, by protecting and enhancing environmental quality.

The Ministers responsible for urban development reaffirmed in the Toledo Declaration the validity of these commitments and highlighted in particular the integrated approach in urban policies as one of the main tools for advancing in the strategic direction set out in the EU2020.

Moreover, the Ministers underlined the role cities can play in that regard. Therefore, in the new programming period the Urban Dimension of Cohesion Policy should focus on these priorities, in the same way as there was once a clear link between the Lisbon Strategy and Cohesion Policy.

20 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice As one of the largest sources of EU funding for the Member States Cohesion Policy will make an important contribution to delivering EU2020. With its three funds – the European Regional Devel- opment Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), and the Cohesion Fund – Cohesion Policy is worth almost € 350 billion. A significant proportion of these resources – around € 230 billion – is already largely geared towards investments in the key areas of the Europe 2020 agenda to improve innovation performance and create a competitive, connected and greener economy.

However, all cities need to be free to prioritise policy developments based on local circumstances. Each city has its own mix of challenges to overcome, yet at the same time its own strengths in tackling these issues. Thus, the development of projects and programmes aimed at the achievement of EU2020 is the result of a two-way process. The European Commission has identified several issues that require dedicated policy and presents these as challenges that lower levels of government should engage with. On the other hand, many individual cities have recognised several challenges, needs or wishes on the local level as well, and present these as requiring the (financial) attention of higher levels of government. Finding the right mix in these two opposing currents is a true challenge. Each level of government and each player has its own unique expertise, experience and point of view all of which complement and reinforce each other.

Multilevel governance is key to enabling all relevant actors to take part in the policy-making and implementation process. This is a delicate art but, as the practices in the following section will show, cities are already contributing in many ways to a smarter, more sustainable and socially inclusive Europe. The top-down current of cohesion funding, which is the mirror policy driver, is important for cities in supporting them to develop these projects.

Reflection on the Debate for the Future Funding Period On 6 October 2011 the European Commission published the new draft regulations for the next programming period. The principle that is proposed to be reinforced over the next funding period is the strategic programming process. According to the new draft regulations, this involves concentrating on a list of eleven thematic objectives that are in line with EU2020: 1. Increasing research, technological development and innovation; 2. Improving access to and the use and quality of information and communication technologies; 3. Improving the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises, the agricultural sector and fisheries and the aquaculture sector; 4. Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors; 5. Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management; 6. Protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency; 7. Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures; 8. Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility; 9. Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty; 10. Investing in education, skills and lifelong learning; 11. Improving institutional capacity and an efficient public administration.

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 21 The discussion on which priorities should be addressed, and on which areas cohesion funding should be concentrated, remains difficult. Arguments relating to creating a critical mass should not disquali- fy smaller cities, or reduce investment options by restricting them to EU2020 goals per se.

In order to raise performance levels, the Commission has furthermore proposed to introduce new “ex ante” and “ex post” conditionality provisions. “Ex ante” conditionalities are meant to describe a certain threshold for a policy, regulatory and institutional framework, as past experiences have shown that these encapsulate important bottlenecks to effective spending. “Ex post” conditionalities focus on the attainment of milestones and targets, and poor results may lead to the suspension or even cancellation of funds.

Though the notion of setting conditions is not new, they have been tightened in the proposals. A question is to what degree the Commission actually has the competence to set certain requirements, which can for instance relate to the high school system. The fourth priority mentioned above involves the elaboration of a national action plan, which in the context of EU2020 has already been disap- proved of.

A very positive element that can be deduced from the priorities above is that they contain many key themes of urban policy. Based on the consultation process on the future of Cohesion Policy that was organised in parallel with the publication of the Fifth Report on Economic Social and Territorial Co- hesion (2010), many reactions from, for instance, EUROCITIES, CEMR, URBACT, EURACTIV and AER focussed specifically on the Urban Dimension.

A main stance is that, despite the promise captured in the call for an ambitious urban agenda, local authorities feel that there is too little real attention being paid to local administrations. According to them, both the Cohesion Report and EU2020 relate to the national level, while the sub-national levels are left hanging. Involving cities more closely is felt not only to increase knowledge of on- the-ground realities, but it would bring European Policy as close as possible to the citizens as well. In that light, the proposed Partnership Contracts concede t0 a clear need. Within these Partner- ship Contracts, a greater role for cities within the planning and implementation of Cohesion Policy would be secured.

Furthermore, 5% of the total budget will be reserved for achieving the Urban Dimension. Though the means will remain limited, the focus on many urban themes is a counterweight to this reality.

Finally, the administrative burden caused by the EC reporting regime is to be simplified. This initiative relates to the ex post conditionalities as well; annually reporting, instead of at the close of a project, is proposed. It is still to be explored, however, whether this solution will really reduce the effort that needs to be made.

With the publication of the new draft regulations, a concrete new phase of negotiations on the future of Cohesion Policy has started. Many proposals for strengthening the Urban Dimension have been made, though at this stage the final outcomes can still only be guessed at. In 2012 negotiations will continue, to be concluded in final regulations in 2013. It seems clear though that, given the minimum

22 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice of 5% for urban spending, the many urban priorities that have been defined and the Partnership Con- tracts that are to include the local level as well, the Urban Dimension has been given a good starting position for the negotiation process.

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 23 In the Spotlight… Mr. Peter Berkowitz

In the spotlight… Mr. Peter Berkowitz, Head of the Unit Policy Conception of the Re- gional Policy Directorate General. The future of Cohesion Policy is an important dossier for coming years.

What are important elements of discussion for cities in the debate about the future of Cohesion Policy? “Cities are motors for economic development in Europe. They are places of innovation, of education, entrepreneurship and business. They are places where new things get started. Cities have a large potential to contribute to the goals of EU2020. Therefore policies at European level need to have an Urban Dimension: we have to help to overcome the market failures that underlie urban unemployment and social exclusion. We have to bring forward new, smart and sustainable investments that help urban areas to achieve their full potential. And we have to promote the exchange of experience and best practice.

Over the last 20 years, we have developed a common European methodology of sustainable urban development. It has three main aspects: • First, urban development is not just about physical rehabilitation or the construction of buildings, it is also about social inclusion, employment opportunities, about education and culture, about mobility and connections. The best way to address all these factors is by way of an integrated approach. • Secondly, local empowerment is essential. Urban development does not work as a top-down approach. Citizens need to be put in a position in which they can take responsibility – in which they feel responsible for their city, their neighbourhood, their street. • Thirdly, urban development needs to respect local and regional contexts, strengths and weak- nesses. For each activity, we need to identify the smallest meaningful democratic entity. While social inclusion measures to tackle pockets of poverty may be best addressed through smaller- scale neighbourhood interventions, questions relating to clean urban transport or service provision may be solved better at city or city-regional level or by a group of cities.

For the future, we want to build on this method and strengthen the Urban Dimension of Cohesion Policy. Thematically, we should focus support for urban development on the EU2020 objectives of smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth, for example by promoting low-carbon strategies for urban areas, improving the urban environment, promoting sustainable urban mobility and regenerating deprived urban neighbourhoods.”

How do you view the “Urban Dimension” in the Cohesion Period to come? “The Commission proposes the following elements for the Urban Dimension in the regulations on Cohesion Policy after 2013: • There should be a strong focus on urban development in strategic documents and, consequently, in the Common Strategic Framework, in the Development and Investment Partnership Contracts and in all relevant programmes.

24 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice • Urban development should be fostered through integrated investment strategies, allowing for a more strategic and holistic approach. • Financial resources for urban development should be clearly identified in the programmes. At least 5% of the resources of the European Regional Development Fund should be invested in sustainable urban development through integrated strategies. • Around 0.2% of the resources of the European Regional Development Fund should be invested in innovative urban actions like pilot projects or experimental initiatives which are of European interest. • A more functional approach should allow for interventions at the right scale. Urban interventions for urban rehabilitation should be possible in areas of deprivation as well as in urban agglomerations for city-regional aspects and metropolitan growth. • The Commission should play an important role in promoting urban policies through networking activities. In addition, a European urban development platform should be established for con- ducting direct dialogue with selected cities.”

How would you optimise the role of cities within Cohesion Policy? “Multilevel governance and partnership should be improved in the future. Cities are important partners in delivering the EU2020 objectives. They should be involved in the design of the programmes and also in the implementation process.

It is important that we keep enough flexibility for cities and regions to support tailor-made solutions which meet local needs. At the same time, it is also important to foster the common European principles of integrated and sustainable urban development – the European “Acquis urbain”, which is essential for a more strategic approach towards the development of European cities and regions. This will also strengthen the role of cities in Cohesion Policy.”

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 25

Smart Case Studies

• MIQUA: Microfinance for Poor Quarters in

German Cities (Germany)

• Buda Fabric: A Renovated Factory Linking

Economy and Culture (Belgium)

• Revitalising the Nieuwe Binnenweg in

Rotterdam (The Netherlands)

• Revamping Brasov through Jessica 4 Cities

(Romania) MIQUA: Microfinance for Poor Quarters in German Cities

MIQUA at a glance:

Practice MIQUA: microfinance for poor quarters in German cities

Duration of the project This project runs from 1 February 2009 until 31 October 2012

Area The cities of Offenbach (leader), Gelsenkirchen, Kiel, Duis- burg, Leipzig and Nuremberg are part of the network.

Funding ESF and national and local co-financing

The awarding of microfinance by regular banks to SMEs hardly happens in Germany any more. However, these small companies are the oil on which the local economy thrives. Nonetheless, they are often considered highly risky investment options, and thus have a near-zero chance of obtaining a loan.

For this reason, the German Communication and Innovation Centre (KIZ) has developed the so-called “Ostpolkrediet”. This local system for micro-financing is based on the cooperation model that was developed by the German Microfinance Institute (DMI).

Issue: A Standardised Yet Locally Sensitive Inter-Municipal Microfinance System Before the project started, it was already clear that microfinance can be an important method for strengthening the local economy. Still there are several problems involved in setting up a local microfinance system: 1. Preparation challenges • Microfinance functions on the cross-section of urban, social and economic development and employment. As all challenges relating to a local system for microfinance are highly innovative by nature, municipal decision-making procedures are very time consuming; • Many municipal actors do not view microfinance as their job, and are reluctant to overcome political and juridical obstacles; • The local government views the regular banks as the most suitable partners for allocating loans, though these banks actually are very critical about requests from the target group.

2. Lacking self-employment • Even if all the hurdles described are overcome, the issues of sustainability and economic management arise. It is known that for the system to survive at least 150 loans per year must be granted. In a single neighbourhood, such a figure cannot be achieved. With the “Ostpolkredit” the KIZ has developed a system that can easily be duplicated, so that the market for loans can be enlarged.

MIQUA established a sustainable structure for an inter-municipal microfinance system. Each system is tailored to local specificities, yet at the same time the system is standardised to such a

28 -Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice degree that a crucial synergy is achieved. The aim is to include additional neighbourhoods in the system.

Approach: Intensive Support to the Neighbourhoods Involved MIQUA means to stimulate local economic vitality, and to increase the level of economic activity in the neighbourhood. Target groups for microfinance are SMEs and independent workers who are already active in the neighbourhood, or aspire to become so.

The so-called “neighbourhood counsellor” is the central person engaging the target groups. This counsellor is not responsible just for microcredit issues, but can be approached for all questions relating to entrepreneurship.

In a step-by-step sequence, MIQUA has been implemented in the following manner: 1. Involving interested municipalities; 2. Network development; 3. The appointment of neighbourhood counsellors; 4. Product development: advice to partner neighbourhoods, support in local decision-making processes, the development of a local fund, the inclusion of (local) banks, cooperation between the various neighbourhood counsellors; 5. Marketing: flyers, a homepage, a campaign, an information stand, active informing of the target groups, publicity activities; 6. The loan procedure: advice, request and payment; 7. Advice for entrepreneurs; 8. Tools for the granting of loans.

Results: Over 100 Loans Granted MIQUA is now active in five cities, and integrated in regional structures as well. A neighbourhood counsellor is active in each district, and these people exchange experiences on a regular basis. Be- tween 2009 and 2011, over 100 loans have been granted that help local economies to grow.

Influence Cohesion Policy: A Vital Contribution to Crucial Capital The project has been financed through the German programme “Building Economic Activities in Neigbourhoods” (BIWAQ), which in its turn is financed through the ESF and national funding. With- out the ESF contribution, MIQUA could never have been implemented, as it is difficult enough already to find the necessary capital.

Lessons Learned: Microfinance Needs to be Accompanied by Supporting Measures The project has generated several important lessons: • Microfinance is an appropriate tool for buoying up the economy in disadvantaged neighbourhoods; • Active demand for microfinance is rather hesitant: this is an expression of the malfunctioning of the local economy which this method should help to develop.

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 29 This “catch-22” type of situation can be avoided only when microfinance is accompanied by supporting measures. In the current project, good experience was gained by: • The neighbourhood counsellors who dealt with all entrepreneurial questions from the local target group; • The organisation of local networking activities and seminars; • A central, physical contact point; • A good selection of properties where new SMEs could be established.

An important point is that when only the local, already existing entrepreneurs are included in the project, there will be only a small demand for loans, and seminars and network-building will be organised for a small public. In these circumstances, an innovative climate is hard to achieve. For this reason, it is useful to widen the scope of activities to neighbouring areas. Thus, the quarter becomes known as a “nexus of development”, on which basis the settlement of new SMEs in the neighbourhood can be stimulated.

Suggested (Web) Resources • Website MIQUA www.miqua.de

This text relies on helpful comments of Bernd Curtius, responsible for the implementation of MIQUA.

30 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice Buda Fabric: A Renovated Factory Linking Economy and Culture

Buda Fabric at a glance:

Practice Buda Fabric

Duration of the project This project runs from 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2012

Area Kortrijk, situated in the Flanders Region of Belgium

Funding ERDF, The Flemish Hermes Fund and local funding

The west of Flanders is currently coping with a low level of entrepreneurial activity, and limited economic development. In order to counter these circumstances, the City of Kortrijk is developing several projects in its city centre, among which is Buda Fabric. The former textile factory around which this project is centred is situated on Buda Island in the centre of Kortrijk.

Issue: A New Direction for Buda Island In the 80s and 90s this area was a thriving centre, but with the relocation of several commercial and recreational functions a period of decline set in. Since the turn of the century, the City Council has made an effort to accommodate new functions in the abandoned industrial heritage. In that light, a cinema was redeveloped into a centre for the arts, and an old brewery into offices for artists in resi- dence and cultural organisations.

Objective: Converting an Abandoned Factory into a New Multifunctional Facility Through these interventions, Buda Island has developed into a centre for art and creativity. The achievement of Buda Fabric would reinforce and expand on these existing potentials. The former textile factory in which Buda Fabric is being realised is rather large, and by its size alone this empty property had a strong impact on the area. By its conversion, it can however play an important role in further revitalising this part of the city.

Thus, this ERDF project focuses on the conversion of the old factory into Buda Fabric, within which the achievement of six sub-aims is envisaged: 1. The creation of a meeting space for product developers, academics, designers, knowledge institutes, artists and entrepreneurs; 2. The development of a space for the exchange of knowledge and communication among a diverse range of actors from different sectors; 3. The realisation of a production facility; 4. The installation of an exhibition room for art expositions for a broad public; 5. The building up of an international network around Buda Fabric by means of the organisation of symposia and arts festivals, and the interlinking of networks; 6. The development of comfortable and representative work spaces.

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 31 Approach: Buda Fabric Will Function on the Intersection of Economy and Culture Through the renovation and conversion of the abandoned textile factory into Buda Fabric, which is co-financed by ERDF funding, a site for interaction between economy, innovation and arts is created. Creativity and innovation are the backbone of the modern economy, and by realising this project on the intersection of economy and culture the City of Kortrijk means to strengthen this dynamic. “Fab- ric” refers to the Dutch word “fabriek”, and also to a closely intertwined web of threads; in the same way, Buda Fabric will closely interlink designers, project developers, students, artists and academics in order to increase cross-pollination in the field of innovative products and applications, and new materials.

Furthermore, Buda Fabric will reinforce the cultural image of Buda Island and increase the profile of Kortrijk as a city of innovation, creativity and design.

Results: The Construction Phase Has Started The building activities started by the beginning of 2011, and are now still in the middle of being carried out. The delivery of the renovated building is planned for autumn 2012, from which point on- wards the activities within Buda Fabric can be brought into being.

Influence Cohesion Policy: Indispensable for Achieving International Ambitions The ERDF funding covers 40% of the total investment. The funding has triggered the involvement of the Flemish government as well, to the tune of 15% of the total costs. The Buda Fabric project has an ambition to go beyond the local level: it will have a clear provincial, regional and even international role. The financial support from the Flemish and EU levels has been a crucial condition for the success of this project.

The Buda fabric project aims are closely related to European goals in the areas of innovation and economic development. The international component of the project, which is formulated as the fifth aim of the initiative, will receive close attention in the coming years. In the first phase, partnerships between the Euro-region of Kortrijk (B), Doornik (B) and Lille (F) will be encouraged: though this element of the project is beyond ERDF funding, cross-border cooperation is a clear goal of the funds as well.

Integrated Development: Interlinking Renovation, Economic Development and Cultural Activities Buda Fabric is being developed within the general scope of the revitalisation efforts made on Buda Island. This dossier is part of an integral approach to this end, which combines the renovation of the area, the development of economic activities and the stimulation of cultural developments. These actions jointly aim to create a higher quality physical environment, and high quality employment.

When the building phase is concluded, the programmatic development of Buda Fabric will be fully integrated with existing local actors. Organisations and knowledge partners within the city and wider region should provide a new and sustainable, thoroughly multidisciplinary economic fabric in the area.

32 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice Spin-offs: A Flexible Management Structure Allows Additional Partners to Join As the project has not yet proceeded beyond the construction phase, there have as yet not been tangible spin-offs. Nonetheless, follow-up projects are confidently expected as a result of the close cooperation in which different actors and sectors will work within Buda Fabric. In order to achieve this a flexible management structure has been developed, in which the Municipality of Kortrijk, the Autonomous Municipal Cooperation (AGB Buda, a consortium of all the cultural institutions on Buda Island), the Design region of Kortrijk, Howest (University College West Flanders) and the intercom- munal organisation Leiedal take part. The internal statute on which this management structure is based is flexible, so that in the future new participants can join it. This will enrich the programming as well as geographical broadening of Buda Fabric.

Lessons Learned: Support in the Application Process is Very Important The Municipality of Kortrijk has gained extensive experience in using EU funding in its projects. This experience has helped to avoid the administrative difficulties that have sometimes been reported. The high quality of coaching by the provincial Management Authority and the regional helpdesk has been invaluable in creating a swift approval procedure.

Suggested (Web) Resources • Urban projects in Kortrijk: Buda Island http://www.kortrijk.be/over-de-stad/projecten/stadsprojecten/buda-eiland

This text relies on helpful comments of Dries Baekelandt of the Municipality of Kortrijk.

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 33 Revitalising the Nieuwe Binnenweg in Rotterdam

The Nieuwe Binnenweg at a glance:

Practice Revitalising the Nieuwe Binnenweg (street) in Rotterdam

Duration of the project January 2008 – December 2013

Area Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Funding ERDF and local co-funding

In the early ‘50s, the Nieuwe Binnenweg (weg meaning “street” in Dutch) became one of the most important shopping and entertainment streets of the city. However during the ‘60s the street and the surrounding residential areas spiralled downwards. In 2008 the Rotterdam City Development Corpo- ration (Ontwikkelingsbedrijf Rotterdam, OBR) initiated the revitalisation of this once popular street in order to make the area in the west of the city more attractive. 6000 m² of premises and façades are being renovated. There is also a strong focus on safety and security within the neighbourhood. Also the infrastructure within the street has been addressed in order to make the area more accessible. Through the efforts made with the support of the ERDF funding, twenty new entrepreneurs have been attracted, empty commercial premises have decreased and thirty new jobs have been created.

Issue: Giving the Street a New Brand and Atmosphere With the Rotterdam Action Plan for Shopping Areas, the city gave a green light to the starting of an integrated approach on the Nieuwe Binnenweg. This integrated approach aims to improve the buildings in the street, to give the area a new brand and atmosphere, and to improve communications in and around the shopping street. It will also focus on the redesign of the neighbourhood as a whole, and in particular the leisure spaces.

A revitalisation project manager has been appointed by the project leaders (the OBR and the district Delfshaven), whose task it is to draw up a financial foundation plan through direct dialogue with entrepreneurs, landowners and other stakeholders.

The plan for the revitalisation consists of four pillars: 1. Measures aimed at improving the quality of entrepreneurship and branding of the street; 2. Measures aimed at improving retail buildings and sales within the area; 3. Refurbishment of the surrounding area and measures aimed at achieving a clean and safe street; 4. Better communications.

Approach: Improving the Shopping and Entertainment Street in Rotterdam As mentioned before there is an integrated approach to this project. The project consists of the reconstruction of the street combined with improvements to private homes, retail buildings and

34 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice improvement in retail and entrepreneurial support. The work on this project was initiated by the municipality, but it is carried out in cooperation with property owners, residents and entrepreneurs. The planned maintenance of the tram tracks is being used to improve the shopping area and also radically to improve the quality of the residential and retail properties as well as of businesses. The ERDF can only be used for the plans to attract entrepreneurs and to improve retail buildings. A specific subsidy for the improvement of the shops has been created and there is an active Brand Manager present in the street.

Results: Creating New Opportunities Some of the results of the Revitalisation of the Nieuwe Binnenweg in Rotterdam are: • 6000 m² of premises and façades are being redeveloped (which will result in eighty new retail areas with an average of 75 m² of space); • Through the re-establishment of the street, 20 new entrepreneurs have been attracted; • Empty shops have decreased from 11% (24 units) to 7% (15 units); • 30 new jobs have been created; • The attraction to live there of more people from the middle and high income group, and it will also see a better social mix in the population; • Finally, through the revitalisation project the overdue maintenance of eighty buildings has been carried out; • About 1100 metres of the street will be refurbished.

Spin-offs and the Influence of Cohesion Policy: Tackle the Problem of Abandonment and Impoverishment The project will contribute to the improvement of the economic structure within an out-dated neighbourhood as well as the improvement of the quality of life in the area. Tailor made approaches have been put into place to tackle the problem of abandonment and impoverishment. After the achievement of the Revitalisation of the Nieuwe Binnenweg the long process of urban renewal aimed at improving the living conditions in the surrounding districts of the old shopping and entertainment street will end.

Added Value and Lessons Learned: Project Impossible without ERDF Funding The ERDF has made the integrated approach to this street possible. Municipal budgets are too limited, and thus without ERDF funding the project would not have been possible. One of the lessons learned was that appropriate content and process management is of paramount importance. The complexity lies in the fact that there is some self-financing involved in this project, as ERDF funds only the revitalisation of retail buildings but not the refurbishment of housing. For the Revitalisation of the Nieuwe Binnenweg it can be said that good preparation is half the work. The added value of this project lies within the integrated nature of the approach and the fact that the entire area will be improved with this revitalisation.

A further added value in this project is that the City of Rotterdam is the Management Authority for the Operational Programme to which these local actions belong. From a governance point of view, this approach is rarely followed in the context of Cohesion Policy. It has clearly improved the Urban

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 35 Dimension of Cohesion Policy though, and has given the local level a clear voice in programming and implementation decisions.

Suggested (Web) Resources • Kansen voor West www.kansenvoorwest.nl • City of Rotterdam – Revitalisering Nieuwe Binnenweg www.rotterdam.nl/subsidies

This text relies on helpful comments by Albert van Veelen, Programme Manager at Kansen voor Rotterdam.

36 -Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice Revamping Brasov through Jessica 4 Cities

Brasov at a glance:

Practice Jessica 4 Cities, Rehabilitation of Brasov

Duration of the project May 2008 – December 2012

Area Brasov, Romania

Funding • European: European Commission • Transnational: European Investment Bank • National: The Managing Authority under the Ministry of Regional Development and • Tourism and the Authority for Structural Funds Coordination under the Ministry of Finance • Private: Commercial Banks (Romanian Commercial Bank, Transilvania Bank, Raif- feisen Bank)

Urban Development Funds (UDFs) provided for in the JESSICA 4 Cities (J4C) initiative can be used to invest in Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) and other projects included in an integrated plan for sustainable urban development. The role of cities in J4C is essential: they develop strategies and integrated plans for sustainable urban development; they identify and design projects intended to mobilise J4C funding; and they implement projects supported by J4C. The objective is to determine, in close cooperation with the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the Council of Europe Develop- ment Bank (CEB), how European cities can draw the maximum benefit from UDF and J4C. And also how the implementation of J4C can be structured with regard to existing Structural Fund regulations best to accommodate the needs of cities.

In this case study the focus will primarily be on J4C in Brasov, Romania. Grants were allocated to the Brasov area in order to rehabilitate the city as part of its focus on restoring the tourist industry. Part of the financing for this project came from J4C. Other cities and regions which received funding are: Tuscany (Italy), Greater Manchester (UK), Porto Vivo (Portugal), Poznan (Poland), and Athens (Greece). In Brasov five projects were carried out, namely: (1) the rehabilitation of Rasnov Historic Centre, (2) the rehabilitation of the Codlea Business Centre and of (3) the CORESI Office and Trade Fair and Congress Centre, (4) the rehabilitation of the Patria cinema as a cultural centre and base for the philharmonic orchestra, and (5) the extension of parking capacity and construction of the public transport terminal in Poiana Brasov, which is the tourist resort.

Issue: Developing and Disseminating Best Practices on Urban Development Funds The purpose of the project is to develop and disseminate best practices on Urban Development Funds (UDF) in different European countries. On the basis of the results of the review of local problems and processes, the aim is to develop a “JESSICA Toolbox for Cities”. This will serve to assist with the achievement of the main objective of the working group, namely to enable cities effectively to use

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 37 opportunities offered by J4C to attain sustainable development outcomes and indicate to Managing Authorities (MAs) and other relevant parties how best to structure J4C to benefit cities. This means that working group partners must develop a thorough understanding of the procedures for developing by means of the urban investment cycle suitable strategies, integrated plans, projects and project portfolios and co-operate with managing authorities to incorporate them into the relevant operation programmes and fund them through J4C.

Approach: An Area-Based Approach UDFs aim to improve the social, physical, and economic conditions of the targeted district or neighbourhood. Basically, UDFs are packages of concrete measures and projects that deal with some central elements. For example the improvement of the social conditions, the built environment, and the local economy of the district involved which are usually interrelated, in the sense that positive changes in one element will often lead to changes in the others. This integrated approach is synony- mous for J4C and participating partners have therefore benefitted from this programme.

UDFs are area-based, and they tend to focus on neighbourhoods or districts that are characterised as deprived. An alternative way of tackling urban problems would be a policy aimed at certain population groups, wherever they live, such as “newcomers”, the unemployed, children, or the elderly. The fact that these groups might happen to be concentrated in specific urban areas would not render the programmes area-based: in those cases the spatial dimension is just an unintended feature. Thus, it is important that programmes specify why they adopt an area-based approach. There are three reasons for choosing such an approach: • The existence of a “neighbourhood effect”; • A preference for an integrated approach to solving problems; • Cost-effectiveness compared to other approaches.

Results: Implementation of the Methodology The project has been finalised and reached it objectives. Some of the results are: 1. There is a generic methodology in place to create and operate the UDFs to fund urban development. The methodology can be used by any European country and is developed according to EU laws, national laws and structural funds regulations; 2. All six partners became aware of their capacity to fund urban development using the J4C instrument, based on the evaluation studies elaborated for each partner (at the national level for Portu- gal and Greece and regional level for Italy, the UK, Poland and Romania); 3. Three out of six partners in the project started to implement the methodology (agreement with the EIB to create and operate the Holding Fund, which is a fund set up to invest in several UDFs – it is an option for MAs. Also included are the decisions on the number of UDFs and their operation and management, and a set of criteria for the projects to be funded through the UDF). The fourth partner, which is the UK, already has its own system and a tradition of funding urban development. The fifth partner, Romania, postponed the decision until 2013, when there will be greater certainty about the future of Cohesion Policy.

38 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice Added Value of Cohesion Policy: Current Generation of Cohesion Policy Programmes J4C was launched with a view to providing new opportunities for managing authorities responsible for the current generation of cohesion policy programmes by: • Raising the productivity of SF and public funds by making use of innovative and revolving financial instruments in the urban sector (complementary to grant financing); • Ensuring long-term sustainability through the revolving character of the Structural Funds’ contribution to UDF specialising in investing in Urban Projects; • Creating greater incentives for successful implementation by beneficiaries, by combining loans and other financial instruments; • Leveraging additional resources for PPP and other projects for urban development with a focus on sustainability and recyclability in the regions of the EU; • Bringing together financial and managerial expertise from specialist institutions such as EIB, CEB, other International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and other financial institutions.

Integrated Development and Lessons Learned: Projects and Proposals Are Considered in Relation to One Another The main challenges with J4C implementation as applied in Romania were: 1. The only Operational Programme (OP) with specific financial allocation for growth poles is the Regional Operational Programme, which has Priority Axis 1 Support meaning that € 74,3 million has been put in place for sustainable development of urban growth poles for Brasov for the programming period of 2007-2013. This axis has complementarities with other OPs, yet other OPs do not have allocations per growth pole, which results in a lack of predictability as to the level of funding that could be attracted into a Holding Fund for Brasov growth pole; other urban funds than those specified under this axis are spent on a competitive basis, organised at national level; According to the latest information, 18% of funds allocated to ROPs have been contracted out, but no projects have been submitted under Axis 1 .This fact coupled with a general structural funds absorption level of around 10% potentially creates the scenario for doubting the success of a JESSICA instrument – as there seems to be little incentive for attracting urban funding in the form of grants with the obvious advantage of not needing to return the funding, interest in the JESSICA instrument should be built on other strong premises and a very important counterpart in such a discussion is without doubt the Authority for Structural Funds Coordination (ASFC); 2. A clear question to be answered is what steps the ASFC and the MAs have taken hitherto to make effective the stipulations of the Government Decision no. 998/2008 designating the national growth poles that have priority for investments to be made from national or EU funds. Article 3 of this Decision says “the Ministry of Development, Public Works and Housing as well as the Ministry of Economy and Finance coordinate the drafting and implementing of the integrated development plans for national growth poles mentioned at article 1 by involving all central public administration authorities relevant for the implementation of policies in the field of growth poles, especially those Ministries that include MAs for EU programs”. Only the ROP has already ear- marked money for growth poles – if the funding of UDF(s) and/or HF from other OPs is feasible and recommended, then there will be even stronger grounds for discussing with other MAs the possibility of allocating funds in their OPs for growth poles;

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 39 3. Projects preliminarily selected from the Urban Integrated Development Plan need to be mature enough to comply with all relevant urban regulations (feasibility studies, approvals from different authorities, etc.). The maturity of a project is an essential criterion for determining whether the project in question has access to a UDF (as it must comply with the maturity requirements of the structural instruments); 4. Difficult situation on the credit market and restrictive requirements of banks acting as creditors may limit the potential for obtaining debt financing for projects; 5. The scope of interest in JESSICA will probably overlap in some areas with the use of other funds on the market (e.g. national programmes for energy efficiency, loans from the EBRD, World Bank, etc). This should not be a problem even if existing funds are capable of offering more favourable financing conditions. JESSICA may remain an additional financing source and could finance projects which for any reason do not stand a chance of finding financial support from other sources or which cannot be fully funded by these funds; 6. The lack of expertise in the Brasov Region with regards to the financial vehicles for urban development, and, hence, complex analyses for selecting best administrators for future UDFs or HFs, formed a problem; 7. Another problem was the lack of mature projects from the technical and financial point of view in Brasov, on a local as well as at national level; 8. The main entities that may be able to engage in the JESSICA initiative as fund managers are banks and institutions professionally managing funds. The participation of other organisations established by public administration entities for the purpose of UDF management would require changes in the statutes of those organisations; 9. The market assessment and identification of potential participants in JESSICA should apply to: i) Romanian and international banks as well as other commercial financial institutions; ii) International financial institutions; iii) Public administration (local government and MAs); iv) Various kinds of investment funds; v) Professional institutions managing funds that invest in real property; vi) Land developers; vii) Non-financial institutions supporting the processes of urban regeneration and development.

Suggested (Web) Resources • Website J4C http://urbact.eu/en/projects/disadvantaged-neighbourhoods/jessica-4-cities/ • Website Urbact http://urbact.eu/

This text relies on helpful comments by Kristina Creosteanu of the J4C project in Brasov, Romania, as well as the website of J4C.

40 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice In the Spotlight… Mr. Paul Bevan

In the spotlight... Mr. Paul Bevan, Secretary General of EUROCITIES, the network of major European cities bringing together the local governments of more than 130 large cities in over 30 European countries. EUROCITIES has argued in favour of an ambitious urban dimension in the future Cohesion Policy, with a greater role for cities in developing and implementing programmes.

What do you feel would be the most important changes in order to give cities a stronger profile in Cohesion Policy? “The most important change would be to really give cities a place at the table, involve them as real partners. Article 5 of the new regulations mentions enhanced partnerships with urban areas involved in the preparation of the Partnership Contracts and progress reports and in the preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Operational Programmes. This is along the lines of what EUROCITIES has requested. Cities must be involved in deciding on priorities and developing programmes of action to maximise their effectiveness on the ground.

In its statement in June this year, EUROCITIES requested that the European Commission elaborate guidelines for Member States to work in partnership with cities. Each Member State could then draw up a list of cities in its own national context which would be the key enablers and drivers to deliver EU2020 on the ground, namely those that are: • Cooperating strategically with their metropolitan areas; • Driving growth and innovation for their regions and beyond; • Dealing with urgent and long-term climate challenges; and • Actively facilitating inclusion and social mobility.

The new proposed structural funds regulations contain an article that mentions this list of cities, but it is not very clear how these will be selected and it is important to avoid arbitrary choices. We would welcome clear guidelines from the European Commission on this and would be happy to work with the Commission to develop them.

One of the most important changes in the new regulations is the introduction of possibilities for the delegation of funding to cities. We hope the new provisions will allow urban Operational Programmes (OPs) or sub-OPs supported through global grants or similar funding instruments to delegate funding. The provision on integrated territorial investments (ITIs) in particular seems to offer cities increased possibilities in terms of more delegated funding. It is also a novelty to set a minimum of ERDF funding that should be dedicated to urban ITIs. However, 5% does not seem much in compari- son with the challenges cities face on their way to sustainable urban development. Concerning global grants, due attention needs to be given to the proportionality between the size of the grant and the effort required to administer it at city level as well as the given challenges it targets.”

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 41 How could cities be supported to take up this role, given that regions have been strong players in Cohesion Policy for many years? “Specific provisions on the involvement of cities would support them, as also mentioned above. For instance, concerning the article on partnership in the new regulations, we need to make sure that cities themselves are really involved in the partnership, and not just through their national association of cities. Cities – both via their national network organisations and their political leaders directly – must be involved in deciding on priorities and developing action programmes to maximise their effectiveness on the ground. As the level of political representation closest to the citizens, city leaders know how best to manage and coordinate actions to deliver results in their territories.

More support for coordinating funds is also needed. In the current period, for many cities implementing integrated development, the structure of EU policies and programmes can lead to sub-optimal use of EU funding. Better coordination between EU funds, in particular the ERDF and the ESF, would help to join up physical, economic and social development at the local level. Our reading of the structural funds regulations is that this should be easier in the future.

Another important means of supporting cities is through financial engineering. There is scope to improve existing tools, as well as to develop new ones in order to maximise the potential of Cohesion Poli- cy. An ambitious urban agenda needs an urban tool fit for purpose: with a clear, decentralised structure, and simplified regulations, allowing direct access by cities. The framework needs to be sufficiently coherent and flexible to adapt to national circumstances and must have a clear communications strategy.”

What are the most important current debates about the future of Cohesion Policy? “The overall debate about the urban dimension in the next round of structural funds is, of course, from our perspective, one of the most important ones. EUROCITIES has argued in favour of an ambitious urban dimension to delivering thematic priorities as offering more scope for integrated area- based measures, planned and managed locally.

Another important issue concerns conditionality, and in particular macro-conditionality. EUROCITIES members believe that it is fair to establish conditionality based on performance. The proposed structural funds regulations reinforce the need to take an integrated approach and involve cities. Thus, it should be a condition of the Commission’s approval that Member States can demonstrate that their cities were directly involved in drawing up National Reform Programmes and Partnership Contracts.

Wherever an integrated approach has a clear advantage over sectoral approaches, conditionality could be helpful. In such cases the level of evidence should be proportional to the size of the budget. However, it is not fair to cut funding off from cities because of the failure of national governments to implement agreed measures linked to EU economic governance.”

What in your opinion is the most positive contribution of Cohesion Policy to urban development? “Cohesion Policy has favoured the development of innovative policies and projects that would not have been possible with traditional national sources of funding. This has helped to strengthen urban regeneration, tackle social deprivation and up-skill the labour force. Thus, Cohesion Policy has had a real impact on our cities and the people who live in them.

42 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice In the new draft regulations, the new provisions on community-led-development or on integrated territorial investments should allow for more innovative partnerships to be developed at various levels of intervention, and this would really allow for the strengthening of integrated urban development. EUROCITIES has advocated the need to support a more variable geography, and in particular the potential of functional areas with cities at their core, to drive forward integrated development in the wider area, in close partnership with the relevant stakeholders. This could be done through a man- datory partnership approach within each thematic priority. The framework at EU level should make it possible for funds that promote integrated local development to be channelled to functional area cooperation, on the basis of an agreement between the hub city (or cities) and its surrounding areas. Operational Programmes should support the appropriate functional partnerships for delivery. These partnerships should be driven by the local level. This would really support the development of innovative policies.”

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 43

Sustainable Case Studies

• Revitalising Two Parks in the Karlín District of Prague (Czech

Republic)

• East London Eco-Hub: A Model for Urban Environmental

Change (United Kingdom)

• CATCH-MR: Cooperative Approaches to Transport Challenges

(Hungary)

• The Construction of the First Metro Line in Warsaw (Poland)

• Urban Regeneration Projects in Nicosia (Cyprus)

• Ecopôle: An Eco-Friendly Development Project (France) Revitalisation of the Invalidovna Park and Kaizlovy Sady Gardens in the Karlín District of Prague

Karlín at a glance:

Practice Revitalisation of the Invalidovna Park and Kaizlovy Sady Gardens in the Karlín district of Prague

Duration of the project November 2010 – April 2011

Area Prague 8, Karlín (Czech Republic)

Funding The project was funded largely by the EU, namely the OPPK (Operational Prague competitiveness programme, which is funded by the European Regional Development Fund). As laid down in the rules of this particular programme, the Prague 8 municipal office funded 7.5% of the project itself, 7.5% was funded by the Prague city council and 85% of the eligible costs were funded by the OPPK.

The project was aimed at revitalising two parks within Prague after they both suffered considerable damage during the floods in 2002, as well as providing the inhabitants of Karlín with leisure opportunities and cultivated green space. The target group is mainly children, mothers with children, senior citizens as well as other residents and dog owners.

Issue: Green Space Remained Limited and Neglected The Karlín area of Prague 8 suffered enormous damage by flooding in 2002. Over the past nine years most of the houses, office buildings and infrastructure have been rebuilt by means of foreign and domestic monetary aid (European Investment Bank, State Housing Development Fund). At the same time, new housing projects and business parks were built, expanding the local population. Despite these new developments, green space remained limited and neglected. On the basis of demographic research, the Prague 8 municipal office decided to renovate the existing green space in Karlín – the Invalidovna Park and Kaizlovy Sady Gardens, with the aid of available EU funding.

Approach: Revamping the Park for the People The damaged and unsuitable vegetation was supplemented by new and dendrologically (meaning the scientific study of trees and other woody plants) valuable trees and plants. The function of the newly planted vegetation is mainly decorative and ecological. However, it also provides relaxation opportunities for visitors. The old playground was enlarged and renewed, while new, certified equip- ment was installed (merry-go-round, swings, a jungle gym, slide, drawing boards, etc.) to help children develop physical co-ordination, strength and flexibility, as well as providing recreation and enjoyment. Pétanque grounds were also added to provide leisure opportunities for adults and older children.

Both the revitalised parks were designed to fit into the surrounding area of late 19th and early 20th-century housing. The architects were inspired by historical drawings and maps and rede-

46 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice signed the damaged parks accordingly. Both parks were fitted with historical replicas of lamps, benches and bins.

A low-maintenance technologically advanced automatic irrigation system was installed. Security in the area is ensured by CCTV cameras targeting the inside of the parks as well as the surrounding streets.

Results: More Visitors to the Invalidovna Park and Kaizlovy Sady Gardens The success of the project can be determined by increased visitor rates. Official statistical data have not yet been collected; however, the parks are visibly more used than they were before.

Influence of Cohesion Policy: Merging the Old and Grand with the Gleaming and Modern It is unlikely that the project would have been realised to the extent to which it has without EU funding. The cost of the revitalisation was high, and the Prague 8 municipal office would most probably have struggled to find funding itself.

One of the largest brown field sites in Prague lies just a stone’s throw away from the parks. For the next twenty years extensive construction will take place in the area, creating a modern living and working space. The two parks will not only add to the value of the area but also add a breath of history to the otherwise highly modern development on the other side of the road, merging the old and grand with the gleaming and modern.

Integrated Development: Essential to Design the Parks in order to Preserve the Cultural Heritage of the Area As mentioned above, the project will lie near to a vast new development of housing and office space as well as further leisure areas for the future residents of this part of Karlín. It will also integrate the current flood barrier which has been erected as a result of the floods in 2002. The flood barrier itself is not just a mere stone wall impeding the view of the river, but it is a cycling path elevated to a higher level in such a way that it serves as a flood barrier too.

From the perspective of the conservation authorities, it was essential to design the parks according to historical precedents in order to preserve the cultural heritage of the area. On the other hand the architects and gardening experts wished to create a useful modern space intended for contemporary life for the inhabitants of Karlín. Looking back in history, this was a rather poor area. However, in the 20th century a lot of new bourgeois housing was built, establishing a cultural and social hub in this part of Prague. It was essential to realise the project in tune with the historical value of the area. It has not been possible to plan the parks exactly as the architects originally intended owing to the conservation authorities. However, given unofficial data, the end users seem to be satisfied with the results. Even tropical freshwater fish were added to the small pond.

Spin-offs: Revitalising a Third Park in the Karlín Area There is a park in the Karlín area other than the Invalidovna Park and Kaizlovy Sady Gardens. It is on the main Karlín square – effectively the centre of this particular district. The original plan included

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 47 the revitalisation of this park too; however, due to unresolved land ownership issues this part of the project was abandoned. These issues have since been resolved, and the Prague 8 municipal office intends to revitalise the third park in Karlín. Currently, plans are being drafted with the intention of creating a modern, exciting and communal environment in the middle of Karlín, including a top of the range playground for local children. EU funding for this park too will be sought.

Added Value: Working with Residents on Future Improvements Currently this is the only green space in the area of Karlín which has been revitalised since the floods. The local residents do not have any other opportunities to enjoy some greenery and peaceful space unless they travel to other parts of Prague or out of town altogether. Therefore it was important for the City of Prague to fulfil residents’ idea of green leisure space. The city intends to work with the locals on future improvements of the area.

Lessons Learned: Essential to Cooperate with Interest Groups The most important lesson was that it is essential to cooperate with interest groups and various associations in the area. The project was, after all, intended for the end users – the inhabitants of Karlín, their children and pets. It is therefore vital to include their ideas and visions early in the planning stage.

Suggested (Web) Resources • Website Prague 8 http://www.praha8.cz • Website EUKN Czech Republic http://www.eukn.org/Czechia/cz_en/

This text relies on helpful comments by Petra Hainzová, Head of Department at Prague 8 Municipal Office.

48 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice East London Eco-Hub: A Model for Urban Environmental Change

The Eco-hub at a glance:

Practice East London Eco-hub

Duration of the project April 2011 – April 2012

Area United Kingdom, London

Funding ERDF and local co-funding

The Brownfield estate in Poplar houses over 1,000 residents and is of great architectural significance. Brownfield is on the verge of benefiting from a major regeneration programme led by the social land- lord, Poplar Harca and Leaside Regeneration, and is the site of the East London C-Change Eco-hub. C-Change is a transnational territorial cooperation project with a total of nine partners originating from the United Kingdom, Germany, The Netherlands, France and Luxembourg . Within this project, national, regional and local government players cooperate, representing city regions with major economic significance. C-Change pursues three aims: • Community engagement and behavioural change; • Creating multi-functional spaces; • Adapting spatial planning strategies to prepare city regions to mitigate climate change.

Issue: Demonstrating Energy Efficiency and Sustainability and Countering Climate Change A key project of C-Change is the East London Eco-hub. The project aims to demonstrate how energy efficiency, sustainable energy production and countering climate change can be achieved. Resistant landscaping can be retro-fitted to a historic building facing restrictions in relation to building structure and planning controls. Apart from the environmental goals, social objectives are also incorporated into the project: local inhabitants in a deprived part of East London are stimulated to take an active role in the project in order to become ambassadors for climate change technologies and energy efficiency measures within their own homes and communities.

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 49 The project thus distinguishes three main objectives: • Demonstrating practical responses to climate change; • Adapting spatial planning strategies; • Building stronger communities.

Approach: Eco-Hub Acting as a Model for Sustainability The Eco-hub will act as a model of sustainability, incorporating the latest eco-technology, such as sustainable materials and a low carbon design philosophy. When the building is completed, it will also house a permanent exhibition on climate change. The garden will demonstrate practical responses to climate change, including drought resistant planting approaches, grey water reuse, sustainable urban drainage systems and local food growing. This way it can be demonstrated how micro-green infrastructure and associated green buildings can be adapted to meet the Climate Change challenge.

The Eco-hub can be used for educational and development programmes aimed at the local community, especially young people. Young people play a central role in the creation of the eco-hub through the development of a youth steering group, which will advise on the detailed design and implementation of the project.

Project Targets: a View on the Future As the Eco-hub started in 2011 and will still be running until April 2012, the results are as yet un- known. At this stage targets are formulated: • To demonstrate a positive contribution to the reduction in carbon emissions by retrofitting a historic building; • To save on the energy bills for this community resource; • To give young people in this deprived part of East London new skills and confidence to take measures to reduce carbon emissions in their own homes and neighbourhoods; • To transform a concrete space into a thriving community garden, resistant to climate change; • To create a climate change education centre and demonstration model for the local community and visitors from surrounding communities and further afield; • To accomplish a positive change in the environmental behaviour of all those involved.

European Involvement and the Added Value of Cohesion Policy on the Project Cohesion Policy provided the policy framework for the Eco-hub project which focused on two priorities: “Improving wellbeing & Reducing exclusion” and “Enhancing environmental sustainability”. The policy’s place-based approach has served to embed the Eco-Hub project firmly in both a local and a London-wide context. The development of the implementation of the Eco-hub also contributes to and draws on joint cohesive responses to climate change. The project is supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) which aims to strengthen economic and social cohesion in the European Union. The project is delivered as part of the transnational Interreg IVB North-West Eu- rope, one of the financial instruments of the Cohesion Policy. Support provided by ERDF in response to the Cohesion Policy’s priorities and the resulting opportunity to develop the project in a transnational

50 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice context by C-Change have facilitated a more comprehensive approach to delivery. Cohesion Policy has helped to combine technical innovation – the retrofitting of a historic building – with addressing climate change through actions defined locally by key stakeholders and communities.

Integrated Development: The Eco-Hub Project, an Encouragement for Integrated Development A central element in the Eco-hub project is the encouragement of integrated development. Prac- titioners, landowners and local residents are stimulated to use the opportunity provided by the Brownfield renewal to integrate a programme of measures to improve energy efficiency, reduce carbon emissions and ensure that the wider estate is climate-proofed for years to come. To establish this integrative approach diverse measures are implemented: community consultation exercises, discussions with strategic decision-makers to provide a case for intervention to ensure buy-in from all stakeholders, case studies and economic arguments to communicate with the different interest groups to establish this integrative approach.

Spin offs: Thinking about Legacy The eco-hub project will end in April 2012; already there is thinking about the way the legacy can be achieved. For instance to explore the possibilities to connect the Eco-hub into a sustainability trail linked to other efforts in the local area and throughout the Olympic Legacy Park and Legacy communities. Apart from this sustainability trail, there is a search for a link between the Eco-hub and programmes of educational/inspirational visits. This way surrounding communities can be supported to visit the hub, hear the experiences of the Brownfield residents involved and take the lessons learned back to their own communities. People can be inspired to look at ways in which some of the interventions can be implemented in their own situations.

Lessons Learned: The Importance of Engagement in the Early Stage of the Project The project has only recently progressed from the planning and feasibility stages to actual implementation. Therefore, the main lessons learned to date relate to the planning stage. Historic buildings often face restrictions in relation to building structure and planning controls. A lesson learned in this project is the importance of engaging with the local planning authority from a very early stage to ensure that all the considerations are accounted for in relation to the restrictions applied to the conservation area where the building is located. A second lesson – integral to the delivery of this project – is the potential for improving disadvantaged communities’ wellbeing as well as their environmental sustainability by engaging them from the outset in the design and improvement of local resources such as the Eco-hub.

Suggested (Web) Resources • Website C-Change http://www.cchangeproject.org/elonecohub • European Regional Development Fund http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/regional/index_en.cfm

This text relies on helpful comments by Rachel Kirk and Lucy Geldard.

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 51 CATCH-MR: Cooperative Approaches to Transport Chal- lenges in Metropolitan Regions

CATCH-MR at a glance:

Practice Cooperative approaches to transport challenges in metropolitan regions

Duration of the project This project runs from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2012

Area Budapest, Cooperating with Berlin-Brandenburg, Göteborg, Ljubljana, Oslo, Rome and Vienna

Funding INTERREG IVC (ERDF), Norwegian funding and local co- financing

The efficient, reliable and sustainable delivery of transport constitutes a central requirement for economic growth. This is especially true for metropolitan regions, as these are main forces driving economic development. These regions are central nodes for local, regional and international mobility, and need to cope with rising passenger volumes.

Managing these expanding streams within a proper transport system is no easy task. Mobility systems require considerable investment, and the growth of this sector needs to achieved in such a way as to minimise environmental impacts and maximise the share of eco-friendly transport modes. Addition- ally, processes of demographic change prompt governments to develop transport services considering the needs of elderly people.

Issue: Sharing Good Practices in Sustainable Transport CATCH-MR (Cooperative Approaches to Transport Challenges in Metropolitan Regions) is an INTER- REG IVC project running from January 2010 until December 2012, with a total budget of € 2 million.

In order better to face the challenges described above, twelve partners from seven metropolitan regions are cooperating through CATCH-MR: • The City of Oslo and Akershus County Council (Norway); • The Göteborg Region Association of Local Authorities (Sweden); • The Joint Spatial Planning Department of Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany, Lead Partner); • The City of Vienna and the Provincial Administration of Lower Austria (Austria); • The Regional Development Agency of the Ljubljana Urban Region and the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (Slovenia); • The Municipality of Budapest and the Budapest Transport Association (Hungary); • The Province of Rome and the Business Innovation Centre (BIC) Lazio (Italy).

Approach: Viewing Mobility Issues from Three Different Angles These twelve partners have chosen to develop an integrated view on sustainable transport solutions. Past projects have generally been focussed on a single aspect of transport, or have been carried out

52 -Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice from a single thematic perspective. Instead, the results of CATCH-MR are being developed in three progressive steps: 1. The reduction of transport demand: reducing the need for transport within metropolitan regions through the better coordination of land use and transport planning/policies; 2. The reallocation of traffic: increasing the provision and use of public transport; and 3. Increasing the use of renewable energies in transport.

The way to develop this integrated approach is in line with the central notion of the INTERREG IVC programme. This fund aims to help the regions of Europe to work together to share experience and good practices, so that additional knowledge and potential solutions are introduced into the problem-solving strategies of policymakers.

Results: Developing a Guide on Efficient Mobility and Sustainable Growth in Metropolitan Regions The project partners aim to improve competitiveness and the quality of life in metropolitan regions. The core activities of the project comprise seven thematic workshops, covering the following topics: • Transport and land-use planning: 1. Achieving new planning solutions; 2. Understanding urban sprawl. • Encouraging the use of public transport: 3. Intermodality, park + ride, transport associations, rail as part of urban mobility; 4. Public transport priority, parking policy, road charging, financing public transport. • Renewable energy in transport: 5. Affordable technologies; 6. Developing the infrastructure. • Connecting regional and local transport policy: 7. Funding, governance and implementation.

The final results of the CATCH-MR project will be published in the “Guide on efficient mobility and sustainable growth in metropolitan regions”. This guide will be open for use by all, and will contain practical examples as well as policy recommendations which are transferable to other metropolitan regions.

Influence Cohesion Policy: New Projects Based on Lessons Learned Cohesion Policy has been the central driver facilitating this three-year, well-structured cooperation between the twelve partners in this project. As one of the partners explained, this possibility offered through INTERREG is highly valued in practice: “Especially metropolitan regions, as motors of economic development, face immense challenges in mobility planning – particularly when taking economic, ecologic and demographic aspects equally into account. In order to find optimal solutions, international knowledge exchange plays a crucial role. Each city can contribute their own know-how, while benefitting from the experiences of other metropolitan regions.”

In Budapest specifically, the opportunity to discuss bottlenecks and good practices is an important sounding board for preparing new developments in the city. An interesting development in this light is the city bike system which has been launched in Budapest. The setting up of this “BuBi” bikeshar-

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 53 ing system was based on lessons learned through this INTERREG IVC project. The system includes 73 docking stations city wide, from which bicycles can be rented on a self-service basis.

Furthermore, the Koki intermodal node is currently under development; this is a node where passengers can change between tram, train, bus and car use. Beside this hub a new shopping mall is being build, and input from the project will serve to make this node more passenger friendly.

Integrated Development: Getting to Grips with Interactions between Land Use and Transport Planning The thematic workshops that are being organised in each metropolitan region are important tools. During these meetings, all partners present and discuss positive and negative developments in their area relating to a specific topic of one of the workshops. The presentations provided all partners with detailed information on the way many issues, such as P+R facilities or transport organisations, are organised in other places.

Within Budapest, the exchange of knowledge and experience inspired project managers to approach developments in a more integrated fashion. In particular relations between land-use planning and transport planning are being explored more thoroughly, and their respective logics will be integrated in future developments. Budapest itself inputted a lot of information on do’s & don’ts in the field of Park + Ride facilities and the influence of political heritage on the current local transport system.

Spin-offs: A Political Recommendation on Directions for Future Transport Planning One of the motivations of Budapest in joining CATCH-MR is to develop a new infrastructural project based on all the information and good and bad practices gained through the INTERREG IVC project. The outlines of this project have not been sketched, but results from CATCH-MR will support a political recommendation which will summarise the most important policy directions to political decision makers. On the basis of these recommendations new projects will be developed.

Lessons Learned: Although Differences between Cities Exist, Many Practical Tips Can Be Shared An issue that emerged from the exchange of knowledge and experience was that problems in Buda- pest are sometimes on a different level from problems in other cities. For instance, one of the sub- topics relates to using (more) renewable energy in transport. Given the problems that are being expe- rienced in Budapest in running the bus fleet, this specific topic is unfortunately a bridge too far. Even so, as CATCH-MR consists also of several other matters the City of Budapest still benefits from many other inputs in very practical ways, for instance in the Kóki and BuBi developments.

Suggested (Web) Resources • Website CATCH-MR www.catch-mr.eu • Website INTTERG IVC http://i4c.eu

This text relies on helpful comments of Veronika Szemere, Municipality of the City of Budapest.

54 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice The Construction of the First Metro Line in Warsaw

The first metro line in Warsaw at a glance:

Practice The first Metro Line at the Section from the B20 Route to the A23 Młociny Metro Station, including Holding Tracks systems for the Młociny Communication Node 1

Duration of the The project started in June 2004. The implementation phase project of the project ended in October 2008.

Area Poland, the City of Warsaw

Funding ERDF, local and regional co-funding

In October 2008 the first underground system in Warsaw became a reality. It improved the overall efficiency of the public transport system in the capital city and offers many possibilities to travellers. The project completed the first integrated passenger transport node in Warsaw to optimise transfer between underground, trams and buses. Another innovative element of the project was the introduction of a new parking construction, “the Park &Ride” system. The system provides free parking for those with public transport tickets.

Issue and Objective: Modernising Public Transportation in Warsaw As early as in 1927, the first plans for constructing a metro line connecting the southern part to the northern districts of the city were developed. The first construction activities began in 1983 with the first section opening in 1995. However, it was not until 2004 that follow-up to the development plan was started. The collapse of the communist regime and the limited availability of funds postponed the whole process. The City of Warsaw has a population of nearly two million inhabitants, and every day approximately 550,000 people use the Warsaw underground. High quality public transport and a rapid transit network between buses, metro line and trams are of great importance. In other words, the overall objective of the project was to modernise the public transport networks in Warsaw. It is expected that the passenger flows using the node will increase once the construction of Warsaw’s Northern Bridge Route -which crosses the Vistula river (Wisła)- has been finished.

The project concerned the construction of the northern section of Warsaw Metro Line 1, and in particular the construction of the Młociny communication node. In total, four metro stations (“Słodowiec”, “Stare Bielany”, “Wawrzyszew” and ”Młociny”), as well as four route sections connecting the above- mentioned stations and holding tracks have been built. The Młociny node is one of the largest communication nodes in Poland. It contains a tram and bus terminus, a multi-storey car park, and the necessary connections between individual elements of the node and the “Młociny” station.

Approach: Innovative Tools for Synchronised Land Use The development of the Bielany section of the Warsaw underground system was carried out by the Capital City of Warsaw and The Public Transport Authority, an organisational unit. The Metro

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 55 Warszawskie company acted as a substitute investor. The open-cast method (a technique which re- moves rocks or minerals from the ground by using an open pit), which is cheaper than tunnelling, was applied during the construction phase of the project. The implementation of the project was made possible thanks to appropriate spatial planning and well prepared land reserve plans.

Results: A Considerable Improvement in Public Transport Services The project has already significantly improved transport services in the northern and southern districts of the capital city. These positive results will be further reinforced as a complementary project will be implemented involving the Northern Bridge Route. The following results have been achieved since the completion of Warsaw’s first metro line: • The development of four metro stations and public communication stops; • 3.87 kilometres of metro line and 1,032 parking spaces; • The attraction of travelling by public transport has increased and the journey time has reduced by eleven minutes; • Passenger safety and comfort have improved and the number of passengers has grown; • Road traffic congestion has decreased due to the more frequent use of public transport and at the same time road traffic safety has been improved; • The accessibility of public transport has been adjusted to the needs of disabled travellers.

EU Involvement and the Added Value of Cohesion Policy on the Project The project was achieved within the framework of the ERDF’s Sectoral Operational programme Trans- port. The EU co-funding covered 320 million zloty (about € 6.6 million) of the total costs (1 billion zloty or € 20.6 million). Cohesion Policy has positively influenced the project, as it would have been completed later without this EU support. The City of Warsaw was in great need of modernisation and the improvement of its mobility system. It was felt to be vital to make the city more attractive, and to gain European-wide recognition.

Furthermore, Cohesion Policy directly contributed to the speed and comfort of Warsaw’s public transport system. As a result, it improved the quality of life in the city and ensured sufficient transport services. But in view of the UEFA EURO 2012, the local funds allocated to the metro line would have been greatly reduced, and thus it would have postponed the overall investment in developing the metroline. Obtaining EU support ensured the timely completion of the project.

The completion of the first metro line stimulated economic growth and improved access to infrastructure. In addition, all actions taken to complete the project were in full compliance with horizontal EU policies. In particular, special attention was given to environmental protection. The underground does not generate noise or environmental pollution, nor does it occupy land or damage landscapes. Moreover, it reduces road transport and limits the consumption of fossil fuels.

Integrated Urban Development: More Investments in Green Areas Several elements of the project promote integrated urban development. For instance, the “Park and Ride” system stimulates competition between individual and public transport. Furthermore, the establishment of the first metro line fostered the revitalisation of post-industrial areas, especially in the Žoliborz and Bielany districts. Providing a faster and more comfortable means of transport con-

56 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice necting the northern Warsaw districts to the city centre encouraged many residents of the capital to move to these outlying districts. As a result, it enriched the development of the service sector. The underground, as a modern and environmentally friendly way of travelling, also prompted the district authorities to invest more in urban green areas.

The project corresponds to the key principles of the Commission Communication: “Towards a The- matic Strategy on the Urban Environment” and promotes sustainable transport for the following reasons: • Public transport will be of greater significance and eventually discourage transport by car; • The underground construction will directly lead to greater traffic safety, as it reduces road transport; • The construction has a positive environmental impact.

Furthermore, the project conforms to the “EU Equal Opportunities Policy”, as the transport network is accessible by every citizen. Specific facilities have been developed for less mobile passengers.

Spin offs: The Construction of a Second Metro Line Following the completion of the first metro line, the local government decided to continue investing in public transport. An example of this is the development of a second underground system, which will connect the Warsaw Wola district to the Vilinius Station (Dworzec Wilenski) in the eastern Praga

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 57 district. In September 2011 a financial agreement was signed between the EU and the Warsaw city authorities for the construction of the central section of the line. It is expected that this will be the largest local government project nationwide, and its construction will be finished in 2014. Another infrastructure project which is currently under development is the “Northern Bridge Route” with road and public transport possibilities (tramway tracks) connecting the north-western and north-eastern districts. This investment will improve communication standards in the whole of the northern part of Warsaw and will integrate the areas located on the two banks of the Vistula river.

Lessons Learned: A Positive Assessment of the Project On the whole, the EU contribution optimised the entire implementation of the project. Obtaining the exact budget requested was an additional positive outcome. As a result, the project was positively as- sessed, in both substantive and financial terms. However, certain difficulties arose during the implementation phase of the project, among which were: • Fluctuations in market prices; • An increase in the project’s cost; • Amendments to national laws; • Technical obstacles to establishing the communication node.

It is however to be expected that in a multi-year project not everything will develop according to plan, and even in these new circumstances the metroline has been finished.

Suggested (Web) Resources • Website City of Warsaw, the Public Transport Authority www.ztm.waw.pl/?c=126&l=2 • The website of the Metro Warszawskie www.metro.waw.pl

This text relies on helpful comments of the City of Warsaw administration.

58 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice Urban Regeneration Projects in Nicosia

Urban Regeneration Projects in Nicosia at a glance:

Practice Urban Regeneration Project Nicosia Municipality

Duration of the project The project started in 2004, and will finish in 2013

Area Nicosia

Funding ERDF (URBAN II and the current funding period), ESF and national co-funding

Nicosia is the capital of Cyprus and the political, cultural, educational and religious centre of the country. Nicosia is also the last divided city in Europe. According to the constitution of Cyprus, the city has to be divided into a Greek Cypriot and a Turkish Cypriot area. The “Bufferzone” divides the city into two urban areas. Because of this division the two parts have developed separately in the past, causing significant differences for instance in economic development. In 1979, the representatives of the Greek and Turkish areas agreed on closer cooperation in preparing a common Master Plan. This Master Plan has the aim of developing a unified Nicosia.

Issue: Upgrading the Historical City Centre of Nicosia The Nicosia Urban Regeneration project is based on the objectives and framework of this common Master Plan combined with the Nicosia local Plan. The overall objective of the regeneration programme, closely linked to these two plans, is the establishment of an integrated regeneration process for Nicosia. Central issues are the sustainable urban regeneration of the historic core of the walled city of Nicosia and the integrated development of the city outside the historic Venetian walls. A number of regeneration and development projects in the historic centre, other traditional cores and in the wider central area have been implemented or are scheduled for implementation. Furthermore, planning and projects for the enhancement of public transport and other sustainable mobility modes are currently underway. All these policies and projects address issues of social and economic cohesion through programmes which target weak social groups.

Approach: Eight Core Principles For the redevelopment of the centre of Nicosia, eight principles have been established which should promote the integrated sustainable regeneration of the area: • A compact city model will be promoted; • The inter-relationships between economic development, social inclusion, the protection of the environment and innovative institutional tools will be explored; • The efficient use of land by means of a higher density of development, mixed uses and the reuse of vacant and underused existing building stock will be promoted, as opposed to allowing urban sprawl; • To create vibrant spaces, mixed use developments in locations that allow for the creation of links between different functions will be pursued;

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 59 • Mobility principles that reduce the need to travel and encourage accessible public transport provision will be implemented; • New provisions for open spaces, sports and recreation will be located in accessible places which can be reached on foot, by bicycle or public transport rather than just by private car; • Special attention will be given to the protection and rehabilitation of heritage buildings; • Derelict and brownfield locations in the industrial area will be redeveloped for more contemporary functions.

Results: Effects of Separate Projects Reinforce Each Other The implemented projects achieving the principles stated above have significantly upgraded the physical urban environment and improved the architectural heritage within it. Open public spaces have been redesigned to introduce a high quality of design, materials and urban furniture, thus improving the quality of life for residents and visitors. Examples of projects implemented are the “Children’s Educational Center” in the walled city of Nicosia, and a cultural center “The Mill’’ in Kai- makli historic core.

The upgrading of the public utility infrastructure has created an attractive environment for new businesses and residential use, which is further supported by the improvement in public transport and other sustainable mobility modes.

Influence Cohesion Policy: Speedy and High Quality Implementation The main urban infrastructure projects, such as the restoration and re-use of historic buildings and façades, upgrading the public utility infrastructure and the public transportation system, were co- funded by the ERDF (approximately € 39 million) and Republic of Cyprus funds. Social projects which aim to implement cohesion and social inclusion policies have been co-funded by the ESF (approximately € 90,000) as well as national funding.

Without Cohesion Policy the projects would not have been achieved with the quality they have been. The urban environment in the project area has been significantly improved with high quality design, materials, infrastructure and urban furniture. Social programs have helped immigrants and other vulnerable social groups acquire language and computer skills while providing child care facilities to enable them to enter the local work force.

Cohesion funding allowed a speedy implementation as well. Combined with the higher quality, the speed with which the projects could be developed allowed the city to benefit from the positive

60 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice impacts much sooner than would otherwise have been possible. Furthermore, Cohesion Policy has brought the planning of developments in the urban environment to a higher level due to the structured and targeted manner through which projects within this policy are planned and carried out.

Integrated Development: Improvements in the Urban Environment, Infrastructure and Social Inclusion The various projects completed or under implementation during the two EU Structural Funds programming periods have revived the potential and stimulated the interest of various stakeholders and development forces in the city. The implementation of projects supported by both ERDF and ESF has produced a synergy which maximised the effect of European and State funds in favour of integrated development, which shows in terms of an upgraded urban environment and infrastructure. The implementation of social programmes has supported the social inclusion of various groups in the city.

In additionally, Nicosia is one of the 66 cities involved in the testing phase of the “Reference Frame- work for Sustainable Cities”. Through this instrument, it is possible to review the degree to which local developments are integrated, and how improvements can be made.

Spin-offs: More Interest from Private Investors The implementation of the co-funded projects has led to more interest from private investors in the walled city and in other adjacent historic cores. Such investment includes the restoration of private residences, the upgrading of existing businesses and the start-up in the historic urban centre of SMEs like coffee shops, boutiques, and traditional crafts shops.

The strong interest shown by academic institutions such as colleges and universities in locating some of their departments in the historic urban core reinforces the regeneration efforts. Cultural development has been boosted too: a range of cultural events is organised in the city, utilising the restored architectural heritage and the enhanced open public spaces.

Suggested (Web) Resources • Nicosia Municipality http://www.lefkosia.org.cy/

This text relies on helpful comments of Athina Papadopoulou, planning officer at Nicosia Municipality.

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 61 Ecopôle: An Eco-Friendly Development Project

Ecopôle at a glance:

Practice Ecopôle: an Eco-construction Park

Duration of the project November 2010 - March 2012

Area France

Funding ERDF, local and private co-funding

In Carrières-sous-Poissy, about 30 kilometres west of Paris, an ambitious eco-friendly development project has been launched: the “Ecopôle”. It is part of the large scale Integrated Urban Project (IUP) entitled Seine Aval and focuses on economic development through eco-construction activities. The main objective is to facilitate and promote the accommodation of businesses primarily dedicated to eco-construction. This includes for instance companies or SMEs that specialise in thermal solar energy, in innovative thermal insulation, or in installing green roofs and timber frames.

Issue: A New Economic Sector in Carrières-sous-Poissy The Eco-construction Park is the gateway to the Ecopôle and a showcase of the approach initiated by the 2 Rives de Seine agglomeration community (CA2RS). The area has a population of 63,500 and it is characterised by several issues, among which is a high level of unemployment. As this Park will be accommodating several new companies, it is expected to create new jobs in the area.

Approach: A Combined Effort by Public and Private Parties This project is based on a public-private partnership involving the local government (the Départe- ment and the Regional Council) and the EPAMSA, an organisation in charge of spatial planning financed by public and private funds. As the area is known as “difficult” it has been a great boost to the project that a private sector partner (SEMIIC Promotion) has been found willing to develop the area in close cooperation with the local government. In areas such as these, this is quite un- common.

This € 4.1 million project is divided into three phases: • A phase developed by CA2RS which will benefit from the € 1.4 million ERDF funding; • The creation by EPAMSA of business premises (3,000 sq. metres) aimed at small and medium enterprises (SMEs); • A conditional property development phase of 2,979 square metres to be carried out by the private developer SEMIIC Promotion.

The Eco-construction Park is beginning to attract SMEs: the three parties mentioned above have already been contacted by SMEs wishing to be accommodated in the new park.

62 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice Objectives: Getting a Step ahead in Eco-Construction The opening of the Eco-construction Park is planned for March 2012. Its main objectives are to: • Develop an area with a high level of knowledge on eco-construction and environmentally friendly building; • Demonstrate the value of eco-construction and sustainability in a mixed business park project by taking into account as many environmental concerns as possible; • Create a unique site in the Ile-de-France region, hosting businesses working in the fields of housing construction or renovation as part of a sustainable development approach.

European Involvement and the Added Value of Cohesion Policy on the Project The development area is located close to a difficult urban area with a high level of unemployment. Local governments decided to boost the economy of the area by focusing on economic development through eco-construction and eco-industrial processes. An example of such a process is an industry which collects old clothing and transforms it into a special insulation material called “Métisse”.

The Seine Aval territory had already benefited from two URBAN Initiatives for the refurbishment of its urban area. Based on the Lisbon Strategy the idea is to promote and to benefit from economic growth in innovative fields. The support of the ERDF has been crucial for the commitment of CA2RS to this project. It has furthermore helped to include a private investor in the project, which is highly unusual in an area such as Carrières-sous-Poissy.

Integrated Development: Sustainable Development Based on Activities in the Ecopôle The project is part of the IUP Seine Aval which is a programme coordinated by EPAMSA. Sustainable development and promotion of the eco-construction processes is an important issue within this programme, and several projects in the Seine Aval territory have been developed in that direction. The Eco-construction Park is one of the biggest projects of this programme and the aim is to be the showcase of local government involvement in sustainable development policies. Many projects in the region aim at sustainable development, the construction of at least 2,500 houses per year and transport development. Eco-construction and eco-industry are ways in which those objectives can be achieved, and the results of the Eco-construction park can support these further developments.

Lessons Learned: Political Commitment Is Necessary to Involve Private Partners The main lesson learned is that by involving public-private partnerships in a project, things can move forward faster. To ensure that a project is coherent large enough to have an impact, there needs to be a strong political commitment (such as is incorporated in the regional Seine Aval protocol) that will reassure private developers.

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 63 Suggested (Web) Resources • Website Établissement Public d’Aménagement du Mantois Seine Aval http://www.epamsa.fr • Website Mission Europe Urbain http://www.europe-urbain.org/wo/site/public/v_fr/webop!/accueil/index_v2011.php

This text relies on helpful comments by Angélina Azanza, working with EPAMSA.

64 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice In the Spotlight… Petra Hainzová

In the spotlight… Petra Hainzová, project manager with the Prague 8 Municipal Office of the project for the revitalisation of Invalidovna Park and the Kaizlovy Sady Gardens in Prague. This ERDF-funded project aimed to recreate an attractive green space that meets the needs of local residents.

What do you feel are positive aspects about Structural Funding in Prague? “The Invalidovna Park and Kaizlovy Sady gardens were funded from the Operational Programme Prague Competitiveness (OPPK), which in turn is funded by the ERDF. OPPK received approximately € 235 million of EU funding, to work on four main targets: ICT and infrastructure, revitalisation of green space, brown fields and derelict areas (the strand we linked into with our parks), innovation and business and operational costs. The Operational Programme for the Environment is partly funded by the Cohesion Fund and Prague is eligible for three out of seven programme targets. We have also used funding from this source for the insulation of public buildings; but that is actually related to another project. In short, the EU-funding ensured that this coherent programme could be implemented.

Furthermore, the budget arrived in our accounts before the project started, rather than after it had been completed. In this sense project funding is made easier. With other projects we do not know for certain until after completion whether we will receive the full amount of funding or not. Prague 8 has considerable possibilities for pre-financing projects; this is however not the case for many other smaller towns or villages. Funding the entire project in advance means that loans have to be obtained from various finance institutions with no certainty of receiving the expected funding after the project has been completed. This can indeed cause difficulties to many, and may even lead to the abandonment of a project. By the use of ERDF and Cohesion funding this can be avoided.”

Do you feel there were enough opportunities for Prague to set the priorities in this project? “Yes. Our aim was to create a modern and usable green space for the residents of Karlín, to revitalise the two parks after they both suffered considerable damage during the floods in 2002, and to provide the inhabitants of Karlín with leisure opportunities and cultivated green space. The target group is mainly children, mothers with children, senior citizens as well as other residents and dog owners. As a result of the project, the parks are both visibly more occupied and residents seem to enjoy them throughout the day, and some canine residents also at night when the automatic irrigation system becomes active.

We needed to make some changes to the plan so that it would be acceptable to the historical conservation authorities. The parks are both within a historically valuable area and therefore certain rules must be adhered to. As a result, the modern aspects and design incorporated in the original plan were changed into a design that really fits the surrounding area of late 19th and early 20th century housing. The architects were inspired by historical drawings and maps and redesigned the damaged parks accordingly. Both parks were fitted with historical replicas of lamps, benches and bins. Still though, the parks are fulfilling their intended role in the way we hoped they would!”

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 65 What is your opinion on the level of local involvement? “We were responsible for the project from the beginning of the planning process to the end and for the provision of accounts to the OPPK administrators. Three partnerships with civic organisations were established prior to the implementation of the project – with a parenting and child-development centre and two nursery and primary schools from Karlín. The partners have experience with the target group (inhabitants of Karlín, mainly children) and co-operated with the Prague 8 municipal office in disseminating information about the proposed project, gathering possible suggestions from the target group and subsequent publicity and evaluation.

I do however believe that even more contact with local residents would have been beneficial. We have actually added a few features to the children’s playground only since the revitalisation was finished because we received feedback from local families, who did not think the playground included enough opportunities for very young children. I think the next time we plan a similar project, we should consider having a public debate with local residents in order to obtain their opinions and discover their requirements. After all, we intend to do things which are suitable and appropriate for them, not for pretty pictures in local magazines.”

66 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 67

Inclusive Case Studies

• La Mina Neighbourhood: Combining Urban Planning

with Social Action (Spain)

• Zambujal Melhora: A Participatory Approach for Urban

Development (Portugal)

• CIPU: National Information Unit for Urban Policy

(Luxembourg)

• The Inclusion of the Suburban Area of Aarhus

(Denmark) La Mina Neighbourhood: Combining Urban Planning with Social Action

La Mina at a glance:

Practice Transformation Plan of la Mina Neighbourhood

Duration of the project Autumn 2000 - December 2015

Area Spain, Sant Adrià de Besòs municipality in the Barcelona metropolitan area

Funding URBAN II, ERDF, ESF and local and regional co-funding

The La Mina neighbourhood is situated in the Sant Adrià de Besòs district, a municipality in the Bar- celona metropolitan area. It was built in the 1970s to offer new housing opportunities for populations living in the different slum neighbourhoods of Barcelona. However, physical, geographical, economic and social disparities existed in La Mina. In the 1980s and 1990s the first intervention plans were introduced, which aimed to ameliorate the social situation. These action plans lacked coordination however, and did not have enough capacity to respond to the long-term issues in the neighbourhood. In September 2000, a specific Consortium for the neighbourhood was established, introducing a Transformation Plan based on urban and social revitalisation.

Issue and Objective: An Integrated Intervention to Strengthen the Community For the past thirty years the La Mina neighbourhood has been characterised by high unemployment and truancy rates. The area is isolated from neighbouring municipalities and surrounded by industry. Approximately 13,000 people live in the La Mina neighbourhood, of whom a large number live below the poverty line. In general, many of the La Mina residents are poorly educated and have difficulties in finding stable jobs. Additionally, drug trafficking and consumption caused social disruption. The overall aim of the Transformation Plan – developed by the administrations involved in the Consor- tium – is to “transform the district with a global and integrated intervention in order to strengthen the community through improving social and urban issues”. For this reason, the Transformation Plan includes a wide range of economic, social, cultural and physical (urban renewal) interventions.

Approach: Constituting an Institutional Partnership The Transformation Plan for La Mina was drafted in 2001 and adopted in 2002. Initially, it was part of a statutory planning instrument, the PERM (Transformation Plan for La Mina neighbourhood). One of the key elements of the Transformation Plan is the Consortium, an institutional partnership between different levels of political administration: the municipality of Sant Adrià de Besòs (Ajuntaments), the Barcelona Provincial Council (Diputació), the City of Barcelona and the Government of Catalonia (Generalitat de Catalunya). The presidency of the consortium is shared between the Generalitat de Catalunya and Ajuntament de Sant Adrià de Besòs. The Consortium is responsible for overall coordination and the ensuring of the successful implementation of the plan. As mentioned before, objec-

70 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice tives have been set in two different action plans based on urban planning and social revitalisation. Through a communication plan managed by the Consortium, the action plans have been elaborated and disseminated widely to neighbourhood residents and local communities. Usually these residents were represented by social community associations.

The following courses of action are included in the Social Action Plan: • Training and occupational integration (e.g. Labour Network Services, job and skills training); • Balancing family and professional lives (e.g. providing child day care); • Development of the local economy (e.g. supporting local businesses); • Community participation and development; • Improving coexistence and civic-mindedness (e.g. combatting antisocial behaviour); • Social and educational support.

Physical interventions include the following: • Urban development of public spaces (e.g. new squares, streets, green areas); • Rehabilitating housing and improving access to buildings; • Creating new social housing and introducing private housing; • Providing better public transport connections to the metropolitan area of Barcelona; • Physically upgrading the coastline.

In addition, specific programmes have been developed for youngsters to upgrade their educational and professional levels, but also to improve their social skills. These programmes provide practical information and advice on how to find a job, emphasise the importance of responsibility and punctu- ality and give specific tips on how to maintain a good employer-employee relationship.

Results: Newly Developed Areas and More Job Opportunities Both action plans transformed many aspects of the neighbourhood. For instance, seventy social action programmes have already been developed and are being monitored by planning teams and social institutions. Participation by residents in the programmes took place through specifically organised dialogues, participatory workshops and informative sessions, and allowed citizens to be actively involved in decision-making procedures.

Over 6,000 people participated in Labour Network Services (one of the programmes of the Consor- tium’s Social Department) of whom 46% found jobs. In these networks, 58 enterprises are actively involved and 25 different kinds of training workshops have been provided. Furthermore, the old industrial area is transformed into an attractive new residential area with better public transport and access to surrounding municipalities of the metropolitan region. However, since the start of the global crisis, the plan has not shown the same positive results when compared to actions taken during the pre-crisis period (2001-2007); the crisis has had a specific impact on employment and poverty.

EU Involvement and the Added Value of Cohesion Policy on the Project Many of the projects of the La Mina Transformation Plan were developed as part of the URBAN II Ini- tiative (2000-2006), a programme with the purpose of stimulating social and economic regeneration of deprived urban areas in the European Union. Within this six-year period the EU contribution rep-

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 71 resented 50% of the total cost of 25.06 million Euros. The remainder was funded by the institutions representing the Consortium (the municipal administrations, County administration and the Catalan government). Within the framework of urban development projects, the ERDF contribution was extended until 2010. The total amount invested by means of ERDF funding between 2000 and 2010 was € 12.48 million which amounts to 17.26% of the total administration funds for the Transforma- tion Plan. The total amount invested using ESF funding between 2000 and 2010 was € 2.25 million, 2.96% of the costs of the Transformation Plan. Without EU funding it would not have been possible to finance all the urban and social projects which are part of the La Mina Transformation Plan. The Consortium applied for this EU funding as the plan’s goals reflect EU policy aims too. In this sense, Cohesion Policy contributed to the successful implementation of the plan.

Integrated Urban Development: A Key Component of La Mina In every step of the plan integrated strategies have been implemented. The two main action plans complemented each other; they established an attractive environment to live in and at the same time normalised the social situation in the neighbourhood. Economic objectives have been met through the support of SMEs and social integrated services to improve access to the labour market for socially excluded groups. These services not only supported economic goals, but also stimulated community building. The rehabilitation of abandoned areas combined public and private housing and stopped the development of ghettoisation. Additionally, the improved public transport network to the Barce- lona metropolitan area could stimulate employment growth, as residents of the neighbourhood have better access to the surrounding municipalities for job opportunities.

Spin offs: Recognition around the Globe The Transformation Plan is a good example of urban regeneration using integrated interventions combining physical and social issues. It has won several prizes and much recognition and it was widely disseminated among national and international forums such as the Spanish National Urbanism Award (2008), the Oxford Brookes Institute, the European Investment Bank (2008), UN Habitat (2006 and 2010), Eurocities (2005), the Italian Government, and the URBACT Regenera network.

Lessons Learned: Setting a Flexible and Adaptable Framework The establishment of the Consortium facilitated the successful implementation of the Plan. The achievements were mainly due to the strong connection between the members of the Consortium and social community groups representing the needs of the neighbourhood’s residents. The plan maintained a high degree of transparency; renewed policies and other changes incorporated into the plan were at all stages communicated to the residents. In addition, technical and personal support was provided to the residents, reflecting their demands for a participatory approach to the legal framework of the plan. Thus, local stakeholders and citizens were heavily involved and were part of the project, and therefore the Consortium was a reliable indicator for decision-making. Furthermore, it should be noted that integrated urban development projects require flexibility and adaptability in all policy fields. The multifaceted nature of such projects needs a well-planned framework which allows it constantly to adapt to changes, especially taking into account the effects of the financial crisis on vulnerable groups.

72 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice Suggested (Web) Resources • Website Consorci del barri de La Mina http://www10.gencat.cat/sac/AppJava/organisme_fitxa.jsp?codi=11715 • Website UN Habitat www.unhabitat.org • Socrates, N. (2009), La Mina www.nicholassocrates.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/la-mina/

This text relies on helpful comments of the Consorci del barri de la Mina.

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 73 Zambujal Melhora: A Participatory Approach for Urban Development

Zambujal Melhora at a glance:

Practise Zambujal Melhora

Duration of the project 2009-2011

Area Portugal, Amadora

Funding ERDF and local co-funding

The Zambujal neighbourhood in the municipality of Amadora has a population of 4,000 and is situated in one of the most competitive and attractive areas of Lisbon. Despite its good geographical location Zambujal presents a critical level of development. In the 70s and 80s, large scale social housing developments were completed to accommodate people with a variety of origins (for instance people originating from Portuguese colonies in Africa or a considerable number of Roma). In recent years the area lost the attention of the public authorities and was left to its own devices without a solid policy or strategy. Zambujal became a secluded, disadvantaged area with a social stigma which is difficult to overcome.

Issue: Zambujal, A Disadvantaged Area The Zambujal neighbourhood is characterised by derelict buildings and public spaces, segregation, unemployment, insecurity, social alienation and a low level of educational and professional qualifica- tion. In order to rehabilitate the neighbourhood, the “Zambujal Melhora” project was created. The project is structured according to three concerns: • Housing: the rehabilitation of residential buildings (exterior and common areas); • Environment and public space: the improvement and development of a sustainable neighbourhood and public space, accessible to and open for everybody, which promotes a healthy lifestyle; • Economic and social development: the creation of two Opportunity Spaces which promote activities (relating to literacy, vocational training, employment and entrepreneurship). The spaces are co-managed by the local community and local organisations.

Approach: Top-Down and Bottom-Up, a Combined Method for Working Together In the process of urban regeneration and social development in the Zambujal neighbourhood a participatory method was adopted in which local organisations and residents play an important role. To establish this key role a combination of a top-down and bottom-up approach was introduced.

In the first stage of the process the top-down approach was followed. In this stage the municipality of Amadora (public space and social development) and the National Institute for Urban Rehabilita- tion (IHRU) (housing) cooperated to develop a local action plan consisting of a strategy and specific objectives. By organising a number of workshops, engineers, social workers, academics and policy makers from local, regional and national level were consulted at this stage.

74 -Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice In the second phase the bottom-up approach was followed to incorporate local opinions into the design of the project. In a number of meetings, over a hundred different participants, for example from NGOs, the police, the church and residents, worked together to identify and formulate problems, challenges, objectives and opportunities which also resulted in a draft of a local action plan.

In the final stage, the two drafts were combined into a common strategy and Local Action Plan under the auspices of the municipality of Amadora and the National Institute for Urban Rehabilitation (IHRU). At this point an application for funds from The Lisbon Operational Programme (OP Lisbon)/ Critical Areas could be made. Support was approved, though with the requirement that citizens’ participation would play even a more central role in the implementation phase. This was achieved by the organisation of twenty workshops with residents, who provided additional input for the Local Action Plan. This was also an opportunity to interact with local residents with different backgrounds, thereby obtaining a better insight into the thoughts and needs of these groups. These workshops made it easier more effectively to address the problem of spatial segregation based on age or identity.

Results: A Participatory Methodology and Urban Progression Several results were obtained over the course of the Zambujal Melhora project. An important part of achieving these results has been the participatory methodology for urban planning. As stated above, local organisations and citizens play a key role in this participatory process. Because of the active role they take up, institutional cooperation is stimulated, community action is strengthened and the gap between public authorities and local actors is reduced. The inclusive approach also enabled a dialogue to take place among local residents with different backgrounds. This way spatial segregation based on age or identity was brought into the spotlight, and cooperation in the same participative process resulted in better mutual understanding.

Apart from these results directly linked to the participatory method, there is progress in terms of socio-economic and environmental development. Different initiatives were undertaken to stimulate social and economic development, among which were: the formation of a symphonic orchestra consisting of forty children; the hiring of local facilitators; the recognition, validation and certification of skills; and the adaptation and redevelopment of two (formerly degraded) shops into Opportunity Spaces (which are now being used as a training centre).

The development of the urban environment has been improved by the setting up of technical gardening and landscaping courses, the creation of conditions for stimulating a healthy lifestyle, for instance, by the rehabilitation of recreational public spaces and the establishing of a sustainable neighbourhood through citizen participation.

European Involvement and the Added Value of Cohesion Policy on the Project The European Union played an important role in the Zambujal Melhora project, as it provided a financial instrument for the implementation and development of the programme. The Zambujal project has an estimated budget of over seven million euros. This amount is divided among the previously mentioned main directions of the programme: housing, economic and social development, and environment and public space. The main costs are associated with “housing”. The Lisbon Operational

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 75 Programme (OP Lisbon)/Critical Areas approved total estimated eligible costs of almost three million euros. The remainder of the budget was for the greater part provided by IHRU and partly by the municipality of Amadora.

Apart from financial support, the European Union also provided a strategic framework. Based on the EU Cohesion Policy the Portuguese Government formulated a set of policies, strategies and actions (for instance the operational programmes entitled “Territorial Enhancement” and “Lisbon”) which thoroughly influenced the design and implementation of the Zambujal project.

The European funding opportunities and the strategic framework were two important factors for the establishment of the Zambujal Melhora project. Given the considerable Portuguese contribution to the project, it might have been achieved without cohesion funding; however, the opportunity of the Lisbon Operational Programme triggered and motivated the process in the short term and placed the problems of the Zambujal neighbourhood high on the political agenda.

Integrated Development: Complementary Directions and Participation An integrated approach to urban development is expressed in two ways. First, the project focused on the previously noted three directions: housing, social and economic development, and environment and public space. These directions complement each other in different ways. For instance the rehabilitation of residential buildings relating to the “housing” strand provided an impulse for the improvement of the urban environment and public space. The adaptation and renewal of two Opportunity Spaces stimulated social and economic development but it also complemented the improvement of the public spaces. The participatory approach and the complementarities between the previously sectoral directions show the integrated dimension of the Zambudjal project, a dimension which was stimulated by the Cohesion Policy.

Secondly, a participatory methodology for urban planning was adopted in the Zambujal project. By means of this approach public authorities (on national, regional and local levels) and key actors were involved in formulating a common strategy and objectives in a Local Action Plan.

Spin-offs: Zambujal Melhora Provides the Basis The participatory methodology of Zambujal Melhora was developed during previous experiences in both urban and rural contexts (Urban II, Rural Change and Local Periphery, ESF art. 6 – Innovative Actions) and several other participative projects in small mountain villages in Portugal.

Several programmes and actions were initiated in the city and region with the same general aim: the rehabilitation of the neighbourhood. One programme in particular is worth mentioning in this context, namely: “Promoção de Lideres Locais de Economia Solidaria”. This programme for the development of Social Entrepreneurship was launched by Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa and EtnoIdea and adapts the same participatory methodology.

76 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice Lessons Learned: A Combined Approach with Good Results The most important lesson learned is the acknowledgement that top-down and bottom-up approaches can be combined to yield very good results. Through the cooperation and involvement of all key actors several advantages were achieved. Information on the knowledge, needs and opinions of residents was introduced into the planning process and provided a new insight to policy makers. The involvement of local actors in the process of urban rehabilitation and social development improved the sustainability of the neighbourhood because of a communal sense of responsibility; vandalism, for instance, decreased. Finally, the level of democratic anchorage, and transparency of the process is increased and the support of the parties concerned is achieved earlier.

Suggested (Web) Resources • Website municipality of Amadora http://www.cm-amadora.pt/PageGen.aspx

This text relies on helpful comments by Jorge Miranda, former Director of Zambujal Melhora, currently General Manager at EtnoIdea.

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 77 CIPU: National Information Unit for Urban Policy

CIPU at a glance:

Practice Cellule nationale d’Information pour la Politique Urbaine (CIPU) – National Information Unit for Urban Policy, Lux- emburg

Duration of the project June 2008 – December 2013

Area Luxembourg

Funding CIPU is co-funded by the ERDF with max. 15 % of the overall eligible costs. The total project budget is 120.000 € per year.

The establishment of the Cellule nationale d’Information pour la Politique Urbaine (CIPU) (National Information Unit for Urban Policy) is part of the efforts of the Luxembourgish ministry in charge of urban policy to foster information and communication on urban issues, and to strengthen municipalities as an important layer of territorial development and related policies. The partners for CIPU are the Department of Spatial Planning at the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Infrastructures, the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Economy and Foreign Trade, the University of Luxembourg, the City of Luxembourg, and the cities of Esch-sur-Alzette and Nordstad (including the municipalities of Bettendorf, Colmar-Berg, Diekirch, Ettelbrück, Erpeldange and Schieren).

Issue: Knowledge Transfer and Capacity-Building in the Field of Urban Policy and Urban Development CIPU is a platform for the exchange of experiences and knowledge in the field of urban policy for all urban stakeholders in Luxembourg. The establishment of CIPU resulted from the fact that (i) an explicit national urban policy does not exist in Luxembourg, (ii) urban policy issues had until the establishment of CIPU been dealt with merely in the general framework of spatial planning policies, and (iii) there are no networks of local stakeholders regarding current urban issues at European level. At the same time, the importance of urban issues and stakeholders at EU level increased. At the same time, the importance of urban issues and stakeholders at EU level increased. Urban areas are seen as driving forces for growth, employment, innovation, and education. Urban stakeholders are seen as important governance partners for the implementation of EU policies. CIPU aims at: • Improving knowledge on and fostering a better understanding of urban policy issues; • Increasing stakeholders’ interest in urban policy issues at all levels; • Identifying the specific needs of cities in Luxembourg; • Initiating sustainable and integrated urban policies and practices; • Improving the cooperation between stakeholders at local and national levels; • Developing a database with Luxembourgish good practices on urban policies and planning.

78 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice Approach: An Interface between Urban Development Policies at European, National and Local Levels The CIPU’s tasks include the setting up and managing of a network of urban stakeholders in Luxem- bourg, the facilitation of the exchange of experiences and knowledge within this network, the collection and dissemination of good practices in the field of urban policy and urban development and assisting stakeholders wanting to initiate or participate in European projects.

Due to its scope, the CIPU has established itself as an interface between urban development policies at European, national and local levels. It is also a tool which allows stakeholders to play a bigger part in discussions on urban policy and urban development and to influence urban policies at the Euro- pean level.

Results: Development of a Platform for the Exchange of Knowledge and Experiences Together with its partners, the CIPU has initiated and supported the development and implementation of the “Europe 2020 Going Local Project”. This project is aimed at more effective implementation of the EU2020 strategy at the local and regional levels. In particular, this means building on the stock of successful experiences at local level of the old strategies and improving delivery with regard to the new strategy, particularly with regard to the “Energy and Sustainable Transport” sub-theme. The project therefore capitalises on good practices that have proven to be very successful in one of the partner regions, in order to transfer them to other partners’ programmes, for instance the Objective 1 or 2 Programmes. Examples of such good practices include a web-based portal providing information and online-tools on energy efficiency in the administrations of towns and municipalities or the process oriented broad consultation and inclusion of municipalities in a “national climate and sustainable development pact” aiming, amongst others, at more efficient energy use. These will enable the different partners further to improve and modernise their local and regional policies.

More results of the CIPU are: • The development of a platform for the exchange of knowledge and experiences and a network of urban stakeholders in Luxembourg (which previously did not exist as such); • The initiation of new European action projects or research projects; • An increase in the number of stakeholders that can benefit from the knowledge and the exchange of experiences due to the creation of the CIPU; • Attention to urban issues at European, national and local levels; • More active participation of Luxembourgish stakeholders in European urban policy discussions; • Better communication of urban policy and urban development activities at national and Euro- pean levels.

Influence of Cohesion Policy: Strengthening and Developing Innovative Approaches The funding from the ERDF contributes to strengthening and developing innovative approaches in terms of organisation and the implementation of urban development policies in Luxembourg. The funding has also improved the communication and sharing of ERDF project results in the field of urban policy and urban development to Luxembourgish stakeholders, and thus improves the quality of

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 79 projects. For the CIPU it was important to make the link between the intergovernmental urban policy initiatives at European level and the EU ERDF-funds and their support for sustainable and integrated urban development issues.

Integrated Development: A Better Understanding of Integrated Urban Development The CIPU encourages project partners to include integrated development by disseminating knowledge about several successful projects. Therefore the CIPU is an example of integrated urban development due to the specific project partnership. Moreover, due to the choice of activities and topics the centre works (for example RFSC and EU2020), it allows to improve knowledge of and foster a better understanding of integrated urban development, and thus to increase stakeholders’ interest in this issue at all levels. The CIPU also initiates integrated policies and practices. Because of its networking activities the CIPU actively contributes to getting stakeholders together and thus to improving cooperation between stakeholders at local and national levels.

Added Value and Lessons Learned: Positive Experience On the whole, past experiences with the CIPU have been rather positive. On a project organisation level a lesson learned was that the development and maintenance of a platform of this type and ambition is time-consuming and needs nurturing before tangible results can be achieved.

On a project content level it can be said that there is an active interest in knowledge on urban policy and urban development in Luxembourg. CIPU has improved the exchange on urban issues with local stakeholders but also within ministries. The capacity-building that takes place as a result of the CIPU’s actions will improve innovative thought and action among urban stakeholders in the short and long term. This is fully in line with ERDF objectives.

At the CIPU a lesson learned was also that there were diverging expectations from partners and stakeholders at the beginning, though this situation improved as the project partnership matured and tangible outputs could be presented

The added value of the project consists of the following elements: • The initiation and facilitation of an urban policy discourse in Luxembourg (e.g. sustainable urban development, integrated approach, Europe 2020, stakeholder participation), the linking of knowledge generated at the European level with the professional discourse, a better understanding of urban policy issues thanks to a better level of knowledge and a common language; • The improvement of communication and information on local, national and European urban policy issues; • The more efficient identification and consideration of specific local needs; • The incorporation of local knowledge, experiences, attitudes into national and European discussions on urban policy; • The strengthening of networks, exchange and cooperation between urban stakeholders in Lux- embourg; • Contributing to capacity-building for urban stakeholders; • The identification and development of synergies between particular projects and policies;

80 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice • The more efficient use of Structural Funds to improve the internationalisation of urban stakeholders.

Suggested (Web) Resources • Website CIPU http://www.cipu.lu/ • Website EUKN Luxembourg http://www.eukn.org/Luxembourg/lu_en • Europe2020 http://www.eu2020goinglocal.eu

This text relies on helpful comments by Tom Becker from CIPU.

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 81 The Inclusion of the Suburban Area of Aarhus

The Aarhus Urban Programme at a glance:

Practice Aarhus Urban Programme

Duration of the project The project started in January 2004, and finished in Decem- ber 2007.

Area Denmark, Aarhus

Funding Urban II programme, European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

Aarhus is the second largest city in Denmark with approximately 285,000 inhabitants. As a large city with a scale of opportunities to offer, Aarhus attracts citizens with an ethnic background who want to pursue education, employment and business opportunities. This has resulted in the largest ethnic concentration in Denmark. The suburban area of Aarhus, represented by the neighbourhoods of Gellerup, Hasle and Herredsvang, is one of the poorest areas in Denmark. In 2000, the inhabitants of the suburban area represented 7% of the entire population of Aarhus. Half of them were refugees and immigrants with their families, 40% were under the age of twenty and 73% of citizens with an ethnic minority background did not have stable employment.

Issue: The Aim to Include the Whole Population The large concentration of disadvantaged social groups in these deprived areas was a pressing issue for the city of Aarhus. To change the current situation, access to the labour market, security and the social life of the Aarhus suburban area had to be improved in order to ensure the better inclusion of the whole population. To accomplish this, Aarhus Urban Programme II was established.

Approach: Positive Focus on Participation and Future Development Socio-economic challenges were the first and most important focus of the programme; these included crime, unemployment, poor educational attainment and a low rate of participation in leisure activities. In this context the programme was divided into three different areas: • Formal competences; • Security; • Social life.

During the currency of the programme, several projects were established to improve business development and employment opportunities, prevent criminality and abuse, increase citizens’ involvement in the solution of ethnic misunderstandings, establish leisure and cultural activities and develop green and recreational areas. Rather than taking account of the traditional socio-economic indicators, the programme focused on positive aspects of future developments. These included participation in culture and leisure activities, community cohesion or upgrading green recreational facilities. Citizen participation played an important role in the project.

82 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice Results: Aarhus, on the Way to a City with an Included Population The Aarhus Urban programme achieved positive results. Surveys have shown that citizens with an ethnic and minority background now participate at the same level as the rest of the population. In the period from 2000 to 2004 the level of employment increased from 29% to 31.2% of immigrants and refugees aged between 16 and 66 years. Growth in employment is achieved through company developments and partner agreements. In addition, crime levels dropped significantly in the area in 2000- 2005, for instance because of crime prevention initiatives.

European Involvement: The URBACT Networking Programme The budget of the Urban Programme was 86 million Danish crowns, about e 11 million. The Euro- pean Commission supported the programme to the tune of 40 million Danish crowns; the remaining 46 million Danish Crowns were provided by the Aarhus municipality. The programme is engaged in URBACT through the Citiz@Move network. The network consists of twenty European cities, of which Aarhus is one. Since 2004, the cities have been involved in a process of exchanging and experiencing new possibilities for involving citizens in urban regeneration. This programme was established with the support of URBACT.

Suggested (Web) Resources • Citiz@move “travel guide to participation in twenty European cities” http://www.mdrl.ro/urbactII/urbact/projects/city_move/CitizatMove.pdf

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 83 Conclusions: The Urban Dimension of Cohesion Policy

The case studies that were categorised according to the three EU2020 aims of “smart, sustainable and inclusive” growth present inspiring examples of the developments facilitated by Cohesion Policy which are realised at the local level. Besides illustrating practices at the local level, the project managers recorded that the different Funds (ERDF, ESF and the Cohesion Fund) are crucial in setting the projects and programmes in motion.

The added value of the various sources of funding is diverse. A recurring element was that the possibilities for financing projects that Cohesion Policy presents local governments with are very important. In the crudest sense, projects could not have progressed from plan to practice without the involvement of Cohesion Policy. A second important element that often featured in the views of those working at the local level is that Cohesion Policy enables cities to develop a project of a higher quality than would have been possible otherwise. Furthermore, the combination of Funds facilitated the development of a truly integrated approach, as opposed to cities being able to implement parts of the intended project only. Finally, the funds also cultivated commitment in local governments as well as private investors which permitted the co-funding that is in most cases a necessary precondition to cohesion funding. In short, there are four aspects to the added value of Cohesion Policy: • Financial leeway; • Higher quality projects; • Integrated approaches to policy challenges; • Commitment from public as well as private investors.

These four aspects all serve to increase the ways in which local governments can take up the urban dimension in the challenges of the 21st century. The draft Cohesion Policy regulations have proposed a focus on eleven challenges, most of which have a clear urban dimension, such as the shift towards a low-carbon economy, promoting sustainable transport and promoting social inclusion and combating poverty. Stimulating the urban dimension is thus not only in the interests of the locality at hand, but in those of the Member States and Europe as a whole as well.

The interrelation of these two interests advocates the further development of the Urban Dimension: the local level contributes in a meaningful way to a Smart, Sustainable and Cohesive Europe. City organisations argue that a way of achieving this would be to create a greater role for cities in developing and implementing programmes funded within the context of Cohesion Policy. Local and, in a growing number of cases, national authorities seem to agree that cities should be involved in deciding on priorities and developing programmes of action to maximise their effectiveness on the ground. This should also involve possibilities for the delegation of funding to them, for instance in the form of urban operational programmes (OPs) or sub-OPs supported through global grants or similar funding instruments.

The Commission also emphasises the importance of the role cities play in the economic and social development of Europe. Challenges should be met at the lowest possible democratic level, bringing

84 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice Cohesion Policy to the doorsteps of the citizens of Europe. In this light, Mr Berkowitz stressed that multilevel urban governance and partnerships need to be improved in the next programming period.

This idea coincides with one of the conclusions of the Belgian Presidency of the European Council in the second half of 2010. The publication “Multilevel Urban Governance or the Art of Working Together” concludes by suggesting a policy cycle that takes into account precisely these aspects of multilevel governance. Key elements in a coordinated multilevel approach that would improve the effects of Cohesion Policy are: 1. Relevant actors need to agree upon common objectives; 2. These objectives must be turned into coordinated strategies and action plans which facilitate multilevel cooperation; 3. The fulfilment of actions and objectives must be monitored and evaluated; 4. Mutual learning must be encouraged through the pooling of knowledge and the exchange of best practices.

This inclusive policy cycle should support better policies, improve coordination and produce better urban practices. Fostering the urban dimension through this multilevel urban governance approach is an important issue in the next programming period.

Discuss aspects of multilevel urban governance

Encourage mutual Agree on common learning objectives

Develop Monitor and coordinated evaluate agreed strategies and actions action plans

The final form of the regulations for the 2014-2020 Cohesion programming period is not yet clear – nevertheless, the current outlines clearly emphasise the importance of urban themes and urban governance in the eleven funding priorities. This publication is intended to support and further develop the debate on the future of Cohesion Policy, in which the urban dimension cannot be overlooked if the grand challenges of the 21st century are to be faced successfully.

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 85 About the Authors

Mart Grisel, M.Phil. (1961) holds a Diplôme d’Études Approfondies (DEA) from the University of Paris VIII à Saint-Denis, specialising in ‘Texte, Imaginaire, Société’, and a Master’s Degree in both French and Theory of Literature from the University of Groningen, Netherlands. He has set up several international programmes, including the European Urban Knowledge Network (EUKN). Mart has participated in various research projects and programmes (Urban-net) and is often asked as an urban expert to monitor international meetings.

Tina Kelder, Msc (1984) holds a Master’s Degree in Human Geography and Planning and a Bachelor’s degree in Celtic Lan- guages. She completed her Master’s degree in Taipei, Taiwan. Through her apprenticeship with the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs she joined the EUKN team in October 2010. In her function as a capitalisation officer she works on EUKN publications and is project leader for the FP7 project URBAN-NEXUS.

Eva da Costa, BA (1985) holds a bachelor’s degree in European Studies from the The Hague University of applied sciences and also studied at the university of Salamanca faculty of law. She joined the EUKN team in September 2009 as programme officer. She also coordinates knowledge disseminating activities for the Dutch URBACT National Dissemination Point (NDP) programme of Nicis Institute.

Elizabeth Winkel, Msc (1982) has a Bachelor’s degree in Communication Management and a Master’s degree in Culture, Organ- isation and Management Studies from the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. She has work experience both in the commercial field and within (semi) governmental organisations. As an information specialist and web editor for EUKN she writes articles on urban development throughout Europe.

Gabriëlle Metz, BA (1988) holds a Bachelor’s degree in Public Administration and is currently completing her master’s degree in Policy and Politics at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam. She will receive her Master’s degree by February 2012. During this master’s degree she worked as an apprentice at the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and at the beginning of September 2011 she joined the EUKN team.

Hiske Bienstman, Dr. (1981) studied architectural history and urban history at the University of Groningen and holds a PhD in urban morphology from the University of Birmingham. She previously worked at a Dutch housing association and at the Netherlands Institute for Heritage and joined EUKN in October 2011.

86 - Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice References

Assembly of European Regions (2010), Cohesion in Europe: Regions Take up the Challenge. AER White paper on the future of Cohesion Policy: Towards a territorially-based policy for all Europeans. Strasbourg. CEMR (2011), Policy Paper on the Future of EU Cohesion Policy. Brussels. EU Polish Presidency (2011), Background report on the urban dimension of the Cohesion Policy post 2013. Warsaw. EU Polish presidency (2011), How to Strengthen the Territorial Dimension of “Europe 2020” and EU Cohesion Policy, report based on the Territorial Agenda 2020. Warsaw. EUKN (2011), Multilevel Urban Governance or the Art of Working Together. The Hague. EURACTIVE (2010), Position paper on the future Cohesion Policy. Brussels EUROCITIES (2011), More Urban, More Impact: EUROCITIES Opinion on future Cohesion Policy. Brus- sels. European Commission (2010), Communication from the Commission Europe 2020, A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Brussels. European Commission (2008), Fostering the urban dimension, Analysis of the Operational Pro- grammes co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (2007-2013). Brussels. European Commission (2007), Growing regions, Growing Europe – Fourth report on economic and social cohesion. Brussels. European Commission (2010), Interregional Cooperation Projects, Second Collection – Interreg IVC. Brussels. European Commission (2010), Investing in Europe’s future – Fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. Brussels. European Commission (2009), Promoting Sustainable Urban Development in Europe. Brussels. European Commission (2010), Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council – No 1083/2006. Brussels. European Commission (2010), Regional policy, an integrated approach – Panorama inforegio. N 34. Brussels. European Commission (2010), Sustainable Urban Development – Implementation Praxis of Art. 8 (n. 2009.CE.16.0.AT.109). Brussels. European Commission (2011), 2020 The Role of Regional Policy in the future of Europe – Panorama inforegio N 39. Brussels. European Commission (2010), The Urban Dimension in the European Union Policies 2010 – introduction and part 1. Brussels. European Council (2006), Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 – Establishing a Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1164/94. Brussels. Florida, L.R. (2010), The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Glaeser, E.L. (2011), Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier and Happier. New York: Penguin Press. The management authority of Opportunities for West (2010), Opportunities for West G4P4, the first hundred projects. Rotterdam.

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice - 87

Cohesion Policy in Urban Practice

ISBN 978-94-90967-05-5 EUKN Secretariat Laan van N.O. Indië 300 2593 CE The Hague T +31 (0)70 344 09 66 P.O. Box 90750 F +31 (0)70 344 09 67 2509 LT The Hague [email protected] The Netherlands www.eukn.org 9 789490 967055