First findings from the RFSC testing phase

1. First findings from the RFSC testing phase Margit TünnemannEUROPEAN COMMISSIONDirectorate-General for Regional Policy, Directorate for Policy Development UDG meeting, Warsaw, 26/27 September 2011

2. Aims of the testing phase Are the tools matching the cities’ needs? Are the overall goals of the RFSC met? Facilitate the development and evaluation of sustainable and integrated urban development strategies and projects Foster the critical self-assessment of cities and conscious decision-making processes (internal dialogue) Allow to compare different approaches and results on the basis of a common understanding (external dialogue) Help to improve urban policies, strategies, projects and instruments through e-learning, exchange and capacity-building Provide a tool that is adaptable to the national context and the local situation Does the RFSC have an added value for cities?

3. How the testing was carried out in the cities 66 cities with a large variety of needs and testing conditions Testing teams of 1 to 15 persons (around 50% of cities tested with only one person) Hindrances encountered: no translation into national language no quick tangible output to explain added value not easy to involve several departments (esp. in larger cities) not easy to involve political level testing took more time than expected Around 50% of cities tested very intensively and highly motivated

4. Type of feedback collected and analysed by NICIS Statistics from RFSC webmaster (CERTU) Page Feedback Surveys NICIS visited 55 cities 16 remote usability tests 123 final questionnaires from 58 cities 37 notes, comments and results 17 reports from Member States (National Support Groups)

5. First findings (1) Cities saw the following benefits of the RFSC: Exchanging experience, strategies and projects with other (European) cities Improving urban policies, plans, projects, actions and instruments Building a common understanding and language about sustainable and integrated urban planning Stimulating dialogue (mainly within the city) Experimenting with new approaches Having a manual or checklist for sustainable and integrated urban actions Finding peer cities or partners for European projects

6. First findings (2) The RFSC meets the cities needs (on condition of certain improvements): Sustainable urban development is a key priority for most cities Majority of cities claims that RFSC had positive effects on daily practice and improved their strategies or projects Needs especially in smaller and medium-sized cities: improving capacity for integrated thinking and actions testing new approaches facilitating dialogue about sustainable urban development

7. First findings (3) The RFSC meets the cities needs (on condition of certain improvements): Needs particularly in cities in Southern and Eastern Europe: improving the dialogue within the city-administration facilitate and accelerate sustainable urban development foster a common understanding of integrated urban development 80% of the cities used the tool “Find a peer city”, mainly on the following topics: energy efficiency involvement of citizens services/transport employment demographic change

8. First findings (4) Snapshot of necessary improvements: Structure of the RFSC More self-explanatory and user-friendly (simplifications) Allow for independent use of tools Reinforce links between tools More exchange on a voluntary basis (“bench-learning”) Content of the RFSC Translation into national languages Wording and language, users guide (too academic) More explanation for graphs and figures Key indicators and spread-sheet for monitoring system (reference values) Deprived neighbourhoods Illustrations Interdependencies

9. Preliminary conclusions (1) Overall goals of the RFSC are met Some scepticism and warnings: too complex and time consuming cost benefit ratio? flexible enough to adapt to local institutional situation? which cities profit most? RFSC needs to be improved to reach not only a few highly motivated cities, but the ‘average’ European city: improve at least the usability and functionality allow for more exchange and comparison on a voluntary basis ideally, offer training, workshops, conferences

10. Preliminary conclusions (2) Member States and cities expect that the RFSC will be continued: Almost 90% of cities claim that it is worth improving and continuing the RFSC 68% of the cities state that they do not have any better or comparable tools Even large cities (with their own sophisticated tools) see some advantages Member States stress the added value of the multi-level dialogue achieved Member States and cities confirm the coherence with national and local objectives Member States and cities recognise the potential to facilitate achieving these objectives

11. Next steps • Draft report from NICIS to MSI group • MSI group meeting for final discussion: Grouping the recommendations for improving the RFSC (re costs and feasibility short-/mid-term) • Revised draft report to UDG for information (steering committee) = Background document for the UDG proposal on the future of the RFSC • Final report 5 October 2011 18 October 2011 26 October 2011 Mid November 2011