Cities of tomorrow - Input to governance questions Corinne Hermant-de Callataÿ

Cities of tomorrow - Input to governance questions Corinne Hermant-de Callataÿ Christian Svanfeldt Brussels, 2010

1. Can we agree on core European values, visions and objectives? Yes! • a precondition for everything else; a necessity; Without agreeing on a minimum set of common values, there is no possibility of any European policy; values already present in the definition of challenges Well… • core values maybe, but visions & objectives…? No! • doubt possibility to define core Europeans values and visions when ideological orientations are so eroded; • maybe amongst experts, impossible at general level; educated ‘policy-makers’ and ‘experts’ might agree on ‘core’ values but disagree on the political / economic interpretation of these... Outside this circle there will be much less agreement, for political, ethical, theological, cultural etc reasons.

1.a Shared values Liberté, égalité, fraternité… • Enlightenment and French Revolution: Freedom, Equality and Solidarity • liberty in economic initiative, in culture creation, in ordinary life, in sexual orientation, in opinion, in religion, combined with a struggle towards equality in respect of differences, avoiding discrimination; • a balance between individual freedom and social (societal) responsibility. • the principles and rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and now the Charter of Fundamental Rights … and diversity • equality-related coordinated policies should enable Europeans to be free to live their diversities • European diversity must be seen as an asset in this regard which has to be a central part of a European strategy.

1.b Shared objectives Europe 2020 • The common pillars on which we can agree are: economic, social and environmental dimensions (sustainability). The framework for common objectives represents the Strategy EU 2020; smart, sustainable and inclusive growth Quality of life & inclusion • decent quality of life for ALL EU-citizens and to fight exclusion and poverty in our society; Ensure social integration (solidarity); Seek decent employment for all (quality of life) Environment • Avoid spatial and environmental irretrievable damages (sustainability); Reduce a maximum environmental pollutions (public health) Urban innovation & creativity • Fostering innovation in all spheres of urban life (creativity) Governance • Implement the European wide shared understanding of the balance between individual freedom and collective responsibility; Mutual recognition and division of labour and governance tasks between local (urban), regional, national and EU levels, i.e. multilevel governance.

2. What are the main obstacles to reach (shared European) objectives? (1) Material & immaterial means • Differences in financial means & experience between Member States; Unequal distribution of opportunities and wealth across & within regions • legal powers and resources are not sufficient to secure public wealth / services vis-à-vis global economic powers, which do not take adequate part of responsibility Erosion of the welfare state & solidarity • Combination of inequality-related policies & post-democracy; liberalisation leading to destruction of social tissues; dominance of economic considerations (in the narrow sense of just-for-profit); the (resulting) disappearance of the welfare state and shift of burden to the local level (so-called ‘devolution’) without the required resources; • General demographic, economic, social trends: the disequilibrium between age groups, the polarisation of the labour market (disappearance of the middle-skilled group), the weakening of organic forms of solidarity & their replacement by new mechanic forms (top-down control) • Attitudes: xenophobia, racism, de-secularisation (religion & ideologies gaining in importance over the ‘republican’ ideal)

2. What are the main obstacles to reach (shared European) objectives? (2) Lack of innovation in administrations & regulation • Misbalance in regulations – incentives & sanctions designed specific situations: situation on the field more complex which creates blockages; procedures are not serving the principles - actors involved end up discussing regulations that makes their life impossible and not visions and European objectives; • fear of (social) innovation in administrations: (better to fly on ‘automatic pilot’ and to rely on bureaucratic routines); thinking in stereotypes (lack of time, expertise & willingness to get a grip on what urban governance really could mean); Inertia and ‘business as usual treatment’ of European funds by national & regional authorities Lack of (coherent) visions & political will; hegemony • absence of political will and of a long-term perspective in EU policy-making; No ownership of objectives at sub-European level; With respect to political organisation, we need to foster innovative forms of participation and democracy • values sometimes in opposition (e.g. urban diversity and equal social rights) • Trend to impose hegemonic interest, presenting it as public interest; some interests will always strongly prevail over others and some ideas, visions and objectives will be distorted in favour of some interests. Communication • The European project builds not only common market, but also on society where individual groups understand each other - a long-term process. • Lack of understanding – communication is slow and confined to the upper levels, professional language tends to be too coded, local levels cannot follow the discussions. • Lack of a clear urban-oriented message from the EU

3. What are the opportunities for and by cities in relation to the challenges, visions and European objectives? “We have an amazing opportunity to show a leading example to the world in what I feel will be an extraordinary, wide ranging and dangerous social and political transformation during the next 10-20 years” Where things happen • geography (it is where challenges and opportunities exist), human capital, leadership, integrity (accountability), innovation, local knowledge, integrated approaches; cities are not only territories, but hubs and nodes in a global or regional system or network • engines of growth, places of creativity & innovation, key nodes of command & control in private & public spheres, concentrations of human capital, core place of social networks ; can show the way forward, can reach critical mass, can provide flexible local comprehensive approach to economic development; • encourage knowledge alliances combining several kinds of ‘savoirs’; tackle together the energy and urban renewal challenge Quality of life • effective management of public money, more local jobs, mobilised private investments, high quality environment and life for citizens, active participation of local stakeholders & citizens in policy making and implementation, boost for other sectors (e.g. education, culture, etc.). • can influence the quality of life for their citizens, enabling democratic involvement of as many citizens as possible in defining “good life”, designing appropriate holistic concepts & implementing the relevant policies

3. What are the opportunities for and by cities in relation to the challenges, visions and European objectives? Platforms for participation & citizenship • At city level participative democracy and representative democracy can be combined in efficient schemes; a platform (in the sense of place/community) where public interest can be defined in a concrete way based on daily life problems and proximity relations; • To articulate the short-term objectives of social cohesion actions (political agendas) vs. the long-term of communities/places dynamics; to understand the different degrees of priority and the sense of urgency; To function as a guarantee for social commitments on the basis of mutual confidence Platform for negotiation • A “negotiated city” which permits negotiation between apparently opposing values & vision; cities can be arenas for social conflict & contradiction; mobilise citizens and negotiate with private sector, merge top-down with bottom-up and create true participation. • Cities as shared spaces are the stage for the desirable renewal of the shared responsibility embedded in the concept governance, to have a substantive base for dialogue & negotiation between different city social & cultural groups, organizations & institutions whose visions & actions are developed in a shared urban space Laboratories • Process of comparisons of various models of European cities, not only transfers of technical solutions but also social solutions, the diversity an asset as a big laboratory; cities can be testing grounds for new policy directions from higher levels ; cities can be laboratories for social & cultural innovation; Capacity to develop new political models, including, but not only, participation mechanisms.

4. What is the optimal territorial base for governance with regard to future challenges and objectives? (1) City region & above • Solidarity & sustainability as well as equality have to be grounded in coherent national and European regulation; • Multi-level governance necessary - vision of the territory, its futures, its complementarities, its relation with European & world development, must be elaborated at city-region, metropolitan or polycentric-region level • City regions provide a specific place for their inhabitants, i.e., the majority of the populace = place-based actors; Metropolitan region = agglomeration approach = city region; Metropolitan, or at least the city considered in the relations with its periphery and actors concerned in this intervention area; • City regions have the advantage of being both a city and a region, with one elected Mayor that can represent, plan & oversee strategic development for the whole ‘territory’ based on legislative powers City level & below • Political power at city level best positioned to accompany the coming transformation of our societies; optimal base for governance are cities (not regions) with a population of less than 1 million, preferably less than 0.5 million; • Local is important & needs to be integrated with other dimensions; Metropolitan regions should NOT take the lead, their strengthening would directly oppose cohesion aims and would not be economically sensible either; local communities (20 000 inhabitants average) must have their part of this governance

4. What is the optimal territorial base for governance with regard to future challenges and objectives? (2) Variable & functional, subsidiarity principle • Challenges & objectives do not respect administrative borders, nor should solutions; different base according to challenge & objective, need for functional geography/approach: some issues (water management) at sub-regional / regional level, others (public transport, economy) at metropolitan / city-region level, others (equality and integration) at local or neighbourhood level; • subsidiarity principle should guide: problems to be solved at level closest to citizens effectively able to deal with the problem; should be complemented by better coordination (rather than hierarchy) • Four territorial levels for governance to meet future challenges & objectives: a) Cities (internally balanced development, residential segregation, etc.) b) Functional urban regions (urban-rural / centre-periphery linkages in terms of the access to jobs and services, spatial justice, right to the city / right to the country) c) Polycentric regional networks of cities d) Polynucleated trans-national networks • Polycentric & metropolitan models should not contradictory but complementary (dialectic); all levels need to be connected through forms of multilevel governance – through temporary partnerships to governance regimes; territory for metropolitan coordination given by flows rather than geographic boundaries like NUTS.

5. What kind governance frameworks should Europe follow in the next 2-3 decades? (1) Multilevel governance & subsidiarity • Subsidiarity principle with delegation of power to regional bodies (NUTS II, NUTS III).; true multilevel governance (local, (inter)regional and cross-border (EGTC)), not restricting itself to consultations, hearings etc. a) mutual recognition and division of labour and governance tasks between local (urban), regional, national and EU levels b) mutual recognition of private, government & civil society c) multilevel urban governance on 4 levels: cities, functional urban regions, polycentric regional networks of cities, polynucleated trans-national networks Integration & balance of power • principles of democratic multi-scalar governance; multi-scalarity building on European experience of 20th century welfare capitalism to establish institutional framework offering equal freedom for all inhabitants • aim at new forms of integration with areas outside of conventional public sector: global finance (cities should be active partners in financial innovation, urban infrastructure, and integration of local & global levels of economies), institutions & sectors, and economy & enterprise (bottom-up participation agenda to mobilise local social & cultural resources) • rights / powers and responsibilities of all stakeholders should be balanced; concept of sustainability should be revisited to deal with new facts of global flows, web-like networks & increased (awareness of) risks

5. What kind governance frameworks should Europe follow in the next 2-3 decades? (2) Flexible, formal/informal, bottom-up/top-down • More flexibility, less formality in policy-making & delivery; more transparency of processes, dialogue in early phases & interaction with all concerned stake holders; Frameworks combining ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ processes – contingent links between grassroots organizations & government institutions: a dialectic relation between creative/innovative visions/actions & its diffusion. • partnership approach (voluntary and collaborative arrangements) preferable to legislative and regulated arrangements; Partnerships linking directly the European Commission and Urban authorities or networks of local authorities; Mechanisms fostering networks, transversality, innovation • grander regional framework has to consolidate its frames but also give room for cities’ management through consultative processes with stakeholders & civil society.

6. How can fixed structures be combined with flexible mechanisms? (1) Fixed but flexible • For services of general interest gathering of communes the size of which depends of the specific problem and the specific territory concerned. A combination of representatives and thematic participants in this flexible governance is needed • Via modes of governance based on the concept of a negotiated city (mechanisms of participatory governance – c.f. Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre) Linking fixed with flexible and ad-hoc structures • Traditional territory-based governance / administration structures should be complemented by (ad-hoc?) coordinating networks / structures. • reconcile flexibility and pragmatism on the one hand and long-term reliability and responsibility of democratically elected authorities on the other; need to stabilize long term intentions and thus investment contexts (new city parts is a good example) with flexible implementation measures (that include consultation processes with those concerned). • Political responsibility/accountability can rest on fixed (democratic) structures, when planning/programming and even policy delivery can be delegated to more flexible mechanisms. • Participatory governance could enable to combine fixed structures of representative democracy with more flexible new forms of governance. For this combination it is vital, to ensure transparent norms, being able to be influenced by democratic decisions.

6. How can fixed structures be combined with flexible mechanisms? (2) Better use of fixed structures • fixed structures can be useful for the powers they may have or are able to bring (fiscal, regulatory, enforcement etc) but these should be deployed at appropriate level and for the benefit of the wider partnership; • If you can define clear responsibilities for various leaders in key public positions then you can let them lead for real (flexibility is not a mechanism); a really independent assessment mechanism could help regulate the rigid-loose dynamics. • Cities have to recognize, formulate and practice the division of tasks and responsibilities where at higher levels more universal European/national goals are formulated and at lower levels national/regional/urban they are developed to reflect locally specific conditions. • Innovation & learning needs to be built into fixed structures. E.g. - organizational change management, foresight-based policy development, objective based regulation; demands new ways of working/thinking in the concerned structures; strong rules have to be respected to guarantee a fair and transparent use of public resources and definition of what is of common interest vs individual ones. Develop flexible structures • Flexible mechanisms more valuable than fixed structures and should prevail: if agreement on values, visions & objectives no need for highly integrated approach nor common priorities but highly dedicated actions; • Multi-level & multi-lateral coordination needs to be built into flexible processes. E.g. markets can be regulated for social & environmental responsibility. • important to involve all relevant stakeholders, especially from private sector and NGOs, by open dialogue and participation on the strategic projects implementation.

7. How may governance frameworks ensure a collective mobilisation of public, private and civil society stakeholders, as well as citizens around the European objectives? (1) Information, knowledge, empowerment • By providing open, true, complete and comprehensible, appropriate & relevant information for all stakeholders & citizens at large. Via education, media …; Building public opinion & consciousness raising (through e.g., URBACT), not imposing; Europe, the Commission, DG REGIO, should be more present in public debates at local level,give a face to Europé & engage citizens; a better use should be made of all the material information, case studies, expertise, recommendations, etc. provided by so many actors from the ground in European funded projects (especially under Interreg or URBACT). • Open dialogue, system of community planning & encouragement of human resources through the education and investment into the human resources; Being culturally adequate i.e. the capacity to address all the above problems to a more than one public; By showing benefits of implementation of EU objectives -> involving citizens actively in development plans & better communication • Scope of decisions vital. Most of problems related to information, time & money. To enable more people to participate actively, a coherent information policy should foster the understandable communication of technical information. Decisions should be on topics with high impact on affected population Safeguard public interest • “public” should be rescued to its original meaning of “open”, “for all” & “in the general interest”, then civil society organisations can aim at public/general interests, e.g. by advocacy in favour of the poor; European governance has to be aware of the danger which private interests can cause for general European objectives.

7. How may governance frameworks ensure a collective mobilisation of public, private and civil society stakeholders, as well as citizens around the European objectives? (2) Participation & ownership, engaging a wider variety of local actors & groups • Collective mobilisation only possible if all citizens & stakeholders have real opportunity to define objectives & shape both content, process and be part of implementation. Ownership will never happen with top-down imposed priorities, using citizens and stakeholders as courroie de transmission; • Need to further establish processes in civil society of true consultations providing ownership to solutions; better, more pro active, involvement of local players in process of definition of actions to be undertaken within the European policy initiatives; Promoting participation fora with deliberative competences & interscaling governance models – co-production of urban space. • ‘relational governance’ model - process of mobilizing chains & loops of ‘value added’ (financial, social, cultural, political, ethical, ecological) etc. Role of governance (as distinct from market), is to enable these for enhanced social responsibility, collective goods and resources, long term horizons, internalizing externalities, etc. • Local development coalitions that act and speak on behalf of local units who want their needs to be heard at higher levels of government hierarchy will promote and strengthen new forms of bottom-up participation, especially if the engage in building networks; Powerful local advocates are needed to coordinate different interests of diverse stakeholders. Conflicts should not be neglected but translated into a resource for change and innovation. • A high diversity of actors at the local government level (also from the community level) will increase participation of different groups of society calling for more outreaching methods

7. How may governance frameworks ensure a collective mobilisation of public, private and civil society stakeholders, as well as citizens around the European objectives? (3) Shared values across governance levels & actors • ensure city / city-region has European objectives that all can agree to, ensure all stakeholders have effective voice, make access to EU funding simple and relevant • Local and regional stakeholders, social partners and civil society should be involved throughout the whole policy process in view of reproaching the citizen from EU matters. Transparency, flexibility and autonomy (financial & legal) are principles to be taken into consideration. • The regional Programme Monitoring Committees provides an effective model for mobilising public, private and civil society stakeholder around EU objectives and putting the partnership principle into practice More qualitative approach • Foresight, with a solid participative dimension, is a partial answer to the definition of mobilising urban actors around a long-term vision driven by European general guidelines; Besides this design phase, monitoring systems can be sought, scanted by annual communication and reflection events; Mere quantitative performance indicators to assess the impact of local development coalitions should be completed by a social learning process on socially innovative neighbourhood development with the local population, public sector, academics and other stakeholders.

8. How can we ensure an integrated approach across policy fields and institutions? (1) Incentives & regulation • By carefully developing an instrument – the basis of which is provided by Leipzig & Toledo (general framework and principles), to be completed by a set of indicators, regular reports at the national and EU-level, peer reviews, focused initiatives (don’t try to change everything immediately but keep the ultimate goal in view); • participatory budgeting, placing citizen participation in centre of political agenda, needed as other mechanisms (such as Private-Public Partnerships) have substantially weakened participatory structures; • through regulation; incentives for integration in comparison to non-integration; Safeguard decision making processes taking such approaches into account; Guidelines as well as conditionalities for collaboration & integrated approach; Lift legal/administrative obstacles; Use of Global Grants; ERDF and ESF in particular should be combined at EC level to avoid separation at lower levels; Multilevel agreements should be more systematically used by European institutions. • By communicating benefits; Vision exercises are often integrated in ideas, but sectored in description of measures to be taken. Local experiences could be made of evaluation of implementation of European actions through an integrated approach with guidelines for that.

8. How can we ensure an integrated approach across policy fields and institutions? (2) Emphasising the territorial dimension • The territorial dimension is crucial: socio-spatial formations that naturally require integrated governance. If no territorial base for functionally integrated units, sectoral forces will prevail creating sectoral competition & tensions within socio-territorial units, rather than integration & cooperation. • By focusing community intervention on the territorial dimension: each local urban actor or network of actors would translate transversal issues / values at their level of relevance & specificity. The territory should ensure integration, bypassing national and regional authorities which tend to adopt / adapt harmonised approaches according to European prescriptions neglecting territorial realities • Integration across policy fields & the institutions responsible to define & implement strategies should be based on 2 main pillars: (1) identifying & dealing with broad problems/challenges going beyond traditional policy fields (e.g. social innovation - mobilising education, culture, housing, health, labour market, environment, science, etc.); (2) the city & the local scale as the appropriated context to provide a holistic and integrated view of problems going beyond sectoral views.

8. How can we ensure an integrated approach across policy fields and institutions? (3) Changing focus from institutions to challenges & objectives • By focussing on themes not on policy levels; by focusing on key objectives (as set out in EU2020?) & ensuring policy & funding are tied to these; By starting from challenges and not from institutions/sectors = shift in institutional thinking: from sectoral approach to problem-centred approach. • Integrated approach can be only implemented with clear vision, clear objectives & most of all by political commitment & introducing a new way of implementation of projects through horizontal cooperation! Research • Enhancing research based efforts in this direction; constant effort to overcome fragmentation in research and policy making: transdisciplinarity has to be lead principle in all research aiming at being “relevant”. A wider horizon is needed in departmentalized policy making; Develop and use integrative indicators.

9. What governance principles should guide European intervention? (1) Multi-level governance • multiple levels governance are applied in proposal: bottom up initiatives should pass through different levels of governance before coming to European level, a top down initiative should build a local following. • subsidiarity; local & regional autonomy; mutual recognition and division of labour and governance tasks between local (urban), regional, national and EU levels, i.e. multilevel governance • COM should also act as “ally” for the local level ensuring local self-governments’ rights and freedom vis-à-vis national governments; EU officers should be personally involved and bear direct responsibility for EU funded actions. Officers' integrity, dedication and proven record of non-abuse of power should be the guiding principles for empowerment; European added value - cohesion • cohesiion, reduce social territorial inequalities at European level; Europe should not be last hierarchical level to fund national policies, Europe should not be a Mister Plus of national, but should implement European values of cohesion. • Redistribution, coupled with democratisation • Additionality; added value • partnership, programming, additionality, and subsidiarity still apply, along with accountability and integrity • Sustainability;

9. What governance principles should guide European intervention? (2) Integrated approach, transdisciplinarity & empowerment • Commitment to transdisciplinarity & democratic negotiation with deliberate effort to empower marginalized interests • Coordination, cooperation, participation, & integration, processes connected through crosscutting policy instruments. Effectiveness of top-down designed instruments doubtful in a multicultural & multinational setting such as EU. Close collaboration with civil society a must for European policies to succeed. Consultation – respect for diversity within a common frame – step by step processes; Citizenship oriented; widest stakeholders’ participation in the definition of the urban priorities • Shared and coordinated control of and responsibility for sustainable territorial development. Holistic approach avoiding fragmented, prefabricated, one-sided “solutions”. Territorial approach • multilevel urban governance on 4 levels: cities itself, functional urban regions, polycentric regional networks of cities, polynucleated trans-national networks; Interventions targeted at most relevant scale, where most effective • EU intervention should enhance urban-regional governance which aims at integration: Territorial integration at the level of rural-urban-region

9. What governance principles should guide European intervention? (3) Thematic principles • mutual recognition of private, government and civil society • Social integration between different groups & cultures; Economic integration between local / global, and between financial / social • Environmental integration between eco-systems / resources supply and demand: including a viable pathway towards climate & resource sustainability; reducing the impact of human activity of the general environment; parsimonious use of land / soils • fostering innovation in all spheres of urban life; confidence in the creativity of local actors Building on existing frameworks • Mainstream interventions targeted at existing strategic framework for implementation: multi-annual local plans or programmes,- call for ideas and/or projects should be used (only?) for innovation, experiment, and/or exchange programmes. • Flexibility – understanding of the local context, eventually adapting to it (Ottoman Empire model); Partnerships promoted but not imposed Simplification • Simplification – simplify organizational structures, simplify rules and regulations, simplify discourse.

10. What mechanisms could be envisaged? (1) Flexible, creative, socially innovative • More flexibility in the geographic definition of eligibility allowing for local alliance/agreement between Local/Regional authorities notwithstanding existing political borders. • socially innovative mechanisms, creative & flexible, allowing experimentation & innovation, ensuring participation of diverse public and private actors, NGOs and civil society. Should provide strong analytical foundation for short & long-term planning; address distributional consequences and procedural equity; deliver policy coherence; Multi-scalarity • Transdisciplinary research & innovative forms of multi-scalar democratic governance • Territorial pacts in multi-scalar governance settings, ensuring inter-scalar cooperation & redistribution – on the basis of participatory governance structures, particularly those linked to budgeting; Territorial pacts including local, regional, national & EU level as equivalent partners • Openness and structured, informed debate leading to coordinated & flexible approach of stakeholders; Consultations and honest feedbacks. Creation of incentive structures for the regions/cities that work along the integrated types of approaches • Issues that cannot be solved on a local level should anyway have feedback mechanisms to evaluate ex-post and ex-ante consequences of interventions on the ground (eg. Urban impact assessment).

10. What mechanisms could be envisaged? (2) Focus on results • focus less on mechanisms (which tend to count inputs) and more on results & outcomes. The private sector pays by results based on delivery & achievement, EC / EU has to move in that direction => more trust, less bean counting, holding organisations to account for what they achieve rather than what & how they spend; should deliver cost-effectiveness & economic efficiency; build monitoring, reporting and evaluation into policy practice with simple indicators; and should have a clear intervention logic. Guidance & knowledge transfer • Commission should provide experts to local & regional authorities to guide integrated projects processes; DG Regio should didactic in everything it does, seminars could be seen as part of knowledge mechanism, Knowledge is crucial to insure equal opportunities for cities. • Europe should fund intellectual work (e.g., INTERREG), other stakeholders the hard work, to recombine existing resources in intelligent projects. Governance shall recognize, formulate and practice division of tasks and responsibilities where more universal European/national goals are formulated at higher levels and at lower levels national/regional/urban they are developed to reflect locally specific conditions.

10. What mechanisms could be envisaged? (3) Non-conventional solutions for EU intervention • social enterprise & social finance at EU level, aiming towards added value & critical mass in social economy areas including - ethical finance, public pension funds, ecosystems markets, cultural enterprises • global finance integration at EU level: common principles for EU trade policy, financial sector regulation, ECB policy etc. enhancing stability & competitiveness at urban-regional level, regulating free-riding capital movements: • governance innovation at EU level, e.g., cross-border coordination, urban type coordination (e.g. delta cities..): sectoral coordination; learning or innovation for urban-regional authorities, enhance ‘shared intelligence’ resource, making links between knowledge producers & users. • Community initiative opening windows for: • grants for innovative urban micro-projects • urban services development incentives, e.g. for the elderly, the youngest, the immigrants, the unemployed (why not a kind of ADAPT-ESF like in urban context?) • Financing of feasibility studies for new types of transports, new mobility schemes (in partnership with the EIB) • financial engineering device for brown field regeneration in city centres (small size, embedded in high-density streets, high commercial or housing potential). • audacious & ambitious architectural calls for projects / urban planners networks / city thinking competitions

11. Should there be common priorities? (1) Yes • Of course even if it is difficult to agree on common values etc • In terms of general objectives than of eligible actions; Should be European, as urban development is embedded in the European economic and political power container • governance priorities of European intervention should build & maintain robust & flexible infrastructure networks enabling sustainable development responding to challenges & appropriately dealing with risks • develop cohesion from local level to European level, combine representative and participative means of building decision, develop multilevel governance from Europe to local and from local to Europe, develop evaluation and reflexivity on your action for transmission • should enable everybody to be free to choose from possible livings and thus enable everybody’s freedom to diversity. Thus, common priorities should be redistribution and democratisation; help to focus resources and help with targeted evaluation. • Common priorities include • Climate & ecosystems • Social cohesion • Economic resilience • Territorial cohesion etc. • For energy and territorial policy; the links and coherence between EU energy & climate objectives and the implementation of Cohesion policy at local level should be reinforced; Mainstreaming priorities such as gender equality, non discrimination, environmental impact assessment of project • There must be common priorities for the metropolitan areas; functional urban areas vital & crosscutting as patterns of economic & social flows don’t necessarily correspond with administrative boundaries.

11. Should there be common priorities? (2) Yes but • at headline level with more detailed priorities determined at local level; provided they incorporate regional variations.; should be very broad/at a very abstract level and leave enough room for local priorities to define locally quality of life concepts; • Developed in partnership at ALL levels, no top-down imposition of priorities like in Europe 2020 without involving LRA; Strategically selective – the rest of priorities left for regional innovativeness, but with visibility feedbacks built in • Recognize division between more universal EU goals & various variants of their local fulfilment. We need higher possibility of discretion at local/regional level to reflect specific urban and regional conditions yet respecting and fulfilling general EU objectives. • Setting priorities is not only a problem of mutual agreement but also a problem of language; they should never be just short statements but comprehensive summariesof research based inquiries

12. How to match a place-based and people-based approach? (1) Complementary & dependant • Closely linked, and this link should be reinforced. The approaches are complementary, and may not take resources from one another; we must be very pragmatic: support people but don’t think that this is supporting the place. Both need our interest. • A place-based approach is necessary with respect to context-sensitivity, freedom of agency and institutional diversity. A people-based approach is necessary due to civic, political and social citizenship and the exigency to offer equal rights for all inhabitants. The two approaches with their respective value system have to be accommodated via negotiation; Targeting only places often leads to gentrification processes, targeting people only can lead to a worsening of local problems due to unexpected pauperisation processes. • The daily life of people (labour markets, housing markets) as well as economy (territorial production complexes) is organized within functionally integrated areas (regions, places), the place-based intervention will best correspond with challenges for people-based approach. • Where is the contradiction? By preventing the financing of infrastructures only and policies might integrate more people-related issues in their programmes; The distinction is potentially fairly academic; no contradiction in the two, on the contrary: an integrated approach cannot deal with places neglecting people or the other way round (strongly opposed attempts to disintegrate ESF and other structural funds);

12. How to match a place-based and people-based approach? (2) How? • By providing open, true, complete and comprehensible, appropriate and relevant information for all stakeholders and citizens at large. Via education, media ... Search for win-win solutions and invest in implementation of them • Place-based approaches should focus on the priorities of place-based actors, further promotion of participatory governance mechanisms, attached to multi-scalar territorial arrangements would be an important step in this direction. • Through use of variable geography and integrated approach (integrated activity, delivery, funding) • US experiences with foundations linked to universities elaborate local development plans with inhabitants selected for their capacities, for the creation of entrepreneurship in the neighbourhood is interesting. The attempt to include all the local community in development actions is also useful • A focus on institutions best way to overcome this somewhat artificial opposition between place and people • Preparing territories to become less vulnerable to unpredictable – but increasing - trends of energy prices and potential risks of security of energy supply is coherent with a peaceful city, less energy poverty, new local jobs, local economic circuits, etc. (Covenant of Mayors is a practical example)

12. How to match a place-based and people-based approach? (3) Interscalar considerations • Matching place & people approaches through the concept of city as a social platform (place-based) of different communities (people-based) combining sectoral views & multiscalar view, fostering territorial coherence between different urban spaces, dealing with conflicts using them as levers of social innovation, linking opportunities and needs, and regulating natural, material and information flows. • Spatial integration can be achieved through 3 interrelated processes combining place and people approaches: (i) up-scaling of successful local experiments (social innovation, learning methods, intercultural dialogue, etc.), (ii) re-scaling, e.g. identifying appropriate scale and right timing for different types of urban intervention; (iii) inter-scaling by promoting stable & coherent links (of cooperation through negotiation) between agents/organisations with different spatial levels of intervention (e.g. the neighbourhood, the city, the city-region). Allows to overcome sector perspectives of urban space adopting a holistic view, promoting collective intelligence & collective learning focused on daily life problems, e.g., developing project-based-learning.

12. How to match a place-based and people-based approach? (4) Challenges • interventions should not be targeted at too narrowly defined areas: problems and solutions are not necessarily located in the same place. • A real threat to promote destructive competition between places & make cooperation difficult. The big challenge is to combine place-based approach with territorial network approach. Combination of both approaches allows the association between bonding & bridging relational capital – the crucial condition to promote urban development • Several domains need to be integrated, each with their own logic (no simple bureaucratic checklist can do this): • Territorial • Social-cultural • Economic-employment • Environment-ecosystems

13. Can we identify particular areas of policy intervention of high relevance and urgency for Cohesion Policy? (1) (Social cohesion, inclusion • How to foster a sense of belonging & security given necessity to innovate?; To pay particular attention to potentialities of the plural economy (managing not only social reproduction services but also market-led activities such as culture, tourism or leisure in a local-based perspective) • Social cohesion: in the context of fragmentation, ethnic tensions; Roma issues (segregation, housing discrimination, inclusive planning, housing rights, unifying forced evictions procedures at an European level); African illegal migration (human rights, border security, asylum seeker facilities, workforce policies) • social and economic inclusion; fighting exclusion, tackling problem of work force skills and social disparities within regions; digital inclusion; social problems Territorial cohesion • Establishment of intra- and inter-regional mechanisms of redistribution, based on principles of participatory governance • Destitute settlements – shadow, mono-industrial towns with huge unemployment rates, catastrophic educational facilities, no entertainment etc; revitalization of deprived areas, • Coordinated governance in metropolitan territories / networks. Coordinated policies to attain shared responsibility for sustainable development among the relevant stakeholders. • To problematize social & territorial cohesion beyond the economic/financial crisis; Promote Social & Creative European Model (stressing European added value in terms of solidarity, social innovation, & artistic creation); Economic resilience – in the light of public deficits: social & environment economy forms of finance need to be mobilized; Europe 2020 • knowledge economy, high skills, full employment, climate change, integration, equality; innovation; support of R&D projects

13. Can we identify particular areas of policy intervention of high relevance and urgency for Cohesion Policy? (2) Thematic priorities • Climate change; Ecosystems; Explore further urban introduction of existing environmental policy packages; use urban cases to promote new approaches in environmental & sustainability policy; projects contributing to EU energy & climate objectives; Energy efficiency / Collective housing solutions / collective heating solutions Transport infrastructure, Innovative public transports; • University a wrecked sector in Europe except in a few islands of wealth: the number of students declines. Another policy of universities is necessary in relation to urban action (USA have done it several years ago) • urgent action needed to mobilize elderly (to make them fear less others, be involved in teaching each other schemes (see Germany & Spain, Joint Programming initiative). • Health: a social approach of health, mental health specifically, which is more & more supported by users as money is missing - the cohesion part of health; Urban public health Support actions & mechanisms • human capacity building and exchange of experiences among local authorities at national and European level; creation of supporting services for local authorities – • creation of funding programmes and schemes mobilising private financial sources • campaigns and projects focused on awareness raising, behavioural change, participatory governance. • Reduction of the co-financing rate for the projects co-financed from the CSF as not to disturb a market • Creation or maintenance of the subsidies for EE/RES actions carried out by the citizens and facilitate related administrative procedures • Introduction of more efficient funding mechanisms for other beneficiaries • Local authorities closer to problems & directly responsible towards citizens, the most relevant players – in link with all local stakeholders - to define relevant & urgent interventions, within framework of overall common European level priorities; Areas differ from territory to territory

14. To what extent should future actions be mainstreamed vs. dedicated? (1) Better mainstreaming • Mainstreaming of transdisciplinarity & the art of negotiation (of place-based & therefore context-sensitive policies); Participatory arrangements under mainstreamed guidelines (favouring weaker process participants) to enable dedicated strategies to place-based actors • mainstreaming is preferable, it maximises scope for wider & on-going support outside of direct EU funding. Dedicated actions can be seen as one- off discrete actions that are valuable but not integral to other activities; Greater impact can be achieved if emphasis is placed on better mainstreaming of urban dimension rather than ring fencing of resources. • Future actions should be mainstreamed in priority but this should be done within a real multilevel governance system involving local (not only regional) players; Principles for actions should be mainstreamed – linked to the values & vision of desired development for the European city. • Human capacity building, innovative funding mechanisms, creation of energy / climate agencies, better involvement of local authorities in setting up of Operational Programmes priorities & management of CSF (& other actions mentioned in Question 13) should be mainstreamed

14. To what extent should future actions be mainstreamed vs. dedicated? (2) Yes but • If mainstreamed, ensure that it not MS who decide (as in current period with e.g. urban dimension & broadband for rural areas) whether actions should take place in MS or not. Ensure that MS obligatorily involve LRA in defining NSF & OP (if not: dedicated actions after consultation with LRA representative associations on WHAT actions) • Mainstreaming excellent principle, but often used in perverse way, realising neither objectives of universal measures nor those of targeted actions. The former often lead to exclusion of less powerful actors => dedicated measures => change of guiding principles of general actions to better take account of specific position & needs of marginalised units. But within mainstreamed actions, the same process of marginalisation gradually occurs Both • Not trade-off between mainstreaming and dedication, but that both approaches can be used to foster common goals.; Both types to be explored. Not contradictory but complementary; depends of their nature & context. Dedicated • Generally dedicated within the overall coordination of mainstream programmes • Dedicated actions should be kept for experiment, research, exchange of experiences etc. and/or for specific situations such as cross-border areas or, to some extend, macro-regions. • Content of local sustainable energy action plans / urban development programmes and similar should be dedicated • Financial intervention should be dedicated

15. How should cohesion policy support thematic and territorial (e.g. macro-regions or cross-border agglomerations) city cooperation? (1) Learning and exchange • Cooperation should be intellectual, with flexible borders, & ad hoc modes of organisation to be evaluated by Commission when funding & evaluated all along the programmes through Commission guidelines. Cooperation should be reported & publicized through programs like URBACT & INTERREG. • By developing knowledge & awareness, by academic type surveys or in-depth exchanges of experiences. • There should be allocated more financial resources for the international cooperation (INTERREG programs) and for the city cooperation (URBACT) to enable the implementation of small hard projects and effective experience exchange. • Encourage & award local authorities active role in local sustainable/responsible policies aimed at reaching EU energy and climate objectives, invest in promotion and wide dissemination of existing good practices & foster their replication Europe-wide. Territorial cohesion • By supporting experimentation with effective forms of multi-scalar democracy that strengthen existing institutions and build new ones (city regions, city-cooperation, …) • Guiding principles for support of thematic & territorial city cooperation should take into account its impact on redistribution inter- and intra-regionally & on its forms of democratic legitimation, both inter- and intro-regionally.

15. How should cohesion policy support thematic and territorial (e.g. macro-regions or cross-border agglomerations) city cooperation? (2) How? • Current mechanisms well adapted, except that city or urban strategies are not taken into account in operational documents - even less so in project selection => have INTERREG B or C portfolios of projects justified from an urban viewpoint. • Reinforce programmes of European & inter-regional cooperation (e.g. INTERREG, URBACT) and thematic city cooperation at national/regional level • By better recognition of existing cooperation & more involvement in policy-making and delivery. This could include incentives for definition & implementation of actions at relevant scale (functional geography) • Cohesion Policy should not support CITY cooperation but territorial cooperation at local & regional level! The three strands of cooperation in addition to the new Macro-regions are good, but more flexibility in possibilities to cooperate (wider geographical eligibility) • Supporting & providing incentives for city-region, cross-border, urban networks etc, should be one of the main points of EU intervention; options raised in the PLUREL research: • Conditionality on funding • Framework or Directive • Community Initiatives • OMC etc.

15. How should cohesion policy support thematic and territorial (e.g. macro-regions or cross-border agglomerations) city cooperation? (3) Functional territories • Support for building and provision of (macro-) regional infrastructures / services. Breaking up institutional barriers between territorial governmental units (national job market protection, territorial limits of infrastructure provision ...) • Current co-operation programmes largely effective but need better integration into relevant regional / national OP. Macro-Regions may have a place but are largely unproven; need to avoid generating a rush to create them without good justification • Funding of macro- or joint regional initiatives welcome, Thames Gateway (London) is an example of such a programme. It should be possible for regions to pool budgets and jointly deliver structural fund programmes where appropriate. • Territorial cooperation & integration with functionally integrated territorial units on multiple scales should be the base for cohesion policy, stable over time. Thematic policy support is additional with possibility of changing priorities and territorially specific questions. What? • Emergency interventions, highly specialised health services, environmental issues, security issues, Roma issues… ; Shrinking cities will need to put together more things to achieve a high level of performance in critical domains (heart surgery for example). If very relevant things are supported the rest of collaboration may follow the natural patterns and create a policy. • Supporting different kinds of cities’ networking focused on urban creativity & innovation (adopting integrated place-based concepts, including technological, organizational and social dimensions of innovation) – from voluntary workers or young artists networks to city-region authorities networks. This cooperation practice can promote the upscaling of ‘niche’ social and cultural experiments to broader transition spheres.

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/conferences/citiesoftomorrow/index_en.cfmhttp://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/conferences/citiesoftomorrow/index_en.cfm corinne.hermant@ec.europa.eu or christian.svanfeldt@ec.europa.eu

Cities of tomorrow - Input to governance questions Corinne Hermant-de Callataÿ