cities of tomorrow: workshop - european commission · alessandro balducci, politecnico di milano...
TRANSCRIPT
Cities of Tomorrow: Future Urban Challenges
Workshop
Chaired by
Corinne Hermant and Christian Svanfeldt
European Commission Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
Cities of Tomorrow
Future Urban Challenges
Future Urban Challenges – What?
Photo: Ivan Tosics
Governance challenges
Socio-economic challenges
Demographic challenges
Interrelated challenges
• Job creation, skills base, attractiveness
•
Climate adaptation, energy and resource efficiency
Copyright:
Ingela
Svedin
Sustainable mobility, pollution, land use
Eddy Adams - URBACT Thematic Pole Manager
Isabel André – University of Lisbon
Thomas Elmqvist – Stockholm Resilience Centre
Antonio Calafati, Gran Sasso Science Institute,
Sally Kneeshaw – URBACT Thematic Pole Manager
Panel 1
Future Urban Challenges – How?
Budget: EUR 330 000 000
Identify and test new solutions
Current and coming urban challenges
Studies and pilot projects
Innovative Actions in the field of
Sustainable Urban Development
Innovative Actions in the field of
Sustainable Urban Development
• Several calls 2014-2020
• ≥ 50000 inhabitants
• Max €5 000 000
• Max three years
Alessandro Balducci, Politecnico di Milano
Laura Colini, Leibnitz Institute for Regional and Structural Planning
Sonia Fayman, ACT Consultants
Claude Jacquier, CNRS
Ivan Tosics, URBACT Thematic Pole Manager
Panel 2
Thank you!
http://ec.europa.eu/cities
Panel Discussion: Future Urban Challenges in Europe
Panel members: • Antonio Calafati • Sally Kneeshaw • Thomas Elmqvist • Isabel André • Eddy Adams
Problems and challenges for EU cities in a context of crisis
• Isabel André • Professor and researcher, Institute of Geography and Spatial
Planning (IGOT), University of Lisbon
The context ‘The territorial European territorial policy is blind’ (Mark Frequin 17/02/14) Countries as Portugal, Spain or Greece (integrating the EC in the 80’s) perceive their progress as irreversible in the last decades… With the crisis this thinking falloff… Poverty, other exclusions, urban decline, new homeless, insecurity… have now returned
A pattern of cities breakdowns
First breakdown – cities based on construction/real estate/tourism (e.g Spanish Mediterranean Coast and Algarve/Portugal)
Second breakdown – cities with a large middle class greatly affected
by austerity decline of retail and services (domestic consumption)
Crisis has different impacts in different cities – it depends on urban economic fabric, social structure, local policies
Main urban problems – multiple foci
Housing
Mobility
Economy and Employment
Main urban problems A) HOUSING
Strong decrease of residential mobility related to the cessation of cheap credit – dramatic drop on housing credit loans)
Decrease of housing prices
Increase of house renting market (specially demanded by young families)
Many empty houses (before in the speculating sphere) enter in the renting market
Decrease of housing prices
Main urban problems
B) MOBILITY
Decrease of daily mobility
Reduction of public and private transport
Increase of (forced) soft mobility
Main urban problems C) ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT
Unemployment affecting not only unskilled workers but also the middle class and very qualified young people
Emigration of those qualified young people strengthening aging process
Collapse of many shops, restaurants and other small enterprises – decline of retailing areas
Income and consumption decrease
Rising of urban poverty/new poverty (middle class)/ employed persons poverty
Main policy challenges to overcoming the crisis
Rehabilitation and regeneration in the city centre or in the oldest suburbs centre (renovating old houses unfit for use) Support for culture and the arts (indirectly promoting urban tourism) - the distinction of the city Stop the departure of young people (incentives for return) Maintain lower energy consumption and more sustainable mobility after the crisis Promoting several models of intervention in the city (co-working with neighbourhoods)
Welfare city?
Panel Discussion: Future Urban Challenges in Europe
Panel members: • Antonio Calafati • Sally Kneeshaw • Thomas Elmqvist • Isabel André • Eddy Adams
The ‘Smart Growth’ Paradigm
and the European Urban
System
Antonio Calafati
Gran Sasso Science Institute (IT)
& Academy of Architecture (CH)
www.gssi.infn.it
0. A EUROPEAN UNION URBAN AGENDA
Why do we need an ‘EU urban agenda’?
How can an EU urban agenda be implemented?
What should an EU urban agenda be?
The ‘issue paper’ that was proposed as a background to the discussion lists three questions that we are expected to discuss in this
session – and in the other two parallel sessions: Why do we need an ‘EU urban agenda’? What should an EU urban agenda be?
How can an EU urban agenda be implemented? ‘To set the scene’ I will suggest a clear-cut answer to each of these three questions
as a starting point for discussion.
1. THE ‘NEW URBAN QUESTION’ IN EUROPE
WHY DO WE NEED A ‘EUROPEAN UNION URBAN AGENDA?
We need a ‘European urban agenda’ because we have to confront with a ‘European urban question’ – that has consolidated in the past 20 years. The ‘European urban question’ can be summarised in terms of two fundamental dimensions: a) there are large and growing disparities among European cities – not only in terms of current performances but also – and notably, as I shall stress later, in terms of ‘development potential’; b) there are large and growing disparities within cities – not only in terns of income but also in terms of access to public and collective goods (spatial welfare) and in terms of distribution of negative and positive externalities. The first step towards a “EU urban agenda’ is the acknowledgment of a “European urban question”.
Why do we need a ‘European Union urban agenda?
Large and increasing
disparities among cities
In order to address the
“European urban question’
Large and increasing
disparities within cities
1. THE ‘NEW URBAN QUESTION’ IN EUROPE
THE EUROPEAN URBAN SYSTEM: THREATS AND CHALLENGES
Shrinking
welfare state
Labour market
liberalisation
Reshaping of market-state
relationships
Urban threats/challenges
De-industrialisation and unemployment;
spatial polarisation; increasing poverty;
spatial segmentation; income disparities;
social segregation; …
Internationalisatio
n of the European
economy /society Institutional
transition in Central
and Eastern Europe
Environmental
threat
At the roots of the European urban question there are at least 4 key factors, widely and rightly discussed in their political significance and macro-economic implications but not that much in terms of their impact on the economic and social state of cities: a) the reshaping of the state-market relationships; b) the internationalisation of the European economy and society; c) the institutional transition of Central and Eastern Europe, on becoming part of the EU; d) the environmental threat. These factors have profoundly and very differently impacted on European cities, by generating a constellation of economic and social disequilibria. These factors have already begun to unfold their long terms effects. But we may safely affirm that the ‘European urban question’ will continue to stay with us for a long time.
ICT technology
2. MEETING THE ‘NEW URBAN QUESTION’ IN EUROPE EUROPEAN, NATIONAL AND LOCAL RESPONSES TO THE NEW URBAN QUESTION
Over the past two decades the ‘new European urban question’ emerged and consolidated. There have been ‘reactions’, ‘responses’, ‘policy actions’ on the part of ‘policy makers’ or ‘policy actors’ at all tiers of government (and governance). It is extremely important to stress this point. Moving towards a ‘European urban agenda’ it would be without significance not to turn back in order to acknowledge and to assess the kind of interpretations of the ‘urban crises’ that have been put forward and the policies that have been designed and implemented. To simplify we can simply turn to three key policy levels: the European Union, member states and cities.
2014
1990 2000
Emergence of an ‘urban
question’ in Europe
Consolidation of an
‘urban question’ in Europe
Member states
Cities
European Union
2. MEETING THE ‘NEW URBAN QUESTION’ IN EUROPE
THE EUROPEAN DISCOURSE ON CITIES
The European Union has developed a comprehensive discourse on city in the past two decades. It is useless to signal that in the Europe 2020 strategy cities are not given a role. Starting from the European Commission’s Communication “Towards an Urban Agenda for the European Union” (1997) an articulated discourse on cities as developed in the past years. I have put in the figure only some of the episodes that have marked the construction of an encompassing ‘EU perspective’ on the ‘urban question’. In order to address the question of a European urban agenda we should not move on from the ‘Europe 2020 Strategy’ but rather from all the ‘documents’, ‘communications’, ‘declarations’ that the European Union had devoted to the ‘European model of city’ and the ‘European model of territory’. Meeting today we should be aware of the ‘European Union perspective’ on city. It would be useless to arrange a ‘EU urban agenda’ in terns of ‘principles’, ‘concepts’. I do not see what the EU can say in addition to what it has already said on this issue.
Towards an European
Urban Agenda
(European Commission)
1997
The Lipsia
Charter
2007
The European Spatial
Development Perspective
1999
The Marseille
Statement
2008 2010
The Toledo
Declaration Cities of
Tomorrow
2011
Sustainable Urban
Development in the
European Union: A
Framework for Action
1998
Territorial Agenda of
the European Union
2020 Territorial Agenda
of the European
Union
(…)
2. MEETING THE ‘NEW URBAN QUESTION’ IN EUROPE NATIONAL AND LOCAL RESPONSES TO THE NEW URBAN QUESTION
I put forward a clear-cut thesis, which is at the centre of my presentation. We should not look at the shortcomings of the European Union with regards to the ‘European urban question’, but rather to the shortcomings – and failures – that have characterised the national and local (cities) levels of the policy-making process. National governments and cities reacted very differently to challenges posed by the urban question and, to the more specific challenge of incorporating the EU perspective on cities in their urban and regional policies. I cannot go into details now– also because I do not have enough comparative knowledge in this field -, but the classification framework given above can help us to capture the core of the question. The European discourse on city was de facto a suggestion, an invitation – may be not strong enough – to develop ‘national urban agendas’ in the European Union. And we range from countries that have developed ‘smart urban agendas’ to countries that do not have even tried put the ‘urban question’ on their policy agenda. The same dichotomy can be observed with regards to cities – actors that, for reasons I cannot discuss here, have greatly increased their ‘strategic potential’. Some have articulated a ‘smart agenda’ (an effective development strategy), others have outlined incoherent and irrelevant policy measures, other simply nothing. Why has Amsterdam – jus to make an example, possibly the most obvious – developed such a comprehensive development strategy whereas Florence has not?
National strategies and responses
Single cities’ strategies and
responses
Highly different
Highly different
No national urban agenda
Consistent national urban
agenda
No strategic response
‘Perfect’ strategic response
2. MEETING THE ‘NEW URBAN QUESTION’ IN EUROPE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GERMAN URBAN AGENDA
1999
The Leipzig Charter
)
2007 2003
Memorandum: Auf dem Weg
zu einer Nationalen
Stadtentwicklungspolitik
2007
2010
Programm:
Kleinere Städte und
Programm:
Die Soziale Stadt
2002
Programm:
Stadtumbau Ost
2004
Programm:
Stadtumbau West
Leitbild fur die Stadt
der Zukunft
(Deutscher Städtetag)
Initiative: Nationale
Stadtentwicklungspolitik
201
1
Report:
“Weissbuch
Innenstadt”
To compare at this stage ‘national urban agendas’ of the EU member states is an exercise that should be conducted straightaway. To give you an idea of what I mean let me ask you to give a glance to the Figure above: just a glance to detect the density – if not the nature – of the episodes that marked the construction of Germany’s urban agenda – one of the countries in Europe that has devoted more attention to the urban question. And I put in the figure for reasons of space constraint only some of the most important episodes. If I had made the same exercise for Italy – my country – the result would have been almost a blank page! There is a crucial question to address here: why do we observe such a disparity of reactions among European countries notwithstanding the articulated and coherent – and fascinating – vision developed but the European Union?
2008
Programm:
Aktive Stadt- und
Ortsteilzentren
Programm:
Städtebauliche Sanierungs-
und Entwicklungsmaßnahmen
Programm:
Weiterentwicklung großer
Neubaugebiete
1991
3. THE ‘SMART GROWTH’ PARADIGM AND THE CITY
DEFINING THE ‘SMART GROWTH’ PARADIGM
The title of this session is ‘The urban dimension of ‘smart growth’’ – understood as defined in the Europe 2020, where ‘smart growth’ is proposed
as one of the three pillars of the overall strategy (together with green growth and inclusive growth). The dimensions A, B and C summarize what
we may call the ‘smart growth paradigm’. A system – be it a nation, a region or a city – can be said to have a ‘smart structure’ if it is characterised
by these three dimensions.
‘Smart growth’ paradigm
A. Knowledge-based
economy
Dimensions
C. Resilient
Economy
B. Innovation-oriented
economy / society
Nations | Regions | CITIES
‘Smart economic structure’
3. THE ‘SMART GROWTH’ PARADIGM AND THE CITY
WHAT WE EXPECT FROM OUR CITIES
City [T=20] City [T=0]
Structural change
Transition
The entire discourse on cities that has developed as a response to the new urban question in Europe is about ‘change’, ‘structural change’. The ‘smart growth’ paradigm is about moving from the ‘current structure’ to a ‘smart structure’. Three parallel sessions going on right now are addressing the question of change, respectively in the economic, ecological and social dimension of city. From a policy perspective the key question to address is how to support structural changes that have to be designed and accomplished at local level. From the ‘smart growth’ perspective the question is about changing the ‘economic base’ of European cities, up-grading it to meet the new competitive context, to find a place, a role in the regional, national, European and global ‘spatial division of labour’. As to this question we should admit that the discussion is very vague. There are many ‘economic models of city’ in Europe, there are very different ‘transitions’ or ‘structural transformations’ to consider, to explore in their feasibility. The complexity of the economic changes that we are asking our cities to implement are not well understood and very often not even discussed.
Transform / up-grading the ‘economic base’
3. THE ‘SMART GROWTH’ PARADIGM AND THE CITY
URBAN DISPARITIES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
Whatever shortcomings the ‘smart growth paradigm’ may have, it has the merit of having shifted the focus from ‘current economic
performances’ to ‘future economic performances’: in particular, to the necessary structural transition of the economic base – be it a
nations, a region a city. We may go a step forward saying that the ‘smart growth paradigm’ de facto implies a shift of the focus on the
‘development potential’ of a territorial unit, in our case of (European) cities. There is a long-established tradition with regards to the
economic condition of a territorial unit to measure current performances. But the most important question in a phase of profound
economic and social changes is the capacity to change, if a city observed ‘now’ has or hasn’t a sufficient development potential: the
capability to transform it economic base. The smart growth paradigm suggests a new empirical research agenda: to assess the
development potential of European cities.
1 0
‘Backward cities’ ‘Advanced cities’
Capacity to transform the ‘economic base’
‘Locked-in cities’ ‘Evolving cities’
3. THE ‘SMART GROWTH’ PARADIGM AND THE CITY
EXPLAINING CITIES’ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
The key step here is: explaining the heterogeneity of the European urban system; explaining the factors that have impeded or made difficult the structural transition. I propose five dimensions (among others) that we need to take into consideration to explain why we observe (today) such a difference among European cities in terms of development potentials. The European discourse on the European urban question should be completed with a more precise statement of the current state of European cities and above al their development potential. The EU has moved only the first steps in this direction. Other steps have been made at national and local level. But I think that we are still far away from a reasonable understanding of the ‘development potential’ of cities in Europe.
Willingness to adopt the
‘smarth growth paradigm’
Ability to conceive an
effective transition strategy
Endogenous / exogenous
economic resources to
accomplish the transition strategy
National institutional framework
European
cities’adjustment
capacity Political-cognitive dimension
Private sector’ adjustment strategies
4. TOWARDS A EUROPEAN URBAN AGENDA
What should a “European urban agenda’ be?
To address the European urban question from a European perspective – to try to maintain the “European model of city” and the
European model of territory’, which we seem to value so much in ‘our’ official documents and statements – the key instruments are
‘national urban agendas’. When we move from ‘principles’ to ‘policies’ and ‘actions’ it is absolutely necessary to incorporate the
specificity and the knowledge about this specificity of the concerned urban systems. The German case is a model: they have
incorporated, in the most recent up-grading of its urban agenda, the principles you find the ‘Leipzig Charter’ but against the
background of their priorities, of the resources and state of their cities. This is not an easy task, because as I have mentioned at the
beginning, there are countries that have not yet began to tackle the urban question. At this stage a ‘EU urban agenda’ should also
directly address a limited number of urban crises – in agreement with member states –, which may have a paradigmatic significance
– and experiment a complete integration of all policy instruments to accomplish the required ‘structural transformations’.
A.
A ‘device’ to promote
‘national urban agendas’
‘What should a “EU urban agenda” be?
Supporting cities’
economic transition
strategies
B.
A framework to support the
transition strategies of a
number of ‘selected’ cities
4. TOWARDS A EU URBAN AGENDA
HOW CAN A “EU URBAN AGENDA” BE IMPLEMENTED?
Benchmarking national
urban agendas
A
How can a “EU urban agenda” be implemented?
Moral suasion An institutional context
to compare the
construction of the
national urban agendas
Benchmarking cities’
development strategies
B
How can a “EU urban agenda” be implemented?
Selecting a limited
number of ‘cities in
crises’
Supporting them in terms of
economic resources and
knowledge
4. TOWARDS A EU URBAN AGENDA
CONSTRAINING NATIONAL URBAN AGENDAS
4. Assessing the current state and development potential of cities ‘as systems’
3. Addressing the territorial governance issue: from cities to ‘cities de facto’
to ‘functional urban areas’
2. Integrating the ‘urban agenda’ into the ‘territorial agenda’
5. Acknowledging the long-term nature of structural transition
1. Setting clear priorities in terms of cities
Benchmarking national urban agendas
European urban agenda
4. TOWARDS A EU URBAN AGENDA
BENCHMARKING CITIES’ DEVELOPMENT PLANS
City Self-monitoring the development trajectories
Building a social preference function
through substantive democratic processes
Using empirically sound and explicit
models to evaluate the policy actions
Evaluating the policy actions on the systems
Benchmarking cities’ development plans
European urban agenda
Integrate programmes and actions in time and space
5. TO CONCLUDE
There are cities in Europe that do not need any support: they have the intelligence (of democracy)
and command the resources to accomplish the transformation of their economic base and to
address the dis-equilibria and imbalances they may have to face.
There are cities in Europe that do not deserve any support: they command the economic and
cognitive resources but not the political capacity or willingness to change their development
trajectories.
There are cities in Europe that do not command the economic and cognitive resources to face the
threats and challenges of this time: a EU urban agenda that intends to be coherent with the
‘European project’ should focus primarily on them.
Jena (Germany), 2006
Coffee Break – 15 min
Panel Discussion: Tackling Urban Challenges
Panel members: • Ivan Tosics • Alessandro Balducci • Laura Colini • Sonia Fayman • Claude Jacquier
Future Urban Challenges Iván Tosics
URBACT Thematic Pole Manager
(Metropolitan Research Institute, Budapest)
Urban Innovative Actions
• The EC wants to support the best urban development ideas (with max 5 mill eur/project) selected in a spatially blind way.
• Each year topics will be announced and local governments can bid. Partnerships with universities and other actors will be supported.
• The whole program will be subcontracted to a public service provider, the EC will only be independent observer not in the position to influence the selection of winning cities.
Focus on innovative solutions
• What is “innovative”? Technical aspects (innovative technology providers) may become dominating the process.
• Example from a smart cities conference: large solution providers were present but not cities. Innovative companies said that this is not a problem as they are present in all countries of the EU.
• City politicians are needed to achieve smart cities – they know how technological solutions and innovation can be turned into employment. Politicians (together with industry and university) have to find out the way to go as technology solutions do not work in themselves!
Spatially blind selection
Statement: it is important not to mix up the spatially blind initiatives with those which are for creating solidarity!
Counter-argument: place-based approaches to policy are more effective as they are tailored to the particularities of places and specifically the context-dependent nature and importance of institutions as sources of local growth. Even the best spatially blind development strategy can be undermined by poor institutional environments.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/fp7_monitoring_reports/fifth_fp7_monitoring_report.pdf
FP7, SSH programme
• SSH programmes: 560 mill eur allocated in 246 projects
• Hungarian institutions: only 2 project leaders.
• Only one east-central European university among the first 30 (Leuven University 26 projects, Amsterdam University 25 projects, LSE 22 projects…)
The spatially blind selection will lead to unequal distribution of funds and to solutions difficult to apply in those areas where the problems are.
Suggestions
• regarding the topic start from the ten key urban challenges defined in the Cities of Tomorrow reflection process
• not isolated ideas should be supported but ideas which are based on the regional development paradigm and integrated strategic development plan (like LAP in URBACT)
• at the city level coalition of the stakeholders have to be formed (like ULSG in URBACT)
• apply some ratios for cities from convergence areas or create compulsory teaming-up with convergence cities (as observers?)
• shortlist should be created by experts but the final selection should be based on hearings (Regio-Stars method)
• praise in some way the rejected but shortlisted proposals (e.g. publishing them)
• require strong dissemination of the achieved results
Panel Discussion: Tackling Urban Challenges
Panel members: • Ivan Tosics • Alessandro Balducci • Laura Colini • Sonia Fayman • Claude Jacquier
•Future Urban Challenges • Tackling Urban Challenges
Claude Jacquier
Researcher at CNRS
France
Urban agenda and Urban
Initiatives:
an old anticipation for the future!
Are we in optimal conditions?
What is the challenge that offers the greatest scope for
innovation and makes immediate impact ?
1 - Next crisis may be the next elections of EU Parliament Members with success of
nationalism against migrants and EU and MS democracies and… bureaucracies!
2 - No big revolution is coming (?) so how UIA or RUIA (Rurb an Initiative Action) will successfully participate to the big reforms needed by EU and member States.
UIA and RUIA have to be vectors of transition (Troyan Horses) like other programmes were in the old good days like Leader, Urban, Urbact, Interreg, European Grouping of territorial Cooperation, prevention of flood and dryness risks.
It’s a job for reformist conspirators and their accomplices within bureaucratic institutions
Bypassing bureaucratic rigidities and coproducing reforms
Focus on integrated policies for sustainable rurban development
Together or then
New organisation
Homogeneous Aereas
Strategical Approaches
"Software" Policies
European Union
Cross-border
Regions
National Regions
Rurban Regions
Metropolitan
Areas
Local Communities
Vectors
Sustainable Urban
Development
INNOVATIVE PROGRAMMES
Integrated Policies
as operators for transition
Social Cohesion Policy
CSF, SDEC, INTERREG
CIP URBAN, URBACT
Regional Politicies
PCDI, OP
Interreg, EGCT
National IPSUD
(Big Cities programme
Politique de la ville,
Soziale Stadt, ...)
CIP Urban
Area-based approaches
1 - What is innovative action in Urban or Rural field? Not just technical innovation ! But innovations concerning the way of doing with Urban and Rurban areas (governance, management) in order to integrate sectoral approaches (environment, social, economies, cultures) in sustainable strategies.
What kind of innovative actions and how could they have
leverage effect to instigate real change in cities?
2 - What is innovative project ? It is a project coproduced with communities (see CLLD) in order to create sustainable added-value able to insert or reinsert communities in the global and worldwilde value chain
Place (environment)
People and
Gender (social)
-6- Project
Outcomes (LAP Local
Action Plan) Sustainable
Added-value
-1- Community
Territory Their components
-5- Cross-
fertilization Contracts (A, B, C) (effective
LSG)
-2- The Key:
Know-How (LAT Local Action Team) Reformist Conspirators Gardeners, Clinicians
Create New Atmospheres with New Compromises
-4- Partnership
(LSG Local Support Group)
A Conflictive Cooperation
A
B
C
Coproduce Sustainable Added-Value within a Community Building Sustainable Local Action Plans (“Making the Best With”)
-3- Mobilizing Actors Traditional and New One
Inside and Outside the Community Bringing Economic, Social and
Environmental Resources
Institutions (economy politics)
Action Arena
Patterns of intégration
-7- Evaluation
URBACT – URBAMECO - C. Jacquier
SVA SVA SVA SVA SVA SVA
Strategical Link R & D
Know-How Finances
Com
Strategical Link
Marketing Sales
Maintenance
SVA links located in deprived communities or elsewhere in
the World
The Sustainable Value Added (SVA) Chain :
Each community as a link of the chain
Which parts of these links are still Located in deprived communities
or could be re-located in them?
What is the delocalisation risk for strategical links?
Connected Community
Connected Community
Deprived Community
Deprived Community
Community elsewhere in
the world
Community elsewhere in
the world
3 – We need to have to look into the black box of the makers of Innovative Actions. IA always immerge from the ground never from the top. They are not created by decrees or by funds, nor by top-down procedure.
What kind of innovative actions… (following)
4 – In Initiative Action, founding authorities as to pay more attention than in the past to Local Action Team and to local reformist conspirators (skills of practitioners and community organizers) and not just on content of actions, robustness of them, measurable effects and transferability of results (see the draft on funding innovative action). Success in Leader or Urban-Urbact initiatives fully show the pertinence of that even if nobody point it out.
5 – We need training programme and involvement of researchers in
theses “laboratories” (400 in Urbact, it’s a lot). A cofounding is
needed by DG research
Sustainable Local Action Team (SLAT)
and Sustainable Local Support Group (SLSG)
Local authority A
Local authority Z
State - EU
Other political levels
(Region Province)
Private sector
Associations
Reformist conspirators
Accomplices
Institutions and agents
SLAT and SLSG
Reformist process
Metropolitan Area Rurban Region
The problem is less the lack of funds than the disability of local communities (cities) to absorb new resources and to valorise them in order to produce innovative project i.e sustainable added-values.
The main reason of this is the lack of skills able to take fully into account the complexity of local community, to «do with» in order to produce sustainable added-value and to link them to worldwhile value chains. To do that, specific Local Action Teams (LATs) are needed.
Concluding Proposals
Cities, rurban regions, member states and EU all together have to act in a multilevel way in order to mobilise funds and associate universities and research centres to tackle this topic. Compare to other EU programme, the cost of such a strategy is not very expansive and certainly more efficient.
Concluding Proposals (following)
To reach this point we have to build strong relations between «research, training and professional actors» in various cities involved in European exchange programme, like Urbact, devoted to deal with Integrated Strategies for Sustainable Development (ISSD).
Really, we need a European ISSD university, a network of appliance laboratories all over Europe to foster the capacity building of cities.
Thank you for your attention
Cross-border
cooperation Building
strategical
regions
(1)
Cross-border
Coopération
Building
strategical
regions
(2)
Programmes
of
Risk
Prevention:
floods and
drynesses
Eurométropole Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai (Belgium-France) European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC)
Making the city Making the best of the
city
Horizontal conflicting cooperation (since the end of 19s)
Fragmented territory
Balkanized
‘Tart’
Horizontal cooperation
Cooperation between local authorities and organizations
Rurban Region
Making the city Making the best of the
city
Vertical conflicting cooperation (since
the 60s)
Hierarchical approach Specialised approach ‘Pastry’
Vertical cooperation Subsidiary approach Contractual policy Multilevel agreements
Making the city Making the best of
the city
Transversal conflicting cooperation (since the 80s)
Sectorised approach
Partitioned approach
‘Slices of cake’
Transversal cooperation
Transversal approach
Partnership
This last cooperation is the hardest to set up: Confrontation between various professional and cultural identities, corporatism and bureaucracy.
Panel Discussion: Tackling Urban Challenges
Panel members: • Ivan Tosics • Alessandro Balducci • Laura Colini • Sonia Fayman • Claude Jacquier
Concluding remarks