Study commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs
Executive Summary
Contact:
Dr. Kathleen Toepel (DIW)
Robert Sander (DIFU)
Wolf-Christian Strauss (DIFU)
The community initiative URBAN pursues the target to improve the critical social and economic situation existing in numerous boroughs. Highest target is the improvement of the quality of life for the population in the boroughs concerned. Measures for the economic development and social integration, for the reconstruction of infrastructures and for environmental protection are supported in selected cities. The projects are to have a model character for other cities. Particularly innovative projects, which arrange themselves in an integrated long-term strategy of the urban development, receive priority.
After longer delays in the final acknowledgement of the operational programs, the implementation of the programs in all URBAN cities progressed in the meantime very far. In that respect no urgent action requirement exists, in order to achieve the regular termination of the programs. Conceivable are still requests for modification in individual cases. However no reason exists that the granting of the projects cannot be finished up to the end of 1999. Berlin and Brandenburg indicate so far the largest grant arrears. All other cities are predominantly in the plan. Arrears can be explained usually with delays with large building projects. The disbursement status of the projects, which follows building progress, is however still relatively low.
The integrated approach with the bundling of means and measures in problem boroughs worked and is particularly well suitable for the solution of complex problem situations in individual city boroughs. The problem situations in the boroughs require an multi-sectoral approach. In comparison to the regular Objective-1-interventions it succeeds here clearly better to use both the ERDF with the ESF and in combination with other national programs (Urban Renewal Program, National Joint Task "Improvement of the Regional Economic Structure") and to interlace different measures usefully. URBAN measures with ESF financing, which indicate no conscious linkage to ERDF measures, can hardly be found. The supporting measures of the URBAN program include in addition also such actions, which otherwise in the context of other programs would not be promotable, but are essential for the development of the city boroughs. Thus the URBAN program pushes into a gap, which is so far not covered by national programs.
Regarding implementation of the integrated approach, similar examples can be found in the cities. It is implemented particularly by mixed-use and environmentally friendly brownfield redevelopment, by preservation and re-use of historic buildings, by new infrastructure facilities and improvement of open spaces. In addition, procedures towards integration of excluded persons and citizens' participation represent integrated approaches. Not each project presents an integrated approach itself; integration results then rather in a broader sense, as these measures are to be regarded as items of an integrated revaluation strategy.
Success
condition for the implementation of such an integrated approach is, apart
from the small-scale designation of the assisted area, a central co-ordination
unit, which implements this approach directly. In the future a limited
number of master projects should be selected in the cities, which enjoy
special priority. The effect of these master projects should be multi-sectoral
in the sense of the integrated approach and serve as well as a model for
the city.
The concentration of means on small urban units is useful and increases the chances for a visible revaluation of these boroughs. The relatively small volume of the URBAN programs requires the concentration on limited city boroughs, since the measures will be not effective otherwise. The EU becomes "experiencable" and is no longer understood as an abstract institution. By this concentration the integrated approach of the structural funds (ERDF/ESF) and the combination with other national programs becomes implementable. This is the only chance to carry out the integrated approach at all.
The effectiveness
and efficiency of the measures can be increased thereby that the designation
of the areas is made on the basis of preparing investigations (similar
as §141 German building law book). But the designation of the assisted
area should not be laid out too strictly in particular regarding socio-cultural
infrastructures.
The URBAN projects are to be innovative and to have a model character for other cities. Innovation in the cities is understood primarily regarding the own city or the special conditions in East Germany. However, in other cities in Germany and Europe quite comparable projects can be found.
Surely the
specific features of individual projects (particularly related to the buildings)
lead to the fact that the projects as a whole are not simply transferable
to other cities. This means rather to filter transferable innovative aspects
from the projects. What appears for one city innovative and worthy to transfer,
can be already implemented or does not fit in the local conditions in other
cities. Often it is "only" an innovative project idea, a special procedure
or approach. In all cities case studies as "Best Practices" were selected.
Fields for innovation and "Best Practices" result so far in the area of
the citizens' participation, the co-ordination of different city administration
departments, regarding the integrated approach as well as technical solutions.
In almost all URBAN cities there were substantial friction and time delays in the start-up phase, since projects and organisational structures were not developed further up to the actual program decision. Project ideas and impressions over the social and economic situation in the boroughs existed, but hardly any conceptions over the implementation and participation structures. These structures had to be created during the implementation phase.
However
the organisational structures as well as the local participation differ
in the individual cities substantially. The horizontal (between individual
administrations and offices) and the vertical (municipality - country)
co-ordination expenditure and the willing to co-operate between individual
levels (administrations, local actors, project management) are very different
and not always efficiently organised. Some application and granting procedures
in the individual cities lead to time delays. Additionally, also frequent
personnel changes in the responsibilities on local level formed an obstacle.
However, in the meantime relatively stable solutions were found.
Difficulties
developed particularly during the financial implementation, partly also
with the project management. Also the differences in the handling of ERDF
and ESF as well as budget stops in individual cities lead to time delays
or the failure of individual projects. Regarding the handling of structural
funds, it has to be considered that for most city administrations the URBAN
program represented the first contact with the European structural funds.
Thus, experiences with the implementation of such programs were not available.
The exchange
of experience in the framework of the German URBAN network is assessed
as very useful by the cities. Above all, the personal contacts to other
city administrations developing from it are emphasised. In the future a
stronger topic-referred concentration on practical questions of the network
sessions is judged for necessary. To what extent such a network will exist
in the future, should be the decision of the cities;
Main goal of the community initiative URBAN in the boroughs is the improvement of the quality of life in all its facets: Working, living, learning, recovering, etc. The job creation is thereby important, but only one target dimension of URBAN. Brownfield reconstruction and the promotion of productive investment are aiming directly at job creation. Employment effects can result however also from other projects during the building phase and during operation.
The lion's share of the URBAN projects form infrastructure projects, which unfold their full effects only on a long-term basis. Projects from the areas of socio-cultural infrastructures and environment protection could be implemented fastest. They are as much of special importance as they do not only contribute to the improvement of the situation in the boroughs, but their revaluation effect is also particularly perceptible.
Effects
of the URBAN projects could hardly arise so far, above all because most
projects were just recently finished in their building phase or are still
built at the moment. Some results were collected nevertheless and the possible
effects were qualitatively presented project type by project type. However,
they can only be summarised with difficulty. Indirect effects cannot be
quantified. An efficiency analysis could not be carried out because of
the hardly measurable effects at present.
Influence
on the further handling of the programs is limited in view of the only
short programming period. With the today existing structures and procedures
a friction-poor finalization can be expected. In individual cases there
may be still some requirements for modification, however urgent action
is not required. At short notice it is however necessary to improve the
monitoring systems, since so far not enough quantitative and qualitative
data are available for the evaluation. The financial monitoring systems
should be extended systematically by output and outcome indicators. A quarter
monitoring of the socio-economic change in the boroughs is recommended.
The continuation of the integrated URBAN approach for urban renewal after the year 2000 is clearly recommendable. In a new program the core items of URBAN should be taken up:
The broad,
multi-sectoral spectrum of possible measures should not be limited. The
programs should be structured on the one hand that development targets
on borough level are recognisable. On the other hand however they should
be so open that for local initiatives remains sufficient room for manoeuvre.
It is necessary to find as simple and flexible implementation procedures
as possible. The engagement of external project managers worked satisfactorily
and should be continued.
The beginning of a new programming period of the European structural funds is approaching briefly. The programming period from 2000 to 2006 is connected with a profound reform of the structural funds. The negotiations between the member states and the European Commission about the new structural fund regulations have been finished recently. Nevertheless the preparation for the new period in the member states and regions has already begun.
After the year 2000, East Germany will remain Objective-1-Region of the European structural funds. The community initiative URBAN will be implemented also in the new programming period. The URBAN approach has to be incorporated into the regular ERDF and ESF interventions. For the continuation of the integrated URBAN approach for urban renewal, now several ways are open:
On one hand, the European Parliament prevailed against the European Commission that also in the new programming period (2000 to 2006) a community initiative URBAN will be implemented. Approximately 700 Mill Euro from the ERDF will be available - clearly fewer than in the preceding period. Therefore, a smaller number of cities will benefit from it. Details of the new community initiative are still not available at present.
On the other hand, in the future the urban dimension will be incorporated as an explicit component under Objectives 1 and 2 as integrated urban development measures. It is under responsibility of the member states, to what extent they want to correspond to this request in their future area selection and adjustment of the operational programs. In all German Objective-1-Regions however an own measure is intended to be introduced in the new operational programs, which takes up the core regulations of the URBAN approach. In Western Germany the area designation process for Objective 2 is not finished yet, which can contain also urban areas.
Additionally there are considerations to add to the German Urban Renewal Program a new program approach of "quarters with special development requirements - the social city". Also this program essentially reflects the integrated URBAN approach. There are likewise some thoughts about co-financing by the European structural funds.
So far these three possibilities to continue the URBAN approach in Germany remain unconnected to each other. Their implementation and possible co-operation are still completely unclear. In the past the URBAN programs contained items, which stand out clearly against the regular promotion measures in East Germany. Additional measures, the integrated approach and the broad citizens' participation should be mentioned. If - as in East Germany - already contents and procedures are mainstreamed, the question about the added value of a community initiative arises. As long as a new quality does not become clear, a community initiative is not sufficiently justified. This however can only be judged finally if the adjustment of the new initiative has become clearer.
