innovative solutions may also constitute a strong element of integrated and sustainable development of cities. The active and motivated participation of cities in different European cities networks (see point 4 above) also proves their capacity and willingness to search for new solutions, exchanging know-how and experiences. This is a real opportunity for European cities: Europe’s urban system is strongly based on the densely built network of its mainly middle sized cities and so regional and inter city cooperation are therefore likely to be the most important elements in their competitiveness.
4. Threats The main threat European cities are facing now is of course the financial crisis and its various impacts. There are several studies that attempt analysing the effects of the crisis on cities; in particular the survey led in the frame of URBACT or the one of the OECD LEED programmes13. These analyses show how variable these impacts are according to the size, geographical position, economic and social background of the cities, as well as the way their local authorities approach the question of governance. Yet in the present changing and unstable economic and political period, it would be extremely difficult to set up any long lasting models (even if based on multiple and much deeper case study analysis). These threats may therefore raise the necessity of setting up a system of criteria in the future programmes of the Cohesion fund that are more open to local solutions. This in turn implies tighter partnerships between DG Regio, national managing authorities of the structural funds, and local powers. Nevertheless, in the cases where cities and their local governments that do not have a strong tradition of urban planning (a problem that mostly concerns cities of the newer Member States and their legacy of a centralised planning system), European programmes may bring about a dual opposing effect in that their positive impact of bringing financial and know how support is sometimes hindered by a standardisation of projects and urban policies related to the fact that cities concentrate almost all their political efforts to meet the demanding criteria required to be eligible for EU funding. Innovation, as mentioned above, is a major tool for modernising economic activities, work management, housing and public facilities. Nevertheless, the fact should not be neglected that innovation policies and actions aimed at a greater attractiveness enhance the risk for a larger and larger numbers of citizens being left lagging behind the “progress”. This risk of ‘dual cities’ stems from the possible distortions that may occur in urban management even in a context of generally high competency among European cities. To some extent it can be avoided (or at least reduced) by close cooperation and mutual understanding between the different territorial and administrative levels (see recommendations below).
Recommendations for the urban dimension of the Cohesion policy Below we set out three key categories of policy recommendations arising from the findings of the study.
13
“Cities and the Economic Crisis”, URBACT, April 2010 and „Recession, Recovery and Reinvestment: the role of local economic leadership in a Global crisis”, by Greg Clark, OECD LEED Programme ACT Consultants – Good policies and practices to tackle urban challenges
33