Cities Forum 2025 - Capacity-Building for European cities: Inspiring examples and new opportunities

See more here: second Capacity-Building session

The European Urban Initiative Secretariat introduced the session by outlining the EUI’s Capacity Building offer. This was followed by presentations from beneficiaries of the City-to-City Exchanges, who shared their experiences. Emanuela Meneghini from Ravenna described the city’s role as a peer city for Den Helder in the Netherlands, focusing on collaborative urban regeneration. She emphasised the “group therapy effect” of shared challenges, noting how openness about successes and failures enhanced mutual learning. Nathalie Debord from La Rochelle highlighted their efforts to improve early childhood services to attract residents. Exchange visits with Reggio Emilia introduced new perspectives, leading La Rochelle to adapt innovative solutions and provide training for pedagogical professionals. Publicising the exchange boosted recruitment interest, strengthening their human resources. She suggested that future exchanges could involve deeper stakeholder engagement. Participants then split into two groups to explore social cohesion and citizen engagement, reflecting on challenges through canvases related to Ravenna and La Rochelle’s contexts.

The Ravenna-Den Helder cooperation continues via an Urbact Network, with Ravenna gaining valuable validation of its collaborative approaches. Den Helder appreciated Ravenna’s transparency about failures and successes. La Rochelle’s short-duration exchange proved effective in shifting childcare professionals’ mindsets. Workshop discussions emphasised the need to motivate teams supporting vulnerable groups like the elderly and children. A key lesson was understanding real community needs before addressing them. Challenges with citizen engagement were highlighted, particularly after broken promises eroded trust. Rebuilding requires storytelling, time investment, and capacity building within municipalities to foster collaboration. Storytelling emerged as a critical tool; involving “local heroes” can strengthen community engagement. A notable shift was discussed from co-design—which sometimes proved too ambitious—to co-production, focusing on truly listening to and involving citizens rather than municipalities making unilateral decisions.

The session included a matchmaking corner featuring a ‘Give and Take’ canvas, allowing participants to post their needs and offers, potentially leading to future City-to-City (C2C) exchanges. La Rochelle expressed interest in participating in another C2C exchange focused on improving early childhood services for children with disabilities. They have been connected with the European Network of Family-Friendly Municipalities to identify a suitable peer city for this exchange. Upcoming opportunities with the EUI were also presented: the Access to Funding event in Rotterdam (30 September – 2 October) with registration now open; the EU Week of Regions and Cities in Brussels (October); national events planned for Semester 2 in Belgium, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, with more Member States scheduled for early 2026; and the Peer Review call opening in October. The City-to-City Exchange call remains permanently open for applications.

To gather participants' input to the EU’s future agenda for cities, a Slido question was posed: “What are the main challenges your city faces in effectively engaging local stakeholders in Cohesion Policy projects?”. The key challenges identified included:

• Unpaid contributions: Non-profits and companies are often expected to contribute unpaid time to local working groups, which is unsustainable.
• Irregular consultations: Consultations are typically reactive and triggered by legal obligations, lacking early involvement, which undermines trust and the quality of input.
• Bureaucratic hurdles: Public institutions frequently hire based on political or familial connections rather than expertise. Many administrators feel overwhelmed or resistant to change due to limited knowledge and digital skills. Although strong public development strategies exist, they are seldom implemented. Key decisions are often made at regional or national levels, limiting local autonomy. There is a shortage of experts with international funding experience, and few administrators are proficient in English.
• Slow engagement: Citizens expect rapid feedback—ideally within a week—yet bureaucratic delays are common. Tactical urbanism and placemaking are effective in building momentum for larger projects.
• Superficial participation: Engagement frequently occurs after plans are finalised rather than involving citizens early, hindering long-term trust and meaningful input.
• Trust building: Fostering equal collaboration among stakeholders through public-private partnerships and broader organisational involvement is essential.
• Key priorities: Talent retention, sustainability, mobilisation, job creation, and vibrant public spaces are central concerns.
• Sustainable tourism: Achieving common understanding and aligned solutions is crucial for cities facing over-tourism.
• Power centralisation: Excessive centralisation widens the gap between bottom-up citizen initiatives and top-down strategic planners, reducing effective participation.
• Participation gaps: A lack of trust, limited experience with participatory methods, scarce expert resources, and the non-recognition of certain functional areas as beneficiaries impede engagement.
• Political mindset: A shift in political mentality is needed to meet stakeholder expectations and enhance capacity and transparency, both critical for building trust and involvement.
• Administrative challenges: Bureaucracy, lack of vision, and low stakeholder motivation remain persistent barriers.