4. The urban dimension of EU initiatives
The third section of the survey explored the urban dimension of EU initiatives.
The survey aimed to help understand which EU funds and programmes are most used in cities to implement sustainable urban development policies. Respondents were asked to select all the initiatives their urban authority or organisation had used in the last 10 years. They were also able to add more initiatives that were not included in the list.
First, it is worth noting the number of different initiatives selected by each respondent. Only 4% claimed that their city or organisation had not used any of the EU initiatives listed, and 12% did not know if one or more of the listed initiatives had been used. 19% of respondents selected only 1 type of EU initiative[1], while around half (51%) identified 2 to 5 initiatives, and 14% selected 6 to 11. This demonstrates a proactive use of EU funds and programmes to support urban development policies and strategies.
A closer look at the results shows that the proportion remains relatively consistent across different sizes of cities using 2 to 5 funds. However, the share of towns reporting the use of 6 to 11 funds or programmes decreases considerably, while medium and extra-large cities see their percentage triple. Although towns are generally involved in EU initiatives, their participation tends to be more limited compared to larger cities. This may reflect differences in administrative capacity to attract and manage multiple funds and programmes.
Less straightforward is why the percentage of less developed regions also decreases when 6 or more initiatives are selected. More research is needed to understand if this trend is confirmed, whether for example cities in less developed regions lack the capacity to use a large number of initiatives, and identify the initiatives in question.
In terms of types of initiatives, the most frequently selected are cohesion policy funds and programmes. Notably, 73% of respondents selected national or regional operational programmes financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Cohesion Fund (CF), European Social Fund Plus (ESF +), and Just Transition Fund (JTF). In addition, 46% of respondents selected Interreg, and 29% URBACT, both part of the cohesion policy family, co-financed by ERDF. This result is no surprise as cohesion policy is one of the most important priorities of the EU budget, largely used in urban areas to support a wide variety of measures, including job creation, competitiveness, economic growth, sustainable development and improving citizens´ quality of life. Cohesion policy is also a key tool in the digital and green transitions. Meanwhile, Interreg and URBACT are both very important tools of cooperation and policy learning for cities and territories.
The high use of Next Generation EU, selected by 29% of respondents, is also expected, considering the consistent available budget, and its recent importance in helping to repair damages resulting from the coronavirus pandemic and support goals for greener, more digital and more resilient territories, including urban areas.
What is probably less expected in the results is that quite a high percentage of respondents claimed their city or organisation had used Erasmus Plus (27%), Horizon Europe for Research and Innovation (including its predecessor Horizon 2020) (26%) and LIFE (22%) to implement their urban policies and strategies. None of these three initiatives are explicitly designed to sustain urban policies, and they have quite sectoral objectives: education, training, youth and sport for Erasmus Plus; research and innovation for Horizon Europe; and environment and climate action for LIFE. In addition, the target of these initiatives is not typically urban authorities, although they can apply to the programmes, especially in some actions and strands. Nevertheless, it appears that all these programmes are flexible enough to be a good resource for implementing policies and strategies in urban areas.
Finally, it is worth noting that 25% of respondents selected either the European Urban Initiative (EUI)[2] (15%) or its 2014-2020 predecessor Urban Innovative Actions (UIA) (10%). The use of these initiatives designed to support innovative projects in urban areas will be discussed in the next section of the report.
Respondents added some initiatives that were not listed in the survey, namely: the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD); ESPON – The European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion; ELENA – European Local ENergy Assistance; International Urban and Regional Cooperation (IURC); European Economic Area (EEA) and Norwegian Financial Mechanisms; and European City Facility (EUCF). The low percentages for these programmes added by respondents should be interpreted with caution, as they might have been more frequently selected if included in the predefined list. Nevertheless, this indicates the broad range of EU initiatives that can be used in supporting urban development.
A deeper examination of regions’ level of development per EU initiative reveals a drop in the percentage of respondents from less developed regions selecting high numbers of initiatives. In particular, it appears that respondents from less developed regions are less likely to select initiatives linked to innovation (and likely also more competitive) like Horizon Europe, UIA and EUI, and Connecting Europe Facility.
When focusing on the replies of representatives of urban authorities only, it is interesting to see if all the above-mentioned EU initiatives are used by cities of different sizes. The ranking of the top 5 initiatives selected by urban authority representatives is the same as the overall order, with slightly different percentages. But results differ according to city size. Cohesion policy operational programmes, Interreg and URBACT[3] are used by urban authorities of all sizes. However, only extra-large cities (with more than 1 million inhabitants) show LIFE in the top 5 initiatives. And while Horizon Europe was selected by cities of all sizes, especially medium and large-sized ones, it does not appear among towns of less than 50 000 inhabitants. On the contrary only towns rank Erasmus Plus in the top 5 . While challenging to draw a conclusion, it can be hypothesised that the typology of calls, together with the typology of activities supported, plays a role here. Larger administrations are probably more successful in securing funding from highly competitive programmes like LIFE and Horizon. In contrast, Erasmus Plus, which is likely more accessible, is predominantly used by smaller administrations to support smaller projects and softer measures.
Noteworthy also is that EUI appears in the top 5 only among large cities.
Cities, particularly smaller ones, may require assistance to fully capitalise on the opportunities provided by EU initiatives. To address this, the survey asked respondents to identify the top three types of support most needed. The majority of respondents identified the most important type of support needed (54% as top 1 and 59% overall), as the provision of information on the different types of EU initiatives/funds, and how they can be used to implement sustainable urban development. This shows that there still are difficulties in fully understanding the landscape of EU funds, particularly related to sustainable urban development.
Two other types of support were frequently selected by respondents as their top 1, 2 or 3 choices: case studies, examples and good practices on how other cities used EU initiatives/funds for sustainable urban development (selected by 42% of respondents); and EU cohesion policy Technical Assistance for urban authorities (selected by 41% of respondents overall). However, it is also important to note that the most selected top 2 support was tutorials providing guidance for successful funding applications (20% of respondents). As for the most selected third choice, 21% of respondents opted for specific support on cohesion policy integrated territorial tools (Community-Led Local Development, Integrated Territorial Investment, Other Territorial Tools). The combination of selections was generally varied, and the overall percentage high for each one of the types included in the list, meaning that all these types of supports are indeed needed. The breakdown per city size corresponds with the overall ranking.
Respondents were given the opportunity to suggest additional types of support not previously listed. Among the 54 comments, several highlighted the need for more targeted funding, such as for specific categories of cities (e.g., small cities or those with low GDP), funding for stakeholder collaboration, and funding supporting the application process for EU funds. Other comments called for tailored support initiatives that address the specific needs of cities, including ad hoc support for individual cities. Additionally, some respondents highlighted the importance of capacity building activities, including training for city managers, staff exchanges between local authorities, and collaboration and experience-sharing programmes between cities.
The last questions of this section focused on the Urban Agenda for the EU (UAEU). A total of 235, or two thirds, of all respondents claimed that they know the Urban Agenda for the EU. The survey asked this group how they accessed information about this initiative. In response, 46% reported learning about the UAEU through the initiative’s official website, or during seminars, events and conferences, such as the Cities Forum. Another relatively popular source of information (selected by 31% of respondents of this group) were publications, such as articles and reports. Respondents also identified other sources not listed in the survey, for example through working groups of experts in urban policies such as the Urban Development Group (UDG), or direct participation in Urban Agenda Partnerships.
[1] Among the type of initiatives respondents could select were National or regional operational programmes of European Regional Development Fund, Cohesion Fund, European Social Fund Plus, and Just Transition Fund, which count as 1 fund but could imply the use of different funds.
[2] It is worth specifying that the European Urban Initiative is a relatively new initiative compared to others, launching its first call in 2022.
[3] Here Interreg refers to Interreg other than URBACT, while URBACT - although also a Territorial Cooperation programme - is considered separately.
About this resource
Similar content
