Recommendation 1505 (2001)
Amelioration of disadvantaged urban areas
Author(s): Parliamentary AssemblyOrigin - Text adopted by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Assembly, on 14 March 2001 (see Doc. 8811, report of the Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities, rapporteur: Mr Toshev). Text adopted by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Assembly, on 14 March 2001
1. Most of Europe’s inhabitants live
in towns and in urban areas which are “disadvantaged” or “grey”,
built according only to the principles of “efficiency” and
“functionality”, without aesthetic considerations being taken
into account.
2. The residents of such areas are
generally underprivileged and commonly unemployed. Frequently, they
do not own their homes, which is an additional cause for negative
social phenomena such as frustration, crime, lack of social
cohesion, isolation and marginalisation.
3. The Assembly fully shares the
opinion expressed by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities
of Europe (CLRAE) in its Recommendation
19 (1996) on aspects of urban policies in Europe.
4. In the same spirit, it recalls that
the heads of state and government “support the efforts of the
Council of Europe and of local, regional and national authorities to
improve the quality of life in disadvantaged areas, urban and
industrialised”, as expressed in their Final Declaration adopted
at the 2nd Summit of the Council of Europe (October 1997).
5. The Assembly is also of the opinion
that the active involvement of such people in a campaign aimed at
improving the appearance of the urban areas they inhabit, the
principle of subsidiarity at three levels – families,
neighbourhoods, and communities – would contribute to eliminating
many negative social phenomena and at the same time produce a
synergy effect in terms of fostering democratic citizenship through
joint efforts to take decisions on improving habitats.
6. Improvement of disadvantaged urban
areas could be achieved at a relatively low cost by using
appropriate ideas put forward by architects or other specialists,
such as town planners, so that apartment-house façades, surrounding
grounds, and common rooms (hallways and foyers) would indeed be
improved. Successes could then be publicised as examples of good
practice by the media or by holding specialised seminars and
meetings with the population.
7. Concerning the implementation of
the projects, the Assembly considers that it should be promoted by
the local authorities and by residence owners who rent the dwellings
to tenants.
8. Having regard to the above, the
Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
8.1. implement in the near future the
ongoing work on drawing up a programme aimed at improving the
appearance of disadvantaged urban areas;
8.2. engage in dialogue with the media
and NGOs so that the programme and the good practices established by
various pilot projects are brought to the attention of the citizens
of Europe;
8.3. follow the outcome and progress
of such programmes and inform both the Assembly and the CLRAE about
the developments, with a view to ensuring the understanding and
support of national parliaments, local authorities and
non-governmental organisations.
Doc. 9205
18 September 2001
Amelioration of disadvantaged urban areas in Europe
Recommendation 1505 (2001)
Reply from
the Committee of Ministers
adopted at the 763rd meeting of the
Ministers’ Deputies (12 September 2001)
The Committee of Ministers has examined
Parliamentary Assembly
Recommendation 1505 (2001) on the amelioration of disadvantaged
urban areas in Europe and has decided to bring it to the attention of
governments and of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of
Europe (CLRAE).
The Committee of Ministers attaches great importance
to developing a healthy and pleasant living environment for the
citizens of its member states. Its action to promote better social
cohesion, as part of the social cohesion strategy adopted in 2000,
particularly reflects this.
It is clear from the strategy that the solution of
housing problems in disadvantaged urban areas requires an integrated
approach, bringing together, in particular, issues of housing, social
protection, employment, health, education and community relations.
Improving the appearance of disadvantaged urban areas will not
contribute to social cohesion in any sustainable way unless it forms
part of an overall approach to improving the economic, social and
cultural environment of the persons living in these areas. The
effective implementation of such integrated strategies lends itself
to partnership between public authorities, the private sector and
civil society, particularly at local level.
In paragraph 2 of the Recommendation, the Assembly
mentions the difficult situation of residents of disadvantaged areas,
pointing out that “frequently, they do not own their own homes”.
The Committee of Ministers notes that this is often true in the
context of Western European countries, but that the reality is
different in most of the post-communist transition countries in
central and eastern Europe. In these countries, mass privatisation of
housing estates has allowed most of the residents of these estates to
become owners. Often, however, they have neither the personal means
necessary to maintain their property nor access to public systems of
financial assistance. The specific needs of this type of tenants have
been studied closely by the Group of Specialists on Access to Housing
(CS-LO), under the auspices of the European Committee for Social
Cohesion (CDCS).
The group of specialists is currently drawing up a
set of policy guidelines on access to housing for vulnerable
categories of people. It addresses many of the issues mentioned in
Recommendation 1505 (2001); for example, the implementation of
area-based policies, funding for access to quality housing and
housing maintenance, the establishment of legal and institutional
provisions and co-operation with civil society. The results of this
work, together with the outcome of other activities relating to
access to social rights, should be compiled in a comprehensive report
and presented at a conference to be held in 2002. It is also planned
to draft a Committee of Ministers recommendation, which will
incorporate the guidelines set out on access to social rights.
In order to ensure the continuity of its action on
housing policies, the Committee of Ministers plans to appoint a new
committee in 2002 to look at the contribution of these policies to
social cohesion; the Parliamentary Assembly will be invited to attend
meetings of this committee as an observer. In addition, a number of
assistance programmes on access to housing are planned in the Baltic
states, Bulgaria and the Russian Federation.
The Committee of Ministers would also remind the
Assembly of the regional network of experts on housing in
South-Eastern Europe, set up by the Council of Europe in 2000 to
examine the major difficulties concerning housing in the region. The
network is involved in the strategic review of social cohesion issues
in South-Eastern Europe and contributes in particular to the social
cohesion initiative and the action plan of the Stability Pact
(Working Table II), in which the Council of Europe, particularly the
Development Bank, plays an active part.
The objectives set for the housing component of
Working Table II and the implementation strategy which has been
developed in this context are in line with the concerns set out by
the Assembly in
Recommendation 1505 (2001).
Order 571 (2001)
Amelioration of disadvantaged urban areas
Author(s): Parliamentary AssemblyOrigin - Text adopted by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Assembly, on 14 March 2001 (see Doc. 8811, report of the Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities, rapporteur: Mr Toshev).
The Assembly, referring to its Recommendation 1505 (2001) on the amelioration of disadvantaged urban areas in Europe, instructs its Committee on the Environment and Agriculture to follow the development of the programme of the Council of Europe on the subject and to report back to it in two years’ time.
Doc. 8811
17 July 2000
Amelioration of disadvantaged urban areas
Report
Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and
Local Authorities
Rapporteur : Mr Latchezar Toshev, Bulgaria, Group of
the European People's Party
Summary
This report reviews the situation and the problems
of the disadvantaged urban areas and their inhabitants from the
perspective of a feasible amelioration programme designed to generate
interest and ensure the active involvement of the local population.
Such projects could be successfully implemented at
the level of households, neighbourhoods and communities (that is to
say, in residential quarters).
If people were to think carefully about the
amelioration of their own habitations, they could overcome
frustration, social isolation and marginalisation and thus achieve a
higher degree of social cohesion. Such a positive social effect would
contribute to fostering democratic citizenship and partnership.
Personal participation is extremely important, not
only because it will induce people to appreciate and treasure their
own achievements, but because it will ensure also a social impact.
To this end it is recommended that the Committee of
Ministers draw up the programme on the basis of several pilot
projects that have already produced satisfactory results in
publicising the objective and exchanging ideas between all interested
participants and stakeholders. For this purpose it is advisable to
involve the media and non-governmental organisations by enlisting
their co-operation.
1. Draft recommendation
1. Most of Europe’s inhabitants live in towns and
in urban areas which are “disadvantaged” or “grey”, built
according only to the principles of “efficiency” and
“functionality”, without aesthetic design and aesthetic
considerations being taken into account.
2. The residents of such areas are generally
underprivileged and commonly unemployed. Frequently they do not own
their residences, which is an additional cause for negative social
phenomena such as frustration, high crime rate, lack of social
cohesion, isolation and marginalisation.
3. The Assembly fully shares the opinion expressed
by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE)
it in its
Recommendation19 (1996) on aspects of urban policies in Europe.
4. In the same spirit, it recalls that the heads of
state and government "support the efforts of the Council of
Europe and of local, regional and national authorities to improve the
quality of life in disadvantaged areas: urban and industrialised”,
as expressed in their Final Declaration adopted at the Second Council
of Europe Summit (October 1997).
5. The Assembly is also of the opinion that the
active involvement of such people in a campaign aimed at improving
the appearance of the urban areas they inhabit, through their
personal participation and in accordance with the principle of
subsidiarity at three levels – families, neighbourhoods, and
communities - would contribute to eliminating many negative social
phenomena and at the same time produce a synergy effect in terms of
fostering democratic citizenship through joint efforts and striving
for decisions to improve the habitats.
6. Improvement of disadvantaged urban areas could be
achieved at relatively low cost by using appropriate ideas put
forward by architects or other specialists, such as designers, so
that apartment-house façades, surrounding grounds, and common rooms
(hallways and foyers, for example) would indeed be improved.
Successes could then be publicised as examples of good practice by
the media or by holding specialised seminars and meetings with the
population.
7. Concerning the implementation of the projects,
the Assembly considers that it should be promoted by the local
authorities and by residence owners who rent the dwellings to
tenants.
8. Having regard to the above, the Assembly
recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
i. carry through and bring to completion in the
near future the ongoing work on drawing up a programme aimed at
improving the appearance of disadvantaged urban areas;
ii. ensure dialogue with the media and
non-governmental organisations so that the programme and the good
practices established by various pilot projects be advertised and
brought to the attention of the citizens of Europe;
iii. follow the outcome and progress of such
programmes and inform both the Assembly and the CLRAE about the
developments with a view to ensuring the understanding and support of
national parliaments, local authorities and non-governmental
organisations.
II. Draft order
The Assembly, referring to its Recommendation ….
(2000) on the amelioration of disadvantaged urban areas in Europe
instructs its Committee on Environment, Regional Planning and Local
Authorities and its Committee on Agriculture, Rural Development and
Food to follow the development of the programme of the Council of
Europe on the subject and to report back to it in two years.
I. Explanatory memorandum by the Rappporteur
Contents
a) Introduction
b) Aspects in issue
c) Ways to attain the objective
d) Role of the Council of Europe
e) Conclusion
a) Introduction
1. In 1992 and 1993 a non-paper and an aide-memoir
on the subject “Aesthetic Pollution of the Built-up Environment
– Proposals for Its Amelioration” drawn up by H.E. Svetlozar
Raev, Bulgaria’s Ambassador to the Council of Europe, were put
forward to the Committee of Ministers.
2. In 1993, Charles, prince of Wales, on his visit
to the Council of Europe encouraged the research on the subject
whereas his films and books have been employed to enrich various
aspects of the project.
3. At the First Council of Europe Summit in Vienna
the text proposed by the Bulgarian delegation concerning “the
improvement of the quality of life by improving the quality of the
built-up environment” was incorporated into the Final
Declaration.
 |
| Dr. Svetlozar Raev |
4. In 1994 Ambassador Raev and Armin Maiwald
(Flash-film, WDR, Köln) co-authored, by means of visual aids and
ideas, the “Help for Self-help” pilot project to be used
in the making of television films about the need for aesthetic
sensitization of the general public and promoting popular awareness
at household, neighborhood and community level of how every citizen’s
habitat could be considerably ameliorated with minimum funds and
effort.
5. Concurrently, such project aimed to strengthen
family and social ties through joint efforts designed to establish
relevant ethical rules of conduct in respect to oneself and to the
community, as well as to foster social cohesion, concern and
protection of the ameliorated environment by means of personal
involvement.
6. The said project was presented to the
International Conference “European Towns at the Dawn of the 21st
Century”, organized in Bulgaria in 1995 by the Council of
Europe and the Forum of European Capital Cities. A recommendation was
unanimously passed to have the project implemented, after the
consideration of the report presented by Mr. Raev - "Education
for amelioration of the urban aesthetics".
7. In paragraph 5, of its
Recommendation 19 (1996) on “Aspects of Urban Policies in
Europe” CLRAE addressed the Council of Europe’s Committee of
Ministers with a proposal to consider the subject. The recommendation
was put on the 1998 agenda but was subsequently put off for an
indefinite period of time.
8. In 1997, at the Second Council of Europe Summit
in Strasbourg, the Heads of State and Government included in the
Final Declaration a text expressing their support for “the
efforts of the Council of Europe and of local, regional and national
authorities to improve the quality of life in disadvantaged areas:
urban and industrialized”.
9.In 1999 the Committee of Ministers included the
topic in the Declaration on Education for Democratic Citizenship
Based on the Rights and Responsibilities of the Citizens adopted
on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Council of
Europe.
10. A motion for recommendation (Doc.
8559 of 30 September 1999 presented by Mr. Toshev and others) was
signed and submitted to the PACE.
11. Issues relating to urban environment have been
brought up in various other institutions as well:
a) European Union: Green Paper on Urban Policies,
Funding Programmes for Urban Areas – the European Sustainable
Cities and Towns Campaign;
b) Council of European Municipalities and Regions
(CEMR);
c) OECD: Cities for the 21st
Century Project, City Twinning Project;
d) United Nations: Agenda 21 (Chapter 28);
Habitat II
b)Aspects in issue
12. The amelioration of one’s own home and
neighbourhood (inclusive of condominiums or apartment buildings) is
exclusively a question of personal decision and active citizen
participation.
13. Disadvantaged urban areas are normally inhabited
by people of moderate means many of whom are unemployed, depressed by
heavy burdens and the hardships of life which sink them into social
isolation, marginalization, including isolation from their neighbours
and public life within their local community, frustration,
discouragement dissatisfaction, apathy, inaction.
14. Oftentimes “grey” area residents disregard
their habitat and are unaware of the possibility to improve it with
minimum resources and their own labour expended in just 2 or 3
weekends. Following such course of conduct they do not bother to
protect the environment even inside their condominiums or around
them. Consequently, the inaesthetic environment deepens their
pessimism and renders them even more unable to cope with the
challenges of life.
15. In Western Europe, the buildings in the “grey”
urban areas are often owned by people who rent them out to tenants.
In most cases inhabitants are poverty-stricken people, minority group
representatives (where isolation is even deeper), unemployed, etc.
16. In Eastern Europe, the buildings in such “grey”
areas are commonly owned by their occupants. In some countries of
Eastern Europe the construction of privately-owned single houses was
substituted for fabrication of apartment buildings. These are
currently inhabited by various social groups, inclusive of the
intelligentsia and a portion of the local elites, i.e. these are not
marginal groups, hence expectations are that there the problem of
involvement would prove easier to resolve.
17. This is why account should be taken while
drawing up programmes of the different situation in Eastern and
Western Europe.
18. Sporadic attempts of local authorities to
improve the condition of such areas habitually fail because they
constitute “outside intervention” and hardly ever involve the
concerned inhabitants both in the decision-taking and in the
implementation process.
19. The Kosovo experience has indicated that the so
called “art therapy” produces rather satisfactory results in the
treatment of children traumatised by the horrors of war who have in
result lapsed into depressions and psychiatric disorders.
20. This is why the active involvement of all
concerned residents of a particular urban area is of key importance
not only for the amelioration of the “grey” areas but for
reaching the desired social effect as well.
21. The synergism effect – sharing and
dissemination of best examples and practices, successful pilot
projects, etc., is one anticipated outcome of such programme. Other
people living in the neighbourhood might be inspired by their
neighbours’ good example and induced to follow the pattern, whereas
it will be their own decision as is required by the principle of
subsidiarity.
22.The art-therapy effect is another expected
outcome, even if only in terms of the fact that certain people will
be thinking how to render their habitat more attractive. Besides,
there is no doubt that the products of one’s own labour will be
treasured and preserved better.
23. It is anticipated also that the successful
implementation of this project will bring about enhanced social
cohesion, will help eliminate isolation (by maintaining contacts with
neighbours and at community level to discuss concerted actions), will
do away with marginalisation and apathy towards social processes, and
will also conduce to the emergence of active citizenship.
24. According to the Council of Europe’s
definition, each citizen is an autonomous person aware of his/her
rights and the responsibilities stemming from such rights. A citizen
is actively involved in establishing the rules of organising public
life, in determining the framework wherein each person’s rights and
freedoms should be exercised and where election of and control over
decision-makers in power is supervised by all other citizens. A
citizen regards society not as environment but as a common organism
of which he or she is a part. This requires awareness and exercise of
one’s own rights while respecting and protecting other people’s
rights. The programme for amelioration of “grey” urban areas
could contribute to establishing democratic citizenship and attitudes
of participatory democracy amongst those citizens who have currently
lost interest in social processes.
c)Ways to attain the objective
25. One way to attain the programme’s objective is
to draw up, with the help of consultants (architects, designers,
etc.), several pilot projects. Such projects must be well documented
– both prior to and upon completion of project activities. A series
of films could be produced to explain how the results have been
achieved, whereas the purpose will be to ensure personal
participation, to demonstrate that both the materials and labour
expended are affordable for anyone. Other media could also be
involved – newspapers, magazines, as well as the non-governmental
organisations.
26.Another possibility is to organise discussions
with groups of interested stakeholders thus supporting them with
ideas, consultancy and examples of good practices. Such activities
could be set up and carried out by the NGOs since they require no
special funding.
27. Enlisting the support of local authorities and
building owners is also instrumental in attaining the project
objective. Since active personal involvement is crucial for such
project, it should not be substituted for activities carried out by
local authorities. It is possible, say, to provide the materials for
the most destitute inhabitants under a social assistance programme.
Building owners could deduct the cost of purchased materials from the
rental price should they be willing to support the programme. Any
work, however, must be done in person.
28. This is how such programme could bring about the
aesthetic amelioration of building façades, balconies, common areas,
i.e. hallways and foyers inside apartment buildings, green areas and
parks outside the residential units, etc.
d) Role of the Council of Europe
29.The Council of Europe has an important role to
play in the implementation of such programme as a pan-European
framework of co-operation. A programme could be realised under the
aegis of the Council of Europe aimed at sharing experiences and
disseminating ideas amongst Member States at national, local and
non-governmental (voluntary) level. The elaboration of a programme
promoting best practices and generating interest in local-level
involvement is entirely within the competence and capacity of the
Council of Europe. The fulfilment of such programme would contribute
to the attainment of the Council of Europe’s objective to foster
democratic citizenship based on partnership, social cohesion and
participatory democracy.
e)Conclusion
30. The Parliamentary Assembly recommends that the
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe draw up a programme
aimed at amelioration of disadvantaged urban areas.
31.It is recommended also to all Member States that
they should participate in such programme by promoting the ideas laid
down in it and exchange experiences resulting from good practices, as
well as relevant information about emerging problems.
32. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe will follow the development of the programme, will organise
debates and conduct hearings on the subject at regular intervals of
time with a view to maintaining the interest of PACE parliamentarians
in this extremely significant issue of disadvantaged urban areas.
Reporting committee : Committee on the Environment,
Regional Planning and Local Authorities.
Budgetary implications for the Assembly : None.
Reference to committee : Doc.
8559 and Reference No. 2449 of 4 November 1999
Draft recommendation and draft order adopted by the
committee on 29 June 2000.
Members of the committee : Mr. Akçali
(Chairman), MM Besostri, Hoeffel, Haraldsson,
(Vice-Chairmen), Andreoli, Bianchi, Bockel, Briane,
Browne, Budisa, Mrs Burataeva, Sir Sydney Chapman, MM
Ciupaila, Cox (alternate : Meale), Diana, Duivesteijn, Mrs
Dromberg, MM Frunda, Graas, Mrs Granlund, Mrs Herczog, Mrs
Hornikova, Mrs Hren-Vencelj, Mr Kalkan, Mrs Kanelli, Mrs
Kestelijn-Sierens, MM Kieres, Kittis, Kurucsai, Kurykin,
Lachat, Linzer, Luczak, Martinez Casan (alternate: Uriarte),
Melo, Mezeckis, Mrs Mikaelsson, MM Minkov, Monteiro, Mota Amaral,
Müller, Mme Nagy, MM Pollozhani, Prokes, Prosser (alternate:
O’Hara), Rakhansky, Reimann, Rise, Salaridze, Mrs
Schicker, Mr Schütz, Mrs Sehnalova, Mrs Severinsen, MM Sobyanin,
Steolea, Stepaniuc, Mrs Terpstra, MM Toshev, Truu,
Vella, Zierer, Mrs Zissi.
N.B. The names of those who took part in the
meeting are printed in italics.
Secretaries to the committee : Mrs Cagnolati, Mr
Chevtchenko, Mrs Karanjac.
