Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Procedure : 2006/2061(INI)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A6-0233/2006

Texts tabled :

A6-0233/2006

Debates :

PV 25/09/2006 - 14
CRE 25/09/2006 - 14

Votes :

PV 26/09/2006 - 7.5
CRE 26/09/2006 - 7.5
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P6_TA(2006)0367

Verbatim report of proceedings
Monday, 25 September 2006 - Strasbourg OJ edition

14. Thematic strategy on the urban environment (debate)
PV
MPphoto
 
 

  President. The next item is the report by Mr Hegi on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on the thematic strategy on the urban environment. [2006/2061(INI)] (A6-0233/2006).

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Gyula Hegyi (PSE), rapporteur. Mr President, some 80 % of our citizens live in urban areas, but their needs and interests are strongly under-represented in Union funds, projects and initiatives. As regards the level of EU funding, these city dwellers are second-rate citizens of the European Union. The thematic strategy on the urban environment should be a brave and progressive initiative, not just a lukewarm recommendation of wishful thinking. Sadly, the Commission document on that subject is rather weak. The Sixth Environmental Action Plan has set encouraging goals, but this time the Commission failed to propose legally binding measures and deadlines. The Commission does not attempt to balance European policy between urban and rural areas and does not have any vision for a cleaner urban environment. I cannot do the job of the whole Commission, but I can at least try to propose some useful measures.

Firstly, I propose that a sustainable urban management plan and a sustainable urban transport plan should be required by Community law for every agglomeration with more than 100 000 inhabitants, as proposed by the Commission in 2004. Representatives of European cities have expressed their satisfaction with my proposal. Those kinds of binding measures make life easier for environment-conscious city councils, as they have legal bases for action on the environment.

As far as transport is concerned, non-motorised transport should have priority over every other kind of traffic, public transport over private, small and less-polluting cars over other vehicles. Congestion charging, as used in London and Stockholm, is a success at present. It is the only possible future for every large European city. The referendum some days ago in Stockholm showed us that people liked the idea and only a minority of certain lobbyists oppose it. I am also proposing a 5% shift in passenger kilometre from individual transport – namely cars – to public transport and cycling. Speed limits in city centres, such as in Graz, Austria, reduce accidents, save lives and reduce air pollution and noise emissions. Low emission zones are also useful in combating air pollution.

If we really want to do something about climate change, we should act in our cities as well. As the English say, ‘charity begins at home’. That should also apply to sustainable development. Due to climate change, heatwaves turn many towns and cities into hell during the hot summer days and nights. Heatwaves kill thousands of European citizens and they die a painful and humiliating death. Heatwave emergency plans are crucial for most European cities, except in some Nordic communities. The basic treatment for heatwaves is simple: more water, green roofs and facades, fresh water and natural cooling systems, reducing car traffic. Hot summers are coming and we should save the lives of city dwellers. We need more green spaces in our cities. Even some ten square metres of green islands can improve the spirit of a city, together with bigger parks and gardens nearby.

Summertime urban beaches like those in Paris, Brussels and Budapest are also useful projects for those who cannot leave the city on long vacations. In both old and new Member States, tens of millions of people live in mass-produced, prefabricated housing estates. In many western cities these have become ethnic and social ghettos. Complex social, cultural, educational and environmental programmes are needed to rehabilitate those suburbs. In Central Europe, in Hungary for instance, most of those housing estates have not yet become ghettos. The majority of their dwellers still belong to the lower and middle classes. In their case, the physical state of the housing is worrying. In the EU-10 countries the repair and rehabilitation of housing estates is a crucial step forward in preserving social peace and improving city life.

As rapporteur, I accepted many amendments tabled by my colleagues in the PPE-DE Group in the hope of good cooperation. I was rather surprised that the PPE-DE Group then tried to kill my report by deleting all the important targets and measures in committee.

I call upon all Members to support the importance of binding targets and measures. Without them our work is just words, words, words. My report can be summed up in one sentence: less cars, more green and water. That is the only survival strategy for our cities.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Stavros Dimas, Μember of the Commission. (EL) Mr President, thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in this evening's debate on the thematic strategy on the urban environment, which the European Parliament has been waiting for from the Commission with particular interest.

I should like to start by thanking and congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Hegyi, and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for the full and ambitious report being examined today.

I also welcome the contribution by Mr Ó Neachtain and the Committee on Transport and Tourism and by Mrs Kallenbach and the Committee on Regional Development.

Before I continue, I should like to share with you the welcome news that the Commissioners approved the seventh and final thematic strategy on soil last Friday. The preparation of these strategies was difficult and time-consuming. However, a clear way forward has now been identified for topical environmental issues, which include the policy on the urban environment.

The urban environment is an important issue for us all. With the Sixth Environmental Action Programme, the Commission recognised the role which the urban environment plays in the lives of so many European citizens and undertook to take action in this sector.

The urban environment directly affects the way of life of millions of European citizens and also has important repercussions on the environment in general. European cities must be viable, sustainable and offer high quality of life, so that citizens will want to live and work there and companies will invest.

Nonetheless, a great deal of effort still needs to be made in this respect. Clearly urban areas promote economic growth and have high levels of supply of and access to public services, such as education, health and transport.

The reverse side of the coin, however, is the myriad problems relating to life in the city, such as the deterioration in the environment, traffic congestion, economic and social exclusion, crime and alienation. The purpose of the strategy in question is to promote and facilitate sustainable urban growth, focusing on environmental issues such as air pollution, external noise, high levels of traffic, emissions of greenhouse gases, chaotic building development, water consumption and waste generation.

The problems were easy to identify, but finding solutions to them was very difficult. This mainly applies when the objective is to find solutions which can be tried and are viable and suitable for the plethora and variety of conditions and problems in the various cities of the European Union. That is why, despite the fact that the European Commission and the Committee on the Environment agree in substance, they disagree on the way forward.

Some people have called for more legislation and targets which will bring about improvements. I can understand that from a theoretical point of view and agree in principle. I wish that it were in fact possible for us to proceed in this manner.

Unfortunately, this is not useful or feasible and there are basic reasons why the strategy is not in favour of introducing new legislation. To be specific, the reason is that solutions must comply with the principle of subsidiarity and our cities are so different from each other that there is no common solution for them all.

We already have legislative acts which would have positive results on the urban environment if they were properly applied. We already have legislation which has a positive impact on the environment and the quality of life in cities. Just think, for example, of all the legislation we have on ambient air quality, noise, waste and water, to mention just a few of the issues covered.

Nonetheless, this legislation must be applied better. Instead of legislative solutions, the strategy proposes guidance on how to improve the management of urban areas in an integrated manner and increase sustainability in the transport which will be included in the Green Paper on urban transport which is expected to be approved in 2007.

This will lead to better compliance with current environmental legislation and to improved cohesion between the various political and the various administrative levels. This is the approach which all the interested parties which we consulted clearly and repeatedly stated they preferred. This approach will be supplemented by other support measures, such as creating suitable structures, exchanging best practices and setting up incentives under the Community Structural Funds.

The Member States should include urban environmental issues in national programmes for funding under the Community cohesion policy, so that regional and local authorities can benefit from the funding opportunities available.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. Mr President, as draftsman of this report on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I believe that the policy initiatives in the European Commission’s Green Paper on energy should be integrated into sustainable urban transport plans, particularly with respect to the promotion of biofuels. Sufficient support needs to be given to the development of public transport using sustainable energy sources. In Ireland alone, transport is the third largest contributor to CO2 emissions.

Biofuels should represent 5.75% of our energy supply by 2010. In real terms, for example, again in my own country, Ireland, 70 000 fossil fuel-burning cars will be taken off the roads. Urban centres running public transport on biofuels have the opportunity to showcase the ease of use of those fuels, which will in turn increase demand from private companies such as taxis, and individual domestic use.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that it is only through a policy of integration in the areas of energy efficiency and environmental protection that realistic targets can be set and achieved for urban areas.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Gisela Kallenbach (Verts/ALE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. – (DE) Mr President, I wish to thank Mr Hegyi for his very ambitious report and for the very good and fruitful cooperation. On behalf of the Regional Development Committee, I am particularly glad to see the particular attention given to sustainable town and transport planning. It is self-evident that future urban planning must combine the ecological with the economic and social dimensions, including within it the creation of job vacancies and the promotion of education, culture and sport for both young and old. We must, once and for all, reduce land use and re-use brownfield sites.

We call on the Member States and regions to take this into account when drawing up – as they are now doing – their operational programmes, for this will not only benefit the local environment, but will also be an outstanding means of communicating the goals of European policy to men and women on the street, and it is certainly high time they were made aware of them.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Renate Sommer, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. (DE) Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating the rapporteur, particularly on his willingness to engage in dialogue.

What I would say to him is that I know that, fundamentally we both want the same thing – an environment worth living in in the big cities and conurbations of the European Union, but it is evident that our opinions diverge completely when it comes to how this goal is to be achieved. Personally, I think the Commission’s approach is the right one: a thematic strategy and nothing more, and no legislative proposals, since we are not, in any case, empowered to make any. We can, of course, publish guidelines referring to existing provisions on such things as air, noise, waste, and so on; we can encourage the sharing of experience and support it, including financially, for we know that not everyone has to keep on reinventing the wheel.

The rapporteur is trying to save Budapest, his home city, and that is an honourable thing to do, but he is also trying to circumvent the subsidiarity principle. He wants binding legal measures; he wants to tamper with local and regional authorities’ powers over planning matters and intervene in that area. I have to tell him that that is wrong; if you do that, you stir up public disaffection with the European Union.

There are, then, a number of things about this report that my group and I want to see changed. For example, important though the protection of the environment is, it must not have the end result of making life impossible for businesses; the quality of urban life is dependent on the quality of the environment and on economic vitality.

Nor, as I see it, does a congestion charge solve anything. Yes, of course there is a need for environmentally-friendly modes of transport, such as buses, trains, bicycles, and so on, but it would be wrong to ban cars, which are a means of transport for individuals, from cities. All that would do would be to encourage shopping centres on greenfield sites and the depopulation of the countryside, with people leaving the towns, inner cities becoming wastelands, and the quality of urban living declining.

Nor is there any sense in demanding of cities things that they are quite simply incapable of managing – things such as the collection of data, even on the local use of biocides, a category which, let me remind Mr Hegyi, includes the flea powder that I use on my dog! That sort of thing makes us look ridiculous. We have to ensure that the subsidiarity principle is maintained; that is what I see our role as being, and that is the intention underlying our amendments.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anne Laperrouze, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I should like to congratulate our rapporteur, Mr Hegyi, on the work he has done. We have here a report that asks the right questions and that offers some good answers.

This report highlights the need for consistency and cooperation, something that some Members call the ‘integrated approach’ and that the European Commission communication echoes. We need an overall view so as to better understand the urban environment challenge, particularly in social, cultural and environmental terms.

I approve of the emphasis given in this report to a number of fundamental points: exchanging best practices and promoting the training of local players; controlling the growing volume of traffic and decoupling transport growth and GDP growth; encouraging people to save energy and improving the energy efficiency of buildings; making the implementation of sustainable urban management plans and sustainable urban transport plans compulsory for every urban area with more than 100 000 inhabitants; and, finally, proposing a per capita target in relation to green areas in new urban developments.

I believe that we do, however, need to find the right balance between giving instructions to the Member States and giving the power of initiative to local players, because they represent a breeding ground for innovation, having, as they do, first-hand experience of the realities of urban life. Our aim must in fact be to create a framework that will give rise to local initiatives by leaving the choice of targets and solutions up to local decision-makers.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Claude Turmes, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, many thanks to the rapporteur for this splendid report. I also appreciate the way he has taken up an idea that matters a great deal to me, that being the idea of a new pact, of a new quality of cooperation between the European level on the one hand and the great cities in Europe on the other.

In Europe, 80% of people live in towns. If we want to make progress in areas such as the conservation of resources, energy policy, air quality and so on, one thing that is absolutely necessary is closer integration of the policies made in cities and those made at the European level. What is needed, then, is better use of the European Union’s financial instruments, including, for example, loans from the European Investment Bank.

The last thing I want to say is addressed to you, Mrs Sommer: even Governor Schwarzenegger and his conservatives in California have moved on further than you have. What he has done with the automobile industry in its present form is to unmask it before all the world for what it is, namely a bunch of crooks who should be up before a judge. Your self-appointed role as this House’s resident lobbyist for the German car industry is something I find almost shameful in someone who claims to want to preserve nature.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Erik Meijer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. (NL) Mr President, in former times, countries were preponderantly rural and cities were the exception. The growth in population and the advent of urban professions have changed this dramatically over the past century to the extent that the large majority of Europeans now live in real cities, in suburbs and in rural areas that have been urbanised to a large extent due to industry, ports or mining.

In the developing world, but also in parts of Europe, we notice that such urban areas can become completely unviable on account of traffic chaos, slums, pollution and land speculation. Where clean drinking water, a dense network of frequent public transport, sound waste removal and affordable, good housing are absent, or health care, social work and education are inadequate, those cities become hell. As soon as cities go downhill, well-educated people on high incomes can move away from the area, but labourers and immigrants have no choice but to stay. To this day, national and European policy is based on the increase in the number of cars and cut-backs in public services. That is putting the future of our cities at risk. It is right and proper that the EU’s attention that was originally focused on agricultural production and the countryside should, in recent years, have shifted to the cities. There was also a downside to this, unfortunately. If the Commission’s proposal from 2000 for a contract obligation for urban transport had been adopted without any amendments, this would have prejudiced the extension of tram networks and free public transport, as well as the creation of a dense and frequent transport network. It is cities and regions themselves that should, as far as possible, be responsible for regulating city transport, physical planning, urban development, open space planning and bicycle paths. Where the European Union can add value, though, is in areas like research, and in the exchange and transfer of knowledge. In that way, we can control dangers and abuses, promote initiatives for improvement and reinforce the development of, and compliance with, better environmental standards. Particularly in the future Member States Romania and Bulgaria, much needs to be done in this area.

I support Mr Hegyi in his striving towards non-polluting transport, the protection of historic city centres, the adoption of careful water management, economical energy consumption and protection for areas of natural beauty.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bowis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I thank Mr Hegyi for his report and for accepting a number of amendments that I put forward. I hope that he will likewise accept the amendments that my colleague, Renate Sommer, has put forward, in the sense that Europe is at its best when it is sharing good practice. It is geared to sharing good practice between Member States and between local authorities. The amendments are intended to make sure that this is directed to them and that the Commission is not called on to do everything for them. If we can get that straight, then we will be able to support the very good ideas in the report as a whole.

Our constituents are rightly worried about many aspects of the urban environment. We have just had a debate on air quality: that is very central to it. However, it is more than that; it is the noise that we have to put up with in the urban environment, from neighbours as well as from vehicles, from ghetto blasters and so on. This is not territory for European directives, but we can share best practice as to how to tackle it. Similarly, street cleaning and the sheer dirt of our cities are a public health issue that ought to be on our agenda. We can learn from each other. Just as one sees in Paris the gutters running with water at night to clean them, there are ideas all over Europe. We want to see the phasing-out of crime as part of our strategy for urban areas, with emphasis on designing estates which avoid those traps for citizens where they can be pounced on by wrongdoers, making sure that we have safe routes to railway stations, and so on. We must also ensure that we have sensible development alongside our rivers to avoid building on flood plains and the disasters that can cause.

There are many good ideas in this report with opportunities to share best practice and that is what could come from this. I hope the Commissioner will take it forward in that spirit.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Gyula Hegyi (PSE).(HU) Mr President, I wish to thank all those colleagues who contributed to this report in the hope that it will be adopted. Especially those, of course, who agreed with most of my ideas.

As regards subsidiarity, I think my views are somewhat different. We are not talking about a directive here, but rather about a strategic proposal. Therefore, we should not water down our demands at this time. When the time comes to draft directives, we will face a long process of negotiation in any case.

By the way, I have met with representatives of European cities and local authorities and with staff members of Eurocity, who came to see me at the European Parliament building. What they expected from me was precisely that binding measures be included as much as possible so that they can carry out their environmentally-friendly ideas better with support from the European Union, since there are obviously other interests to be considered in the cities.

It is also very important not to let this strategic proposal get lost in the shuffle. That is why in one of the paragraphs I have put forward the need for a follow-up on this report within the framework of intra-institutional consultation. Luckily, this proposal had the support of all the parties in the House.

I am therefore asking Commissioner Dimas to allow me the opportunity next week or at another time to discuss how to proceed with the follow-up of this report, beyond its adoption by the European Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I would like to thank all the speakers for their positive and constructive contributions. This strategy is an important step towards more sustainable urban development. It is a response to the Sixth Environmental Action Programme and a key contribution to improving the everyday lives of Europe’s citizens.

I am pleased that Parliament will soon adopt a resolution that recognises the importance of urban issues for citizens of the European Union. I think, despite some differences on how to tackle this important challenge, the Commission and Parliament have a common view and understanding on the key issues, namely on substance and effects.

While the Commission believes that an approach based on guidance, incentives and the dissemination of best practice is the way to proceed, it will, however, monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and undertake reviews from time to time to see how it helps address this important challenge.

The Commission will report to Parliament on the results of this monitoring. I hope that Parliament can adopt a resolution supporting the strategy’s aims and objectives.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday at 11.30 a.m.

Written statements (Article 142)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zita Gurmai (PSE). – Cities play a key role in generating wealth: economic, social and cultural development constitute a driving force for growth and employment.

Efficient urban planning, pragmatic development of urban environmental models and tools with an integrated approach and an exchange of best practices help cities ensure sustainable development and reconcile economic, social and environmental challenges, and they also contribute to the health and well-being of EU citizens.

These actions, based on comprehensive policies with clear, concrete, measurable targets and frameworks, must be sustainable, future-oriented and supported by adequate EU funds. For the urban environment – being a wide, comprehensive and constantly changing issue – a flexible approach is needed, and so emphasis must be placed on research which could be included in the 7th Framework Programme on Research.

Among the wide variety of priority targets we find some of the most important challenges. One of these is adopting measures to reduce land use, and in particular limiting greenfield and extending brownfield developments in urban development programmes in order to protect green spaces. Sustainable urban public transport, the progressive introduction of environmentally-friendly modes of transport and technologies, and promoting the use of public and non-motorised transport rather than private cars are just some examples of the main priorities.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – The European Commission with the help of, Parliament and Council, produces many strategies meant to give guidance and disseminate best practise.

To ensure a European Urban Strategy is taken seriously is challenging. The financial interests in urban planning and development are such that it will take more than suggestions to ensure what we do now leads to safe liveable cities in the future.

Rather than the Strategy including a statement that green space is important to urban design, I think it better to state we need, say, 15% green space in urban areas or so many metres per 1000 population. Only a real target with weight behind it will stand up against land hungry developers.

In my constituency is a public housing area built 30 years ago. Planned in a way foreseen by this Strategy, there is ample green space, wide easy to negotiate roads and community infrastructure. This area has been a model of good practise and has served a community very well.

However, this area is threatened by city planners looking to build houses. Only an urban strategy spelling out actual percentages will create sufficient green spaces in cities, and prevent the elimination of those presently enjoyed.

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy