- Email: [email protected]
An applied method for the assessment of sustainability of urban pilot projects
Elsevier — EIR — p977775170 — 05-01-:0 11:44:43
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20 (2000) 289–298 www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar
An applied method for the assessment of sustainability of urban pilot projects Enrique J. Caldero´n* Departamento de Ordenacio´n del Territorio, Urbanismo y Medio Ambiente, Escuela Te´cnica Superior de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos Universidad Polite´cnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria, E-28040 Madrid, Spain
Abstract This paper is aimed at presenting a model, in the form of a template and a set of operating instructions, produced by the European Commission for the appraisal of sustainability of projects requesting financial support under the Urban Pilot Projects scheme. The template, along with the instructions for interpretation and usage, was handed over to a panel of external evaluators for them to reach consistent decisions across the European Union (EU). The proposed appraisal scheme is meant to jointly take into consideration the three main components of the sustainability concept, namely economic, social, and environmental, subjectively weighted to produce a single index. Strengths and weaknesses of the scheme are analyzed with the help of one of the appraised projects that happened to obtain EU financial support. 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Assessment of sustainability; Urban pilot projects
1. Introduction The assessment of sustainability of best practice infrastructure projects requires a suitable methodology to perform such assessment across the large diversity of situations in the European Union (EU). But the sheer amount of available case studies and the subjectivity of the concept “best practice” imply a parallel complexity in deciding which among the available cases should be assessed. The purpose of this paper is to present a simple method devised by the European Commission to select projects potentially eligible for cofunding * Tel.: ⫹0003491 336 6695; fax: ⫹0034 91 336 6689. E-mail address: [email protected] (E.J. Caldero´n) 0195-9255/00/$ – see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S0195-9255(00)00041-X
Elsevier — EIR — p977775170 — 05-01-:0 11:44:43
290
E.J. Caldero´n / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 289–298
under the Urban Pilot Projects scheme [1]. Although the method was not specifically geared to select cases on the basis of their sustainability, this was an underlying criterion according to the concept of sustainability prevailing in the Treaty of Amsterdam (art. 2), and further developed in the newly published European Commission Communication “Guidelines for programmes in the period 2000–2006” (OJ 1999/C 267/02) [4]. But, perhaps the most relevant document for the contextualization of the term “sustainability” in what concerns spatial planning is the European Spatial Development Perspective [2]. The final text, agreed to in Potsdam, relates the ESDP to the EU aim of achieving a “balanced and sustainable development, in particular by strengthening economic and social cohesion,” as stated in the aforementioned article of the Treaty of Amsterdam. But, the ESDP also puts forward the three fundamental goals of European policy, namely: (1) economic and social cohesion, (2) conservation of natural resources and cultural heritage, and (3) more balanced competitiveness of the European territory. The triangle of objectives depicted in the ESDP clearly supports a concept of sustainability that goes further beyond the purely ecological view prevailing in many texts, to encompass economic and social issues highly valued in “less developed” countries. There are no commonly accepted guidelines to grant relative weightings to these three main components and, indeed, my presentation is by no means meant to fill up that gap, at least in a quantitative form. But it is geared to bring to the fore a simple, albeit practical procedure for subjective, joint consideration of the three pillars of sustainability. Furthermore, the method was applied in the same manner throughout the EU, thereby providing a fairly objective screening procedure. Out of 503 projects originally submitted, 26 were shortlisted in 13 Member States, through the application of the method. In my view, those 26 projects can be initially labeled as “best practice” across the EU, and made subject to further scrutiny following other methodological approaches.
2. The urban pilot projects scheme Article 10 of Regulation EEC 4254/88 [6], modified by Regulation 2083/ 93 of the ERDF, provides for support of innovative actions across the European Territory. Under that article, the European Commission, through D.G. XVI—Directorate General for Regional Policy and Cohesion— launched in the period 1989–1993, a Call for Proposals for Urban Pilot Projects (hence, UPPs) aimed to meet the challenges raised by problems of congestion, pollution, industrial decay, and social exclusion plaguing many of our cities. As a result, 33 of these projects, of a purported innovative character, were supported with ERDF funds in 11 Member States. The success of the initiative helped to raise the profile of urban issues
Elsevier — EIR — p977775170 — 05-01-:0 11:44:43
E.J. Caldero´n / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 289–298
291
on the European policy agenda, and was also influential in the formulation of the URBAN Community Initiative in 1994, one of the four CIs to be continued in the next programming period 2000–2006.1 Such success also moved the Commission to launch a second Call for Proposals in November 30th of 1995, for the period 1995–1999, which attracted 503 entries from 14 Member States. To reach a greater consistency in the appraisal of the proposals, a team of external advisers was set up. These, with the help of a model produced by the Commission were to review and evaluate projects submitted within each one’s own country. Their evaluation, in the form of a numerically ranked ordering of the projects, was submitted to D.G. XVI for the final decision. Twenty-six projects in 13 Member States were recommended for financial support. Of these, four are located in Spain, and two of them, in Granada and Leo´n, were personally assessed and recommended by myself following the model that I describe in this paper. As one of the appointed members of the external team of advisors, I reviewed 14 of the projects submitted in Spain. My impressions on the usefulness of the Commission model as well as a detailed description of it, and its potential as a tool for selected best practice case studies on the basis of their overall sustainability, make up the bulk of my presentation.
3. Description of the model The model handed over to the panel of evaluators consisted of a set of evaluation sheets together with instructions for interpretation and usage. Several meetings were called in Brussels to further harmonize operational criteria and the clarification of questions. The project documentation (Part I of the evaluation) was to be returned to the Commission along with the completed sheets at the end of the process. 3.1. The evaluation sheets The Evaluation sheets were made up of four parts. Part 1 contained factual information about each project. It was prepared by the submitting administration in accordance with instructions released by the Commission for the benefit of evaluators when completing the remaining parts of the sheets. Part 2, initial assessment, was meant to check whether the projects did meet the basic criteria as issued in the call for proposals. For the purposes of my paper I will concentrate here exclusively on sustainability criteria, according to the interpretation of the concept stemming from the latest documents issued by the European Commission. Part 3, qualitative assessment, sought to assess the innovative and demonstrative qualities of the project, as well as its practical feasibility. 1
See Council Regulation CE 1260/1999 art.20.
Elsevier — EIR — p977775170 — 05-01-:0 11:44:43
292
E.J. Caldero´n / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 289–298
Part 4 was the overall assessment and prioritization requested from the evaluators to sum up the strengths and weaknesses of the project and to provide general comments about it. Finally, evaluators were requested to indicate the relative merit of each project in a numerical scale from 1 (best) to 20 (worst). 3.2. The application of the model Not all the parts in the model were equally interesting for the purposes of sustainability assessment. As it has been mentioned, Part 1 was compiled by the submitting authorities to feed the evaluators with factual information about the project. As for the three remaining parts that make up the core of the model, I will draw more extensively on those questions that apply more directly to the stated goal of COST C8 Action, namely the assessment of sustainability. Part 2 comprised nine questions, most of them related to the formal requirements released in the call for proposals (city size, local/regional character of the submitting authorities, existence of executive summary, etc.) Somewhat more interesting was the need to provide a detailed description of the proposed strategy to meet the existing problems, as well as an update on each of the proposed actions, including timetable, budgetary arrangements, impact upon employment, etc. For the purposes of our own research, I consider particularly relevant the issues regarding action description and financing capacities of the participating bodies. The proposed action had to be assessed in isolation, in terms of their suitability to meet goals, but also in respect to alternative options; account should also be taken of positive and negative synergies likely to arise from the whole strategy. As for financing capacities of the participating bodies, my view is we were asked to cast our opinion about the financial sustainability of the project. In particular, the existence of specific letters of intent with precise details of financial commitment by all participating bodies was to be double checked. The issue of economic sustainability was further discussed in Part 3 of the Evaluation. Part 3 of the Evaluation Sheets is perhaps the most relevant for the purpose of a comprehensive assessment of sustainability. It includes questions geared to highlight the main components of the concept, namely economic, social, and ecological. As for the economic components, emphasis is placed upon managerial and financial issues. Some of the questions to be addressed in this part are: 22. Quality of organizational arrangements In what way does the project demonstrate partnership between the public sector and other socio-economic partners? What political support is evident? Is the proposed project management sufficiently robust/experienced to successfully complete the project?
Elsevier — EIR — p977775170 — 05-01-:0 11:44:43
E.J. Caldero´n / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 289–298
293
In the case of the city of Leo´n, which I personally reviewed, I highlighted the fact that the proposal [3] included an impressive array (33) of participating groups, political and social partners at all levels, financial institutions, and other private bodies showing interest in the project, most of them in written form. The public–private partnership extended itself to the point of cofinancing the project in areas like urban renewal, concealing overhead electricity and telephone wires, and promoting a craft center in a rehabilitated palace. Such a widespread support for the proposal was, in my view, a guarantee that political and economic considerations would not be a hindrance to the implementation and maintenance of the strategy as a whole, and thus, will favor long-term sustainability. As for financial issues, besides explicit commitments from all participating bodies to clearly indicate their financial contribution and their budgetary arrangements, maintenance costs had to be calculated, and financial provisions to meet those were also assessed. Question 23 explicitly asked about the possibility of actions to become self-financing in the medium term, as a proxy for financial sustainability: In other words, once the initial support was phased out, whether or not all or some of the contributing partners would be willing to lay out the necessary maintenance appropriations. Again, this is, in my view, an essential approach to time sustainability not often required in many other EU interventions. In what concerns social sustainability, question 24 addressed the issue of employment: 24. What will be the employment impact of the pilot actions? Will new jobs be created? Will existing jobs be saved? How many? Permanent? Temporary/Seasonal? It is, once more, a proof of the importance the EU grants to unemployment as an indicator of social distress. The question goes further into distinguishing jobs to be created and those to be destroyed, in case the innovative character of some of the actions might end up by doing away with existing jobs. Furthermore, the question explicitly requested numerical information and additional split between jobs to be created/saved permanently and those that might be temporary or seasonal. In countries like Spain, with the highest unemployment rate across the EU, it is hard to trade off politically sustainability indicators of a social character (employment) for those of an ecological dimension. Likewise, the political acceptance by social partners of actions creating/saving jobs is much higher than of those that may carry along the destruction of scarce jobs. Even though employment issues are the main indicators of social sustainability, educational, leisure, or health concerns did play a role in the assessment. Although not always explicitly mentioned in the questionnaire, those issues were addressed through general requirements of improving
Elsevier — EIR — p977775170 — 05-01-:0 11:44:43
294
E.J. Caldero´n / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 289–298
citizens welfare and the need to draw up integrated strategies in which not only punctual actions were proposed. Thus, most of the strategies appraised did contain educational measures, as well as others aimed at providing leisure facilities in the cities/districts concerned. Finally, in what concerns ecological sustainability, the EU model is perhaps weakest. Only two of the questions—12 and 26—had a clear bearing on environmental concerns. Question 12 required from the evaluators an assessment of the relationship between problems detected and proposed actions to tackle those. Likewise, synergies with other EU programs were considered an additional bonus. It is obvious that environmental issues were always present in the cities requesting assistance. Thus, an overall assessment of the ecological sustainability of the actions proposed was always in the evaluator’s mind greatest when, as in the case of Leo´n, the historical heritage of the area to be acted upon was paramount. In many of the cities under review other EU programs with environmental goals— URBAN, LIFE—were operating also. As for question 26, evaluators were asked to assess the potential lessons for other EU policy areas, among those “sustainable development” and “environmental management.” In any case, as I stated before, ecological concerns seemed to be conspicuously missing in the model. Reasons might have been manifold. On one side, ecological sustainability can be assessed at a later stage and to a greater detail through other well-established methods— SEA, EIA, ecobalance, LCA, etc. On the other side, there is a general awareness among fund-requesting authorities that a respect for environmental issues is mandatory. Finally, there might indeed be a lesser concern for ecological issues in the terms of reference for UPPs than for those of a managerial or social character. Nevertheless, as an evaluator I can say that there was a general interest for the environment in most of the proposals, greater when the problems addressed were of environmental nature. Part 4 of the evaluation model was meant to summarize the contents of the previous three. It contained two questions. The first one requested us to describe the key elements of the proposal, its strengths and weaknesses, and other features of the project. It was clearly an attempt to sum up pros and cons of the project. The second question asked the evaluators to score the project on a 1 (best) to 20 (worst) scale. Obviously, the ultimate goal of the scoring was to facilitate the final decision of the Commission. But it also placed a double challenge upon the evaluators: to rank the proposals on a comparative basis and, consequently, to appraise on a common scale, economic, social, and ecological factors. No tips were provided as how to carry out such an appraisal, and I assume it was justified by the Commission’s reliance on the evaluators’ experience. But this was not the only challenge placed upon the evaluators’ experience. In my view, the model also relied on our ability to ascertain the accuracy and truthfulness of the information provided in the proposal—that assumed knowledge of the local situation from the evaluators that some-
Elsevier — EIR — p977775170 — 05-01-:0 11:44:43
E.J. Caldero´n / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 289–298
295
times was utterly unrealistic: evaluators were not supposed to contact the proposing authorities for clarifications. Second, we were also assumed to be able to assess the innovative character of all the proposals. Most of them, at least in the case of those I reviewed, did not include highly innovative issues. But some did, notably the one in Leo´n, where a pneumatic system for garbage collection—entirely new in Spain but better known elsewhere—whose technical details were not made available to me, was a main feature in the proposed strategy.
4. An evaluation of the results The suitability of the model for the assessment of sustainability of infrastructure projects in urban contexts is related to the characteristics of UPPs where I used them. Most of the projects I evaluated had a strategic dimension in the sense that actions envisaged were manifold in number and scope. The overall goal of UPPs is the rehabilitation of urban areas through measures of an innovative character. It is unlikely that such a goal can be achieved through just one action of infrastructural character, but rather through an array of actions likely to interact with each other creating positive synergies. Consequently, the model designed by the Commission was not intended to appraise sustainability of one particular action, but rather to assess the adequacy of the proposed strategies to overcome a specific set of problems. As I have stated, just a handful of questions in the model did address issues related to sustainability appraisal and, indeed, many of the questions did not aim at assessing the sustainability of one particular action in the strategy but, rather, the strategy as a whole. In any case, some lessons can be derived from the model. I will try to highlight those through the analysis of one of the projects I assessed, which I ranked very high among those I reviewed, and to which the Commission awarded 39,06% of the total eligible cost, namely over 7 MEUROs. The project bore the title Building Leo´n, a city of some 150,000 inhabitants about 350 km north of Madrid. The city boasts an historic character, its origins dating back to a military settlement of the roman Legio VI around the turn of the Christian era. The main goal for the project was the rehabilitation of the historic—mainly medieval—city center through a set of four combined measures. Two of those are meant to provide new housing in rehabilitated buildings for the youth; the third one aims at revitalising shopping activity and the general environment in the old market area. Finally, the fourth one, quite on the line of our research, is intended to improve the environmental conditions of the whole historic core through the implementation of a pneumatic system of garbage collection. Such a system has been successfully implemented in modern communities in Swe-
Elsevier — EIR — p977775170 — 05-01-:0 11:44:43
296
E.J. Caldero´n / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 289–298
den, so it is not entirely innovative. Nevertheless, to my knowledge, it had never been used in Spain, and less so in an historic city. As I have tried to emphasize, the model deals with the three main components of sustainability: economic, social, and environmental. One can well argue that financial sustainability, the upkeeping/creation of jobs, or the ecological balance of one individual measure are not the same as those of a whole set of interconnected measures making up a strategy. I surely ranked high the Leo´n proposal on the grounds of its overall suitability to the goals of the UPP Community Action and not on any of the measures in isolation. A clear message here is that more often than not the solution of urban problems is not just one miraculous measure, but a set of them. Urban problems are not simple and, as it happens, the EU is far likelier to finance integrated actions than individual measures. The rehabilitation of the Leon historic area is being tackled through measures of residential, cultural, economic, transportation nature [3]. The waste infrastructure proposed was only one of the measures making up the proposed strategy, and neither was I requested to appraise it in isolation nor did I think this was the right thing to do. I accept that the appraisal of just the one measure could have been different to that of the whole strategy. In fact, I considered the pneumatic system quite unsuitable for a highly sensitive historic center, and I stated so in my evaluation, but I thought the strategy as a whole was correct to deal with the existing problems and maybe it could even be improved by implementing a less destructive, i.e., more sustainable, system of waste collection in the area. This is a main contribution of the model: project sustainability cannot be assessed in isolation but rather as part of a comprehensive strategy. Moreover, the ecological component of the appraisal of sustainability is only one dimension of the sustainability, and in many instances, not the most important one; any assessment methodology should consider alongside it the economic and social dimensions.
5. Summary and conclusions The model described provides an easily applicable tool for the initial assessment of sustainability of projects at the urban level in a diverse range of theme areas and throughout different geographical and administrative contexts. In my opinion, it is quite relevant for the purposes of COST C8 action as a handy tool for selection of best practice case studies. One of the theme areas included in the list provided with the Call for Proposals for the on-going round of UPPs is, precisely:2 Improvement of the environment through the creation of new open/green spaces and/or recreational activities together with sustainable facilities in built-up districts; integrated waste-treat2
See O.J. No. C 319/31.
Elsevier — EIR — p977775170 — 05-01-:0 11:44:43
E.J. Caldero´n / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 289–298
297
ment and recycling activities; reduction of energy consumption through renewable or clean alternative energy uses. From a methodological point of view, perhaps a major criticism to the model is the scant explicit reference paid to ecological sustainability. In my opinion, this may be related to the implicit demand for environmental consideration deemed mandatory in all proposals requesting financial assistance from the EU. An explicit reference to environmental issues appears in Question 26, were attention is paid to the potential lessons to be derived from the project to “other EU policy areas,” namely, “sustainable development, environmental management, energy conservation, etc.” On the other hand, according to the Community legislation adopted in all Member States, the application of EIA is compulsory for a series of major projects of infrastructural character. In any case, the model draws more on the economic and social aspects of sustainability than on its ecological side. Some of the evaluators might have considered that a drawback and, thus, ranked low the proposals that lacked a major concern for the ecological environment. As a Spanish evaluator well aware of the socio-economic as well as the environmental situation of my country, I tried to appraise each proposal, paying equal heed to the socio-economic benefits to be derived from the project as to its environmental consequences. The latter were more carefully considered in cities like Leo´n, which can boast an historical character, making it more sensitive to damage from major infrastructural operations. Finally, the overall scoring granted by evaluators to each of the projects allows their ranking within the national context but, obviously does not provide any objective clues for a crossnational ordering. Two issues may shed some justification on that shortcoming. First, the national ranking provided by evaluators did spare the Commission the chore of analyzing the whole bunch of submitted projects, something for which they probably lacked the time and, surely, were ill prepared to do. Thence, they could concentrate on those projects previously screened by the local experts, and they had the final say according to the Commission interest on a subjective, comparative basis. Second, it is a well-known fact that it is difficult nowadays for the Commission to allocate funds disregarding entirely Member States interests. In other words, an initial allocation of funds by Member State is hard to avoid. In that respect, the best qualified projects by national experts stood a better chance of being granted financial support, regardless of their comparative position in the overall EU ranking. Spain did get four awards in Phase II of the UPPs, and I ranked top of the list two of the projects awarded, the other two having been evaluated by another Spanish expert, whose scoring I was not supposed to know. In brief, I would like to summarize the following points in what concerns the usefulness of the model described for the aims of our research: (1) although the main goal of the model is not exactly sustainability assessment, the outcome of the evaluation may provide a clear insight into that issue.
Elsevier — EIR — p977775170 — 05-01-:0 11:44:44
298
E.J. Caldero´n / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 289–298
(2) Whereas it is applied to prescreened urban projects whose initial feasibility has been assessed by the soliciting authorities, it can be considered useful for the selection of best practice case studies in different socioeconomic situations. (3) The model aims at achieving a consistent appraisal throughout all the EU, although heed is paid to the local circumstances. (4) The fairness of the appraisal is based upon: (a) the information submitted by soliciting authorities being accurate, and (b) the evaluators’ precise knowledge of the local situation and of the state of the art in other Member States. (5) Reliance on the subjective judgement from evaluators allows a discretionary input in the appraisal, mainly in what concerns the comparative assessment of the three main components of the sustainability across the different Member States. In my opinion, this is not necessarily a drawback, as there is no commonly agreed weighting for those three components.
References [1] EC-DG XVI 1998. Urban Pilot Projects. Luxembourg: Annual report. 1997. [2] European Commission. European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Union. Potsdam, Germany, 1999. [3] Leon City Council. Hacemos Leo´n: a development proposal for the Old City. Project submitted at the call of proposals for Urban Pilot Projects (unpublished). [4] Official Journal of the European Communities No. C 267/2 (22.9.1999). Guidelines for programmes in the period 2000–2006, 1999. [5] Official Journal of the European Communities No. L 161 (21.6.1999). Council Regulation (CE) No. 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, 1999. [6] Official Journal of the European Communities No. C 319/31 (30.11.95). Call for Urban Pilot Proposals Under Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation, 1995.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20 (2000) 289–298 www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar
An applied method for the assessment of sustainability of urban pilot projects Enrique J. Caldero´n* Departamento de Ordenacio´n del Territorio, Urbanismo y Medio Ambiente, Escuela Te´cnica Superior de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos Universidad Polite´cnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria, E-28040 Madrid, Spain
Abstract This paper is aimed at presenting a model, in the form of a template and a set of operating instructions, produced by the European Commission for the appraisal of sustainability of projects requesting financial support under the Urban Pilot Projects scheme. The template, along with the instructions for interpretation and usage, was handed over to a panel of external evaluators for them to reach consistent decisions across the European Union (EU). The proposed appraisal scheme is meant to jointly take into consideration the three main components of the sustainability concept, namely economic, social, and environmental, subjectively weighted to produce a single index. Strengths and weaknesses of the scheme are analyzed with the help of one of the appraised projects that happened to obtain EU financial support. 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Assessment of sustainability; Urban pilot projects
1. Introduction The assessment of sustainability of best practice infrastructure projects requires a suitable methodology to perform such assessment across the large diversity of situations in the European Union (EU). But the sheer amount of available case studies and the subjectivity of the concept “best practice” imply a parallel complexity in deciding which among the available cases should be assessed. The purpose of this paper is to present a simple method devised by the European Commission to select projects potentially eligible for cofunding * Tel.: ⫹0003491 336 6695; fax: ⫹0034 91 336 6689. E-mail address: [email protected] (E.J. Caldero´n) 0195-9255/00/$ – see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S0195-9255(00)00041-X
Elsevier — EIR — p977775170 — 05-01-:0 11:44:43
290
E.J. Caldero´n / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 289–298
under the Urban Pilot Projects scheme [1]. Although the method was not specifically geared to select cases on the basis of their sustainability, this was an underlying criterion according to the concept of sustainability prevailing in the Treaty of Amsterdam (art. 2), and further developed in the newly published European Commission Communication “Guidelines for programmes in the period 2000–2006” (OJ 1999/C 267/02) [4]. But, perhaps the most relevant document for the contextualization of the term “sustainability” in what concerns spatial planning is the European Spatial Development Perspective [2]. The final text, agreed to in Potsdam, relates the ESDP to the EU aim of achieving a “balanced and sustainable development, in particular by strengthening economic and social cohesion,” as stated in the aforementioned article of the Treaty of Amsterdam. But, the ESDP also puts forward the three fundamental goals of European policy, namely: (1) economic and social cohesion, (2) conservation of natural resources and cultural heritage, and (3) more balanced competitiveness of the European territory. The triangle of objectives depicted in the ESDP clearly supports a concept of sustainability that goes further beyond the purely ecological view prevailing in many texts, to encompass economic and social issues highly valued in “less developed” countries. There are no commonly accepted guidelines to grant relative weightings to these three main components and, indeed, my presentation is by no means meant to fill up that gap, at least in a quantitative form. But it is geared to bring to the fore a simple, albeit practical procedure for subjective, joint consideration of the three pillars of sustainability. Furthermore, the method was applied in the same manner throughout the EU, thereby providing a fairly objective screening procedure. Out of 503 projects originally submitted, 26 were shortlisted in 13 Member States, through the application of the method. In my view, those 26 projects can be initially labeled as “best practice” across the EU, and made subject to further scrutiny following other methodological approaches.
2. The urban pilot projects scheme Article 10 of Regulation EEC 4254/88 [6], modified by Regulation 2083/ 93 of the ERDF, provides for support of innovative actions across the European Territory. Under that article, the European Commission, through D.G. XVI—Directorate General for Regional Policy and Cohesion— launched in the period 1989–1993, a Call for Proposals for Urban Pilot Projects (hence, UPPs) aimed to meet the challenges raised by problems of congestion, pollution, industrial decay, and social exclusion plaguing many of our cities. As a result, 33 of these projects, of a purported innovative character, were supported with ERDF funds in 11 Member States. The success of the initiative helped to raise the profile of urban issues
Elsevier — EIR — p977775170 — 05-01-:0 11:44:43
E.J. Caldero´n / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 289–298
291
on the European policy agenda, and was also influential in the formulation of the URBAN Community Initiative in 1994, one of the four CIs to be continued in the next programming period 2000–2006.1 Such success also moved the Commission to launch a second Call for Proposals in November 30th of 1995, for the period 1995–1999, which attracted 503 entries from 14 Member States. To reach a greater consistency in the appraisal of the proposals, a team of external advisers was set up. These, with the help of a model produced by the Commission were to review and evaluate projects submitted within each one’s own country. Their evaluation, in the form of a numerically ranked ordering of the projects, was submitted to D.G. XVI for the final decision. Twenty-six projects in 13 Member States were recommended for financial support. Of these, four are located in Spain, and two of them, in Granada and Leo´n, were personally assessed and recommended by myself following the model that I describe in this paper. As one of the appointed members of the external team of advisors, I reviewed 14 of the projects submitted in Spain. My impressions on the usefulness of the Commission model as well as a detailed description of it, and its potential as a tool for selected best practice case studies on the basis of their overall sustainability, make up the bulk of my presentation.
3. Description of the model The model handed over to the panel of evaluators consisted of a set of evaluation sheets together with instructions for interpretation and usage. Several meetings were called in Brussels to further harmonize operational criteria and the clarification of questions. The project documentation (Part I of the evaluation) was to be returned to the Commission along with the completed sheets at the end of the process. 3.1. The evaluation sheets The Evaluation sheets were made up of four parts. Part 1 contained factual information about each project. It was prepared by the submitting administration in accordance with instructions released by the Commission for the benefit of evaluators when completing the remaining parts of the sheets. Part 2, initial assessment, was meant to check whether the projects did meet the basic criteria as issued in the call for proposals. For the purposes of my paper I will concentrate here exclusively on sustainability criteria, according to the interpretation of the concept stemming from the latest documents issued by the European Commission. Part 3, qualitative assessment, sought to assess the innovative and demonstrative qualities of the project, as well as its practical feasibility. 1
See Council Regulation CE 1260/1999 art.20.
Elsevier — EIR — p977775170 — 05-01-:0 11:44:43
292
E.J. Caldero´n / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 289–298
Part 4 was the overall assessment and prioritization requested from the evaluators to sum up the strengths and weaknesses of the project and to provide general comments about it. Finally, evaluators were requested to indicate the relative merit of each project in a numerical scale from 1 (best) to 20 (worst). 3.2. The application of the model Not all the parts in the model were equally interesting for the purposes of sustainability assessment. As it has been mentioned, Part 1 was compiled by the submitting authorities to feed the evaluators with factual information about the project. As for the three remaining parts that make up the core of the model, I will draw more extensively on those questions that apply more directly to the stated goal of COST C8 Action, namely the assessment of sustainability. Part 2 comprised nine questions, most of them related to the formal requirements released in the call for proposals (city size, local/regional character of the submitting authorities, existence of executive summary, etc.) Somewhat more interesting was the need to provide a detailed description of the proposed strategy to meet the existing problems, as well as an update on each of the proposed actions, including timetable, budgetary arrangements, impact upon employment, etc. For the purposes of our own research, I consider particularly relevant the issues regarding action description and financing capacities of the participating bodies. The proposed action had to be assessed in isolation, in terms of their suitability to meet goals, but also in respect to alternative options; account should also be taken of positive and negative synergies likely to arise from the whole strategy. As for financing capacities of the participating bodies, my view is we were asked to cast our opinion about the financial sustainability of the project. In particular, the existence of specific letters of intent with precise details of financial commitment by all participating bodies was to be double checked. The issue of economic sustainability was further discussed in Part 3 of the Evaluation. Part 3 of the Evaluation Sheets is perhaps the most relevant for the purpose of a comprehensive assessment of sustainability. It includes questions geared to highlight the main components of the concept, namely economic, social, and ecological. As for the economic components, emphasis is placed upon managerial and financial issues. Some of the questions to be addressed in this part are: 22. Quality of organizational arrangements In what way does the project demonstrate partnership between the public sector and other socio-economic partners? What political support is evident? Is the proposed project management sufficiently robust/experienced to successfully complete the project?
Elsevier — EIR — p977775170 — 05-01-:0 11:44:43
E.J. Caldero´n / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 289–298
293
In the case of the city of Leo´n, which I personally reviewed, I highlighted the fact that the proposal [3] included an impressive array (33) of participating groups, political and social partners at all levels, financial institutions, and other private bodies showing interest in the project, most of them in written form. The public–private partnership extended itself to the point of cofinancing the project in areas like urban renewal, concealing overhead electricity and telephone wires, and promoting a craft center in a rehabilitated palace. Such a widespread support for the proposal was, in my view, a guarantee that political and economic considerations would not be a hindrance to the implementation and maintenance of the strategy as a whole, and thus, will favor long-term sustainability. As for financial issues, besides explicit commitments from all participating bodies to clearly indicate their financial contribution and their budgetary arrangements, maintenance costs had to be calculated, and financial provisions to meet those were also assessed. Question 23 explicitly asked about the possibility of actions to become self-financing in the medium term, as a proxy for financial sustainability: In other words, once the initial support was phased out, whether or not all or some of the contributing partners would be willing to lay out the necessary maintenance appropriations. Again, this is, in my view, an essential approach to time sustainability not often required in many other EU interventions. In what concerns social sustainability, question 24 addressed the issue of employment: 24. What will be the employment impact of the pilot actions? Will new jobs be created? Will existing jobs be saved? How many? Permanent? Temporary/Seasonal? It is, once more, a proof of the importance the EU grants to unemployment as an indicator of social distress. The question goes further into distinguishing jobs to be created and those to be destroyed, in case the innovative character of some of the actions might end up by doing away with existing jobs. Furthermore, the question explicitly requested numerical information and additional split between jobs to be created/saved permanently and those that might be temporary or seasonal. In countries like Spain, with the highest unemployment rate across the EU, it is hard to trade off politically sustainability indicators of a social character (employment) for those of an ecological dimension. Likewise, the political acceptance by social partners of actions creating/saving jobs is much higher than of those that may carry along the destruction of scarce jobs. Even though employment issues are the main indicators of social sustainability, educational, leisure, or health concerns did play a role in the assessment. Although not always explicitly mentioned in the questionnaire, those issues were addressed through general requirements of improving
Elsevier — EIR — p977775170 — 05-01-:0 11:44:43
294
E.J. Caldero´n / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 289–298
citizens welfare and the need to draw up integrated strategies in which not only punctual actions were proposed. Thus, most of the strategies appraised did contain educational measures, as well as others aimed at providing leisure facilities in the cities/districts concerned. Finally, in what concerns ecological sustainability, the EU model is perhaps weakest. Only two of the questions—12 and 26—had a clear bearing on environmental concerns. Question 12 required from the evaluators an assessment of the relationship between problems detected and proposed actions to tackle those. Likewise, synergies with other EU programs were considered an additional bonus. It is obvious that environmental issues were always present in the cities requesting assistance. Thus, an overall assessment of the ecological sustainability of the actions proposed was always in the evaluator’s mind greatest when, as in the case of Leo´n, the historical heritage of the area to be acted upon was paramount. In many of the cities under review other EU programs with environmental goals— URBAN, LIFE—were operating also. As for question 26, evaluators were asked to assess the potential lessons for other EU policy areas, among those “sustainable development” and “environmental management.” In any case, as I stated before, ecological concerns seemed to be conspicuously missing in the model. Reasons might have been manifold. On one side, ecological sustainability can be assessed at a later stage and to a greater detail through other well-established methods— SEA, EIA, ecobalance, LCA, etc. On the other side, there is a general awareness among fund-requesting authorities that a respect for environmental issues is mandatory. Finally, there might indeed be a lesser concern for ecological issues in the terms of reference for UPPs than for those of a managerial or social character. Nevertheless, as an evaluator I can say that there was a general interest for the environment in most of the proposals, greater when the problems addressed were of environmental nature. Part 4 of the evaluation model was meant to summarize the contents of the previous three. It contained two questions. The first one requested us to describe the key elements of the proposal, its strengths and weaknesses, and other features of the project. It was clearly an attempt to sum up pros and cons of the project. The second question asked the evaluators to score the project on a 1 (best) to 20 (worst) scale. Obviously, the ultimate goal of the scoring was to facilitate the final decision of the Commission. But it also placed a double challenge upon the evaluators: to rank the proposals on a comparative basis and, consequently, to appraise on a common scale, economic, social, and ecological factors. No tips were provided as how to carry out such an appraisal, and I assume it was justified by the Commission’s reliance on the evaluators’ experience. But this was not the only challenge placed upon the evaluators’ experience. In my view, the model also relied on our ability to ascertain the accuracy and truthfulness of the information provided in the proposal—that assumed knowledge of the local situation from the evaluators that some-
Elsevier — EIR — p977775170 — 05-01-:0 11:44:43
E.J. Caldero´n / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 289–298
295
times was utterly unrealistic: evaluators were not supposed to contact the proposing authorities for clarifications. Second, we were also assumed to be able to assess the innovative character of all the proposals. Most of them, at least in the case of those I reviewed, did not include highly innovative issues. But some did, notably the one in Leo´n, where a pneumatic system for garbage collection—entirely new in Spain but better known elsewhere—whose technical details were not made available to me, was a main feature in the proposed strategy.
4. An evaluation of the results The suitability of the model for the assessment of sustainability of infrastructure projects in urban contexts is related to the characteristics of UPPs where I used them. Most of the projects I evaluated had a strategic dimension in the sense that actions envisaged were manifold in number and scope. The overall goal of UPPs is the rehabilitation of urban areas through measures of an innovative character. It is unlikely that such a goal can be achieved through just one action of infrastructural character, but rather through an array of actions likely to interact with each other creating positive synergies. Consequently, the model designed by the Commission was not intended to appraise sustainability of one particular action, but rather to assess the adequacy of the proposed strategies to overcome a specific set of problems. As I have stated, just a handful of questions in the model did address issues related to sustainability appraisal and, indeed, many of the questions did not aim at assessing the sustainability of one particular action in the strategy but, rather, the strategy as a whole. In any case, some lessons can be derived from the model. I will try to highlight those through the analysis of one of the projects I assessed, which I ranked very high among those I reviewed, and to which the Commission awarded 39,06% of the total eligible cost, namely over 7 MEUROs. The project bore the title Building Leo´n, a city of some 150,000 inhabitants about 350 km north of Madrid. The city boasts an historic character, its origins dating back to a military settlement of the roman Legio VI around the turn of the Christian era. The main goal for the project was the rehabilitation of the historic—mainly medieval—city center through a set of four combined measures. Two of those are meant to provide new housing in rehabilitated buildings for the youth; the third one aims at revitalising shopping activity and the general environment in the old market area. Finally, the fourth one, quite on the line of our research, is intended to improve the environmental conditions of the whole historic core through the implementation of a pneumatic system of garbage collection. Such a system has been successfully implemented in modern communities in Swe-
Elsevier — EIR — p977775170 — 05-01-:0 11:44:43
296
E.J. Caldero´n / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 289–298
den, so it is not entirely innovative. Nevertheless, to my knowledge, it had never been used in Spain, and less so in an historic city. As I have tried to emphasize, the model deals with the three main components of sustainability: economic, social, and environmental. One can well argue that financial sustainability, the upkeeping/creation of jobs, or the ecological balance of one individual measure are not the same as those of a whole set of interconnected measures making up a strategy. I surely ranked high the Leo´n proposal on the grounds of its overall suitability to the goals of the UPP Community Action and not on any of the measures in isolation. A clear message here is that more often than not the solution of urban problems is not just one miraculous measure, but a set of them. Urban problems are not simple and, as it happens, the EU is far likelier to finance integrated actions than individual measures. The rehabilitation of the Leon historic area is being tackled through measures of residential, cultural, economic, transportation nature [3]. The waste infrastructure proposed was only one of the measures making up the proposed strategy, and neither was I requested to appraise it in isolation nor did I think this was the right thing to do. I accept that the appraisal of just the one measure could have been different to that of the whole strategy. In fact, I considered the pneumatic system quite unsuitable for a highly sensitive historic center, and I stated so in my evaluation, but I thought the strategy as a whole was correct to deal with the existing problems and maybe it could even be improved by implementing a less destructive, i.e., more sustainable, system of waste collection in the area. This is a main contribution of the model: project sustainability cannot be assessed in isolation but rather as part of a comprehensive strategy. Moreover, the ecological component of the appraisal of sustainability is only one dimension of the sustainability, and in many instances, not the most important one; any assessment methodology should consider alongside it the economic and social dimensions.
5. Summary and conclusions The model described provides an easily applicable tool for the initial assessment of sustainability of projects at the urban level in a diverse range of theme areas and throughout different geographical and administrative contexts. In my opinion, it is quite relevant for the purposes of COST C8 action as a handy tool for selection of best practice case studies. One of the theme areas included in the list provided with the Call for Proposals for the on-going round of UPPs is, precisely:2 Improvement of the environment through the creation of new open/green spaces and/or recreational activities together with sustainable facilities in built-up districts; integrated waste-treat2
See O.J. No. C 319/31.
Elsevier — EIR — p977775170 — 05-01-:0 11:44:43
E.J. Caldero´n / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 289–298
297
ment and recycling activities; reduction of energy consumption through renewable or clean alternative energy uses. From a methodological point of view, perhaps a major criticism to the model is the scant explicit reference paid to ecological sustainability. In my opinion, this may be related to the implicit demand for environmental consideration deemed mandatory in all proposals requesting financial assistance from the EU. An explicit reference to environmental issues appears in Question 26, were attention is paid to the potential lessons to be derived from the project to “other EU policy areas,” namely, “sustainable development, environmental management, energy conservation, etc.” On the other hand, according to the Community legislation adopted in all Member States, the application of EIA is compulsory for a series of major projects of infrastructural character. In any case, the model draws more on the economic and social aspects of sustainability than on its ecological side. Some of the evaluators might have considered that a drawback and, thus, ranked low the proposals that lacked a major concern for the ecological environment. As a Spanish evaluator well aware of the socio-economic as well as the environmental situation of my country, I tried to appraise each proposal, paying equal heed to the socio-economic benefits to be derived from the project as to its environmental consequences. The latter were more carefully considered in cities like Leo´n, which can boast an historical character, making it more sensitive to damage from major infrastructural operations. Finally, the overall scoring granted by evaluators to each of the projects allows their ranking within the national context but, obviously does not provide any objective clues for a crossnational ordering. Two issues may shed some justification on that shortcoming. First, the national ranking provided by evaluators did spare the Commission the chore of analyzing the whole bunch of submitted projects, something for which they probably lacked the time and, surely, were ill prepared to do. Thence, they could concentrate on those projects previously screened by the local experts, and they had the final say according to the Commission interest on a subjective, comparative basis. Second, it is a well-known fact that it is difficult nowadays for the Commission to allocate funds disregarding entirely Member States interests. In other words, an initial allocation of funds by Member State is hard to avoid. In that respect, the best qualified projects by national experts stood a better chance of being granted financial support, regardless of their comparative position in the overall EU ranking. Spain did get four awards in Phase II of the UPPs, and I ranked top of the list two of the projects awarded, the other two having been evaluated by another Spanish expert, whose scoring I was not supposed to know. In brief, I would like to summarize the following points in what concerns the usefulness of the model described for the aims of our research: (1) although the main goal of the model is not exactly sustainability assessment, the outcome of the evaluation may provide a clear insight into that issue.
Elsevier — EIR — p977775170 — 05-01-:0 11:44:44
298
E.J. Caldero´n / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 289–298
(2) Whereas it is applied to prescreened urban projects whose initial feasibility has been assessed by the soliciting authorities, it can be considered useful for the selection of best practice case studies in different socioeconomic situations. (3) The model aims at achieving a consistent appraisal throughout all the EU, although heed is paid to the local circumstances. (4) The fairness of the appraisal is based upon: (a) the information submitted by soliciting authorities being accurate, and (b) the evaluators’ precise knowledge of the local situation and of the state of the art in other Member States. (5) Reliance on the subjective judgement from evaluators allows a discretionary input in the appraisal, mainly in what concerns the comparative assessment of the three main components of the sustainability across the different Member States. In my opinion, this is not necessarily a drawback, as there is no commonly agreed weighting for those three components.
References [1] EC-DG XVI 1998. Urban Pilot Projects. Luxembourg: Annual report. 1997. [2] European Commission. European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Union. Potsdam, Germany, 1999. [3] Leon City Council. Hacemos Leo´n: a development proposal for the Old City. Project submitted at the call of proposals for Urban Pilot Projects (unpublished). [4] Official Journal of the European Communities No. C 267/2 (22.9.1999). Guidelines for programmes in the period 2000–2006, 1999. [5] Official Journal of the European Communities No. L 161 (21.6.1999). Council Regulation (CE) No. 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, 1999. [6] Official Journal of the European Communities No. C 319/31 (30.11.95). Call for Urban Pilot Proposals Under Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation, 1995.