enviplans guidelines · 2018. 6. 15. · praderio). the staff of comité 21 would sincerely like to...

ENVIPLANSGUIDELINES

Integrated and sustainable planning and management of the urban environment

ENVIPLANSGUIDELINES

Integrated and sustainable planning and management of the urban environment

November 2006

Co-ordinator of the project: Eriuccio Nora,Director of Coordinamento Agende 21 Locali Italiane

The text has been prepared by Maria Berrini and Lorenzo Bono from Ambiente Italia – Istituto di Ricerche, Milano (Italy)[email protected];[email protected];www.ambienteitalia.it

Inputs to the text have been managed and supervisedwith the help of Sarah Mc Mahon, Pete Fryer, Dave Tuffery and Ian McCormack (Bristol Council, UK) www.bristol-city.gov.uk/ccm/portal

The Guidelines have been elaborated thanks to the contributions and debates derived from meetings between ENVIPLANS’ participating cities and organised by the project partners: Coordinamento Agende 21 Locali Italiane, Comitè 21 andForum of Adriatic and Ionian Cities and Towns.www.a21italy.itwww.comite21.org www.adriatic-ionian.org

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS Coordinamento Agende 21 locali italiane(leader of the project)• Emilio D’Alessio, President• Eriuccio Nora, Director and Co-ordinator of the project• Filippo Lenzerini, Project Manager• Maria Elisa Zuppiroli, Emanuele Buda, Secretarial office • Giordano Cuoghi, Webmaster

Further collaboration: Elisa Baldet, Roberta Castri,Marco Malaguti, Marina Krajina

Comitè 21• Eric Guillon, President• Anne-Marie Sacquet, Director General • Antoine Charlot, Project Manager of the programme

«Territoires durables »• Anne Lemaire, Administrative Manager• Christine Delhaye, Communication Manager

Further collaboration: Jennifer Sonneville, Elisa Baldet,Fulvia Cugini, Yasmine Bourjlate, Cécile Drouillet,Alexia Nauleau.

Forum of Adriatic and Ionian cities and towns • Bruno Bravetti, Project Manager• Pier Roberto Remitti, Technical Expert for the project,

Manager• Marina Krajina, Secretarial office

Further collaboration: Anna Laura Lacerra

3

CORE GROUPAgglomerato Urbano Cosenza - Rende:Leo Acri, Laura CipparroneComune di Firenze:Riccardo Pozzi, Armanni OberdanComune di Padova:Francesco Bicciato, Patrizio Mazzetto,Daniela Luise, Cinzia Rinzafri, AndreaAngrilli, Michele ZuinCommunauté d’agglomération OuestProvence:Bernard Granie, Suzanne Marceau, PatrickBoullay, Marie-Claude Dho-Fiandinio,Mireille FernandezCittà di Rijeka:Doris Sosic, Tanja Saulig, Ljubomir Stojnic,Lorena Mekic

ADVISORY GROUPComune di Ancona:Piero Remitti, Claudio CentanniComune di Ferrara:Michele Ferrari, Giovanna RioComune di Genova:Alberto Santel, Cristina VerdacchiComune di Lucca:Mauro di Bugno, Cecilia Martini,Francesca VianiComune di Modena:Giovanni Franco Orlando, NadiaPaltrinieri, Ana Maria Solis, BeatriceBruzzone,Bruna Paderni,Alessandro PelligraComune di Palermo:Giovanni Avanti, Ornella Amara

Comune di Pavia:Pinuccia Balzamo, Gianni MittinoComune di Roma:Mauro Degli Effetti, Alessandro SaloneComune di Trento:Massimo SimoniComune di Venezia:Beatrice Nazzari, Eliana Caramelli, DennisWellington, Cristiana ScarpaA.U. Cesano Maderno, Desio, Meda, Seveso:Marzio Marzorati, Sabrina Bobbiesi, RaffaellaMariani, Sara Geromin, Mariepa FavonioA.U. Chieti-Pescara Provincia di Chieti, Provincia di Pescara,Comune di Chieti, Comune di Francavilla alMare (CH), Comune di San Giovanni Teatino(CH), Comune di Pescara, Comune diCepagatti (PE), Comune di Manoppello (PE),Comune di Montesilvano (PE), Comune diSpoltore (PE), Comune di Cappello sul Tavo(PE): Massimo Luciani, Mauro Latini, UgoEsposito, Bernardo Appignani, MariangelaAppignani, Rudy D’Amico, Edoardo De BlasioC.A. Ouest Etang de Berre:Gaby Charroux, Jean-Edouard Dutech,Marie-Pierre Tignel, Serge Pons, FrédéricBoullerne, Jean-Edouard DutechC.A. Garlaban Huveaune Sainte-Baume:Alain Belviso, Robert Abad, Joëlle LaborrierC.A. Dracenoise:Max Piselli, Francis Aynaud,Sophie PerrymonC.A. Pole Azur Provence:Jean-Pierre Leleux, Catherine Jouve, KatiaTorelli, Hélène Noharet

Koper (Slovenia):Bruna Pisot-SaksidaIgoumenitsa (Grecia):Costantin CalfelisPatras (Grecia):Konstadinos Konstadakopoulos,Konstadinos KarpetasSplit (Croazia):Bozidar Capalija, Ljubomir Urlic,Nikola Horvat, Marina Kuzmanic PetresBar (Montenegro):Cazim Nikezic Durres (Albania):Sokol Kokomani, Eda CaushiLezhe (Albania):Pjeter KolaNeum (Bosnia):Djuro Obradovic

DISSEMINATION GROUPAPAT:Silvia Brini, Patrizia Franchini,Rosalba Silvaggio, Pace ManuelaDEXIA CREDIOP Italia:Giovanna Amato, Angelo Galasso FORMEZ:Antonio Saturnino, Cinzia Di Fenza,Annaelisa Fersini Banca Popolare EticaGruppo di Lavoro Città Sostenibili:Vanni Bulgarelli, Catia Mazzeri,Alessandro GhinoiRete Agende 21 della Toscana:Michela Di Matteo,Concetta Musumeci

Integrated and sustainable planning and management of the urban environment4

OTHER PARTECIPANTS:Giorgiana Palman,Ville de Hyères(Adelaïde Brieuc), PSA Peugeot Citroen(Allot Philippe), C.A. Mulhouse Sud Alsace(Arnold Fabienne), Communauté decommunes Marne et Chantereine (BuquetNadége), Eurocities (Allen Creedy),UNESCO (Peter Dogse),Ville deNarbonnes (Etero Mariline), DEXIA(Flamand Eric, Orjebin Caroline,VerdierAxelle), Università Paris Dauphine (Forster-Busson Ulrike),Ville de Lille (GueguenIsabelle), Conseil Géneéral de l’Essonne(Letheule Séverine),Veolia Water(MaurelDelphine),AMGVF (Piron Ludovic), CAdes Hautes de Biévres (Recouvreur Daniel),Insula (Prima Judith), MEED (SaintenyGuillame), Institut Angenius (SpleeRabehanta Stéphane), Facoltà di Economiadi Split (Maja Fredotovic), Istituto di SalutePubblica-Dip.Ecologia di Rijeka (NadaMatkovic, Dusanka Cuzela-Bilac), RegioneMarche (Michela Tonucci,Valentina Jacan),AAP2020 (Zorana Radetic), Undi (GjokeGjini), Caritas Svizzera (Nikolin Ujka), KlubEkologhe (Zef Imeraj), Shojety UjedisEdulim (Gjerg Elezi), Quarku Lezhe (NdrecGjini), D.K.SH.P. Lezhe (David Malci),Drbu Lezhe (Vlash Toma, Gjyste Mdoci),Shoqata Ekoturizmit (Vladimir Prenga),

Comune di Bari (Francesco Muciaccia),Comune di Brindisi (Mauro D’Attis),Comune di Casarano (Claudio Pedone),Comune di Cormano (Sonia Truant),Comune di Lecco (Carlo Castelli,AngeloRicchetti), Comune di Monfalcone (RadaOrescanin), Comune di Ravenna(Alessandra Di Maggio, Maria CristinaInnocenti, Raffaella Rosetti)), Comune diRimini (Laura Massari, Karen Visani),Comune di Salerno (Vincenzo Maiorino,Angela Magliacano), Comune di SanBenedetto del Tronto (Paolo Canducci),Comune di Torchiarolo (Giovanni Golia),Provincia di Lucca (Piero Manconi),Provincia di Salerno (Angelo Paladino),Provincia di Bologna (Valentina Beltrame),Regione Liguria (Laura Tubelli), RegioneLombardia (Olga Talamucci, CarlottaSigismondi, Marta Vailati, SimonettaRoncari, Debora Dazzi, Sandra Zappella),Regione Umbria (Paolo Camerieri,Nicoletta Tasso), Gruppo di LavoroNetwork CLEAR (Alessandra Vaccari),Agenzia Innova 21 (Simone Paleari),Ministero dell’Ambiente (Mara Cossu),Arpa Emilia-Romagna (Paolo Cagnoli),ANAB (Aldo Scarpa), Matteo Mascia,Domenico Mazza, Salvatore Quattrocchi,

Eirla (Ali Brahimi), Sh.a UjsjellesKanalizima (Zef Maci), Flokal (NikollLleshi), Seksioni Skerbue (Nikoll Gjoni),Biolog Eirla Lezhe (Jak Gjini),Agenia100% Shqip (Edmond Vlashaj), UretrojaShesbimit Pyia (Petrit Marku), DrejtanDraejtanis Fin. (Mark Zefi), Nikujeta Ikq(Gjovelin Gjeloski), Città di Scutari(Zemaida Castrati), Città di Zadar(Miljenko Pericic,Anita Grzan-Martinovic,Zana Klaric), Cistica Zadar (Ivica Vidov,Tomislav Curko),Tehnik D.O.O. (DubravkoHorvat,Valdo Balent), Ured DrzavneUprave Zadar (Milan Miocic-Stosic), OtokUgljan D.O.O.(Mladen Lucin), ECDelegation Croazia (Mojca Starc), DvokutEkro (Marta Brkic), Cistica Zadar (DaniloSkoric), HGK Zadar (Mato Ostojic), CisticaZadar (Dusan Cerina), Ind-Eko Rijeka (IlijaSmitran), Cisti Otok-Opcina Vir (ZeljkoBuskulic), Zavod za Prosterno PlaniranjeZadar (Igor Ramov), Zadarska Zupanija(Nives Kozulic),Tehnic (Djuro Horvat, DujoCerina, Konrad Gunther), Civil EngineeringInstitute of Cratia (Miljenko Weiss), Facultyof Chemical Engineering and TechnologyZagreb (Igor Sutlovic), Uniadrion (GiorgioPraderio).

The staff of Comité 21 would sincerely like to thank Région Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur for the support given to theENVIPLANS project.

Preface 6

Overview 9

1 Introduction 111.1 What it is about 12

1.2 The role States and Regions of southern 14Europe are asked to play

1.3 The South-EU Urban ENVIPLANS project 14

1.4 ENVIPLANS Guidelines 15

2 Getting started to launch or relaunch 19the planning process2.1 Baseline review: understanding the context. 20

ENVIPLANS’ Pre-audit method

2.1.1 Pre-audit: the steps to follow 202.1.2 Pre-audit: contents of the report 212.1.3 Pre-audit: main environmental aspects 212.1.4 Pre-audit: self-evaluation 22

2.2 ENVIPLANS Pre-audit: findings 22

2.2.1 Other plans to be taken into account 22

3 Considering organisational and institutional 25aspects for the development of the plan3.1 Defining what constitutes the planning cycle 26

3.1.1 The Plan’s themes 263.1.2 Profile and level of analysis 283.1.3 Which local scale should be adopted 293.1.4 Time frame of the planning cycle 29

3.2 Defining the relationship with other existing plans, 30regulations and statutes

3.2.1 Taking into account both existing and pending 30plans and tools

3.2.2 Level of binding commitment and institutional 30power of the Plan

3.3 Resources and terms needed to develop 32and implement the Plan

3.3.1 Organisation: who initiates the process and how 323.3.2 Activating internal and external resources 333.3.3 Setting up, motivating and training technical staff 333.3.4 What financial resources can be counted on 34

3.4 Activating participative processes 34

3.4.1 The main actors of the planning process 343.4.2 Who decides, and how 363.4.3 How can participative processes be best organised 363.4.4 Raising citizens’ awareness and participation 37

4 Initial assessment evaluation: 39directing it towards the development of the plan4.1 Collecting and communicating baseline information 40

4.1.1 How to organise and present information. 40What reporting format to use

4.1.2 How to select indicators for reporting 414.1.3 Getting hold of the required data 424.1.4 How to communicate information 43

5 How to develop and detail plan’s contents 45and direct them towards action5.1 Defining objectives and setting targets 46

5.1.1 What is a target and what is it used for 46

5.1.2 Definition criteria 47

5.1.3 What steps to take 47

5.2 Preliminary outline and selection of possible actions 48

5.2.1 How to generate and select actions 48

5.3 Defining roles and responsabilities, 49drafting the plan’s operational programme

5.3.1 Who should take on responsibilities 49for the implementation of the Plan

5.3.2 How to structure the operational programme 50

5.4 Detailing financial aspects 51

5.5 Closing the circle: monitoring, accounting, 52auditing, assessing results, reviewing objectives

6 Annex 556.1 The 5 Case Studies 56

6.2 Further reading 56

6.2.1 Air 566.2.2 Mobility 576.2.3 Energy and climate 596.2.4 Noise 606.2.5 Waste and procurement 616.2.6 Urban planning (green spaces and built environment) 63

5

INDEX


The President of the Coordinamento Agende 21 Locali Italiane

Emilio D’Alessio

PREFACE

European policies for sustainable development inurban areas have always been an importantsource of reference for Italian cities. OurCoordinamento Agende 21 Locali Italiane wascreated and strengthened on initiative of manyItalian cities and has grown by confronting itself withother European networks and thanks to the supportof the European Commission’s activities.The 300 local authorities and more, taking part in theCoordinamento Agende 21 Locali Italiane, believein a new model of governance, participativedecision-making, transparency of procedures andconsultation of citizens. They believe in a new visionof development, one which encourages a rationaluse of resources, social equity, co-operation andsussidiarity. The hundreds of Italian Local Agenda21 experiences have proved a great potential andmeet the requirements for participation andconsultation, an aspect which traditionaladministration and planning models cannot fulfil.For us, the Aalborg Commitments, agreed on in June2004 at the 4th European Conference on SustainableCities represent an important reference and urge usto activate or relaunch new assessment procedures,the adoption of targets and the development ofparticipative action plans.It is for these reasons that we committed ourselvesto the ENVIPLANS project. The running of thisproject has, in fact, helped to keep alive the interestof many European cities in attempting integratedenvironmental planning processes. Current planningtools (and their clear limitations) were examined,and the most suitable requisites for each site-specificcircumstance were sought. The exchange ofexperiences, the analysis of the different modelsexisting in southern Europe, the participativedrafting of these “Guidelines on sustainableplanning and management of the urbanenvironment” constitute the fundamental steps andoutcomes of ENVIPLANS.

Of course, this is not enough.We need the support ofEuropean and National strategies. The EuropeanThematic Strategy on the Urban Environment, setup with the idea of turning into a Directive forMember States, gradually weakened and turned intoa communication. Still, it bears some interestingpoints, which, however, need to be developed in amore functional way. The recent Resolution of theEuropean Parliament confirms the need to raise theefforts which initially gave rise to the developmentof a European Strategy.From our side, our appeal goes to regional andcentral governments, in particular to those of thecountries of southern Europe involved in theENVIPLANS project, and await a clear stance,coherent with the recommendations proposed inthese Guidelines.Cities and local communities are the driving force ofeconomy and represent the testing ground of socialand political progress. Important managementthemes, such as energy and mobility policies,education and training, services to citizens, land useand other resources, social inclusion and safety, needto be dealt with through coherent and systematicnational and regional strategies and a share ofcommitments and responsibilities at the differentinstitutional levels.There is also a need to find ways to strengthen therelations that have come to life between cities of theMediterranean basin. Here, the partnership which hasgenerated the ENVIPLANS project is an importantexample and element. Their recommendations, manyof which have been reported in these Guidelines, mayfind a mean of expression in a Mediterranean UrbanStrategy. This latter challenge of driving andcoordinating a wider group of nations should, in ourview, be taken on by Italy, due to its naturalgeographical bridging function in this area.While waiting for others to take on theirresponsibilities, we will continue to play our part.

7

The President of the Forum of Adriatic and Ionian Cities and Towns

Luciano D’Alfonso

As president of the Forum of Adriatic andIonian Cities and Towns, I am very pleased tointroduce the first Guidelines on integrated andsustainable planning and management of the urbanenvironment developed as a result of the SouthEU Urban Enviplans project.This important and innovative document wasdeveloped thanks to the commitment and work ofmany competent and professional people, whodedicated their time to research and broaden thegoals set out by the Thematic Strategy on theUrban Environment.The implementation of the recommendationsprovided by the Guidelines constitutes a strategiccommitment, essential if you are to guarantee thatthe concepts underlying sustainability becomecentral to decision-making in urban planning. Thisis not only true for those countries which havecontributed to the drafting of these guidelines andwhich, nevertheless, present many differences in

their regulation system.The Forum of Adriatic and Ionian Cities has beenengaged for years in defining common strategieswhich focus and direct the development of citiestowards sustainability, as not to deteriorate thealready vulnerable quality of life and worsen thenatural environment in the years to come.For those local authorities wishing to adopt anIntegrated and Sustainable Management Plan forthe urban environment, these guidelines representthe main tool and are an ambitious challengetaken on by Enviplans towards the actualimplementation of a lasting sustainabledevelopment.May the local communities of Adriatic and Ioniancities, and in future, all cities of the EuropeanMediterranean region, adopt and implement thisdocument in full, as to develop a common groundon which to tackle such fundamental themes. Thisis what the Forum hopes to achieve.

ENVIPLANS’ Guidelines were launched as a project in January 2005 on request of the European Commission, with the clearintention to anticipate and develop on the field the concepts underlying the preparatory documentsof the European Thematic Strategy on the UrbanEnvironment (finally adopted in 2006)1.

ENVIPLANS’ Introduction outlines the context,the reference models used, and the step-by-stepdevelopment of the Guidelines.The Chaptersthat follow provide the reader (politicians,administrators, consultants in the field of localsustainability) with numerous recommendationsand suggestions, developed on the basis of “hands-on” experiences and confrontation betweenthe cities of southern Europe involved in theENVIPLANS Project.They offer advise on how to carry out and optimise the various steps of a planning cycle concerning “integrated and sustainable planning and management of the urban environment”, while taking into account the situation of southern Europe.

The Guidelines have been integrated withinformation Boxes reporting:

■ brief statements made by participants(Comments)

■ references to web sites or documents and case studies for a more in-depth study of themes discussed only in brief by theGuidelines (Further reading)

■ direct links from which to download tables,guides and examples that might be useful for developing the steps proposed by the Guidelines (Tools Archive andDocuments Archive)

The Guidelines’ Annex takes you to the archivecontaining the Final Reports produced for the 5 case studies, which have accompanied the project. These comprise also a selection of Resources that might be useful for a morein-depth analysis of specific “themes”.

9

OVERVIEW

Note

1. Link to the website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/thema-tic_strategy.htm; Link to the communication on the Thematic Strategyon the Urban Environment - 11.1.2006 - COM(2005)718 final versionhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/pdf/com_2005_0718_en.pdf

11

1Introduction


1 Introduction

Prior to a more in-depth account of the proposalsdeveloped by ENVIPLANS in the next chapters,this introduction aims to clarify the followingaspects to the reader:■ To what model do we refer when we talk about

tools for “integrated and sustainable planningand management of the urban environment”

■ What role are States and Regions of southernEurope asked to play, what do local governmentsexpect from them

■ How did the project ENVIPLANS come aboutand how did it evolve

■ What are the four essential pillars on which theplanning process builds and for whichENVIPLANS Guidelines provide some specificoperational recommendations

1.1 What it is about

First of all, what do we mean, to what models do werefer, when we talk about tools for “integrated andsustainable planning and management of the urbanenvironment”?The final communication of the European ThematicStrategy on the Urban Environment2, adopted inJanuary 2006, represents an officially recognisedreference.On request of the European Commission,the ENVIPLANS project was launched (January2005) one year prior to the adoption of theCommunication on the Strategy, with the clear aimto anticipate and develop on the field the conceptsunderlying the preparatory documents of thestrategy. These preliminary documents define anurban environmental management Plan as follows:“An urban environmental management plan is astrategic document that sets out the short, mediumand longer term environmental objectives andpolicies. It defines a clear vision, and the overallstrategy and action plan to achieve quantifiedobjectives and targets, as well as timetables, which arenecessary to guide and steer daily managementdecisions”3. Furthermore, the 2006 Communicationconfirms the explicit intent of the EuropeanCommission to promote “an integrated approach tothe management of the urban environment”.In fact, the Communication declares that “…the most

successful local authorities use integrated approachesto manage the urban environment by adopting long-term and strategic action plans”.Even the preparatory document drafted in February2006 by the Working group set up by DGEnvironment4, well underlines the importance ofPlans capable of adopting “…a more comprehensiveor holistic approach to urban policy (public andprivate), so tackling the contradictions due tocompartmentalisation of sectoral policies”.The Aalborg Commitments5 are another source ofreference. Here, the signatory cities acknowledge awider concept of Local Sustainability (which sees theinclusion and integration of environmental aspectsinto socio-economic considerations) and committhemselves firmly to the development of integratedand participative planning approaches:■ Commitment no. 1 - Governance: “energise

decision-making processes through increasedparticipatory democracy…”.

■ Commitment no. 2 - Management: “implementeffective management cycles, from formulationthrough implementation to evaluation…”.

Additionally, during the end stage of theENVIPLANS project (26th September 2006), theEuropean Parliament resolution on the thematicstrategy on the urban environment6 was approved.This is an important point of reference for theMember States and a key input for relaunching theStrategy, which will have to be integrated intoEuropean and National strategies.The contents of the Resolution somehow representthe “legal base” on which the ENVIPLANSGuidelines develop. Especially in those passagesstating (in line with the preliminary documents ofthe Strategy) the need to provide urban areas withSustainable Management Plans and to use them as atool to obtain European Funds.In the Resolution, the European Parliament :1. welcomes the communication from the Commissionon the TSUE; however, considers that it is notsufficient to achieve the goals set in the 6th EAP;4. regrets that, contrary to the intentions of the 6th

EAP, there are no legally binding measures anddeadlines proposed by the Commission to addressany of the goals set out by the 6th EAP;7. stresses that the Commission, in co-operation with

the national authorities, should encourage everyagglomeration having more than 100,000 inhabitantsto establish a Sustainable Urban Management Plan(SUMP) and a Sustainable Urban Transport Plan(SUTP).14. calls on the Member States to prioritise withintheir national strategic reference frameworks andtheir operational programmes funding for projectswhich implement sustainable urban management andtransport plans, as well as projects limiting greenfieldand promoting brownfield developments, and topromote the planting of street trees and designation ofmore green space;51. endorses the Commission’s recommendations thatan integrated approach be taken to managing theurban environment and takes the view that, if appliedat local level with the support of the Member States,such an approach should be taken as one of thecriteria for the granting of Structural Funds resourcesand loans from the European Investment Bank(EIB);52. calls on the EIB to improve its lendinginstruments to effectively support sustainable urbandevelopment and to prioritise in existingprogrammes urban projects which implementSUMPs, in particular in the area of energyefficiency, renewable energies, and sustainableurban transport infrastructure; further calls on theEIB to ensure that investments funded by it do notcontradict sustainable urban managementobjectives.

In our areas – the areas of southern Europe – anintegrated and sustainable planning andmanagement approach for the urban environment,provided with resources, eligibility and capable ofprevailing over other interests and politics in thelong run, does not exist yet.However, some voluntary based planning initiativesand environmental management tools exist insouthern Europe and partners of this project havesupported their dissemination (the EnvironmentalCharter Charte pour l’Environnement in France,Local Agenda 21 processes, environmentalaccounting and reporting in Italy, EMAS in allMember States…). Still, these experiences representpioneering efforts and do not, in any case, receivethe attention they deserve.Of course, we need to bear in mind that otherplanning tools – urban planning tools, but not only –have undergone some adjustments in recent years.In some cases, these changes have been positive(unfortunately not everywhere). The fact that Plansare becoming subject to environmental assessmentprocedures – thanks to the European Directive2001/42/CE on Strategic Environmental Assessment– pushes them, or will in the future push them,towards innovation, forcing them to consider andinclude environmental issues as a “stringent factor”in their planning process.However, the Thematic Strategy on the UrbanEnvironment, and even more explicitly the EuropeanParliament Resolution, seek to develop something of

F. BicciatoEnvironment Councillor, City of Padova

Environmental policies are successfulonly if developed and integrated intoother policy areas and with theinvolvement of citizens. In Padova, thanksto the set up of a Local Agenda 21process, we have been able to create theright conditions to develop ideasbetween citizens and the differentOffices of the administration, and to gainsupport. In fact, this is the approach weare currently using to develop our EnergyPlan (in co-operation with the School andour Construction Service); we havestarted a participative planning process

to develop an urban green park (with thesupport of the inhabitants of the area andour Urban Planning Department); wehave launched a campaign on GreenProcurement (with the support of theSports Department and SportAssociations); we have starteddiscussing with the Mobility Departmentand the farmers about the possibility ofusing biofuels for local public transport.

Comitè 21 France

These plans need to be incorporated intoa participative planning process andcontinuos improvement cycle, in line with

the recommendations set out by theAalborg Commitments. Aim of theENVIPLANS project was to provide localcommunities with a new culturalapproach: participative democracy andtackling the interconnection ofenvironmental challenges. Furthermore, inorder to set up a common frame ofreference for the development of urbanenvironmental planning and managementtools, the project has built on localexperiences and has even gathered andconsidered local requests in relation toEuropean regulation and funding systems.The Local Agenda 21 approach has beenused as a source of reference.

COMMENTS

1 Introduction 13


higher relevance. They make reference to tools suchas a Plan (and to a continuous management system)capable of putting environmental policies at thecentre of its planning process through an integratedapproach (with other policy areas). The Plan shouldtherefore provide the local community with a widersustainable development strategy, including “clearlydefined objectives, public consultation, acceptedresponsibilities, procedures for monitoring progress,review, audit and reporting…”7.

The Strategy recommends to prioritise the followingthemes in urban planning and management: “toprotect our climate, to protect nature and biodiversity,to promote the quality of life, the sustainable use ofnatural resources such as water, energy, waste”. TheEuropean Parliament Resolution reinforces the 4themes on which the Strategy had initially beenlaunched: Sustainable Urban Management,Sustainable Urban Transport, Sustainable UrbanPlanning, Sustainable Urban Construction.The challenge launched by the AalborgCommitments – and acknowledged by theENVIPLANS Guidelines – is even higher:“Commitment 2.4 Ensure that sustainability issues arecentral to urban decision-making processes and thatresource allocation is based on strong and broadsustainability criteria”.

The Thematic Strategy, the European ParliamentResolution, as well as the many Europeanexperiences pursuing this concept (“…severalMember States have legislated or put mechanisms inplace to require integrated management of the urbanenvironment”)8, represent a challenge, whichENVIPLANS has decided to take on and to developfurther as follows: provide local administrations witha Management Plan – integrated and sustainable – ofthe urban environment, which does not just identifyone area or the landscape to protect, but ratherdefines in a more active way, “what to do”. All this, inorder to spread a new culture and awareness, restoreand upgrade environmental resources, make a moreefficient and just use of them, innovate settlementmodels, mobility, economy and construction industryin the light of sustainability.Next to highlighting the most pressing factors inregard to the urban environment, these Plansidentify synergies and mutual benefits, define a set ofpriorities, allocate resources and activate partnersfor implementation.

1.2 The role States and Regions of southern Europe are asked to play

According to the 2006 Communication, it is theresponsibility of the Member State and the Regionsto adopt the recommendations expressed by theStrategy:“... The Commission strongly recommendslocal authorities to take the necessary steps to achievegreater use of integrated management at the local leveland encourages national and regional authorities tosupport this process…”They must therefore trigger effective strategies,create financial incentives (by directing funds anddeveloping related calls for proposals) andmethodological tools to support local authorities inthe development of urban environmentalmanagement plans.

Thus, the city networks and local authorities involvedin the ENVIPLANS project now expect a clearcommitment from sides of States and Regions(possibly fixed by a binding date). One possiblecommitment, for example, may be the definition ofnational and regional strategies for the urbanenvironment via adequate consultation of the citiesand their representatives (of course, by formulating itdifferently in the different States, and by taking intoaccount each specific context). What is hoped to beachieved is the development of national and regionalstrategies with measures aiming at a clear result.Where necessary, this may mean the introduction ofthese plans and approaches into existing localadministrative planning procedures, or the adoptionof supportive measures and incentives to stimulatethe spread of these approaches in all urban areas orin those reaching a certain size. All this, within agiven time frame, which still needs to be defined.

1.3 The South-EU Urban ENVIPLANS project

While awaiting the adoption of theserecommendations by the States and Regions, andthe development of effective solutions,ENVIPLANS’ project partners9 have startedmaking their own considerations and proposals.Many ideas and practical experiences have beendeveloped in the past years through meetings,working groups or pilot projects10. Nonetheless, theSouth EU Urban ENVIPLANS project, started in

2005 and co-financed by the EnvironmentDirectorate-General (DG) of the EuropeanCommission11, has been expressively set up to assess,anticipate, improve and spread the word adopted bythe European Strategy on the urban environment.These Guidelines develop the recommendations ofthe Strategy and apply with coherence the requestslaunched by the European Parliament Resolution.ENVIPLANS’ aim is therefore to encourage,especially in southern Europe, the development,exchange and implementation of practicalexperiences in matters of preparing plans,programmes, and integrated management systemsfor the urban environment12.

The need for a common and specific action insouthern Europe is due to the absence of well-defined and supportive national and regionalpolicies in several Mediterranean countries,causing southern Europe to lag behind manycountries of central and northern Europe.Meanwhile, the central role played by localauthorities as an active part in the formulation ofsustainable development actions, as well as apossible cultural “bridge” for countries of EasternEurope, Northern Africa and the Mediterranean, is

gradually emerging in southern Europe. In fact, the 3local authority networks (Italian, French and easternAdriatic comprising Greece, Slovenia and other nonEU countries), involved as project partners ofENVIPLANS, have taken on this positive role.

1.4 ENVIPLANS Guidelines

ENVIPLANS has promoted and co-ordinated theresearch of integrated planning and managementapproaches for the urban environment in five urbanareas (Core group)13 and an exchange of ideasbetween approximately 30 cities of southern Europe– from Italy, France and the Adriatic (Advisorygroup), helping out in identifying requisites andsolutions needed in southern Europe.

The added value of these Guidelines resides in thefact that they have been developed “in the field” viaparticipation and approval of its end-users, as well asby drawing on practical experiences from some ofthe most advanced local authorities in southernEurope, directly involved in formulating theseGuidelines.To this end, during the 2-years running ofthe project, the partners’ networks have organised

ENVIPLANS partecipating cities

1 Introduction 15

several meetings and thematic seminars (involvingtherefore Italian, French and Adriatic-Ionicmembers), and represented an opportunity to callfor a discussion between the Advisory and CoreGroups on particular aspects of the planning processand on integrated management approaches or otherspecific intervention fields.

For ENVIPLANS the starting point was to viewenvironmental planning and management as acircular process, subject to continuous improvement.However, the cities participating in the projectdisplay differing situations. Some cities have alreadycompleted the entire cycle, some have only juststarted. Nevertheless, it is important for all of them,to strengthen their experiences, to improve tools andto take up all possible opportunities to relaunch thecycle of continuous improvement.

According to the framework developed for thisproject, the planning cycle itself must cover thefollowing 4 steps in order to be effective:

1. Start or relaunch of the planning process2. Baseline Review and identification

of preliminary aims and priorities3. Development of contents of the Plan4. Implementation of the Plan

Having this framework in mind as a generalreference, a comparison between ENVIPLANScities was carried out by trying to answer thefollowing questions:■ What should the nature of the Plan be and how

should organisational and institutional aspectsbe incorporated and directed towards thedevelopment of the Plan?

■ How can an initial assessment be followed up anddirected towards the development of the Plan?

■ How should contents of the Plan be detailed inorder to facilitate its implementation?

■ How should evaluation tools and monitoringpractices be adopted?


Baseline Review/Pre-audit: assess the starting situation

Set up the institutional structure (local community area,reference plans, authorities)

Set up the organisational structure, involving politiciansand staff of the local authority

Launch (or relaunch) participative approaches

Select or integrate themes and indicators

Collect or up-date information

Identify compliance, environmental priorities and targets (draft version)

Select intervention areas and general objectives

Define actions and targets (final version)

Identify tools to harmonise actions, as well as otherPlans, develop operational details of actions

Formal commitment, partnership, responsibilities

Accounting, assessing actions, reporting and reviewing(continuous management system)

Keep a regular and formal updated record

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

FORU

MSTART / RELAUNCH

OF THE PLANNING PROCESS

DEVELOPMENT OF CONTENTS

BASELINE REVIEW IN DETAILAND PRELIMINARY TARGETS

1 Introduction 17

The recommendations described in the followingchapters are the result of this exchange of ideas andcan be summarised in 10 key ideas. They also sum upthe general principles proposed by ENVIPLANS:

1. Understanding the context – Identifying priorites2. Adequacy of human and organisational

resources 3. Adoption of a – long term – wider community

area - Strategic Vision4. Moving towards action – defining implementation

tools5. Clear definition of targets and indicators to

achieve and monitor progress6. Integration and improvement of existing

planning and management procedures7. Political legitimacy and support 8. Communication and consultation in participative

planning processes9. Widespread responsibilities in implementing the

Plan10. Monitoring and assessment of progress and

barriers – Continuous improvement

Just as indicated by the European Strategy,ENVIPLANS suggests to adopt the above 10 ideasas key requisites for a “minimum” good practiceplanning and to make reference to the models andterminology adopted by the most recent andinnovative environmental management toolsdeveloped (EMAS, ISO, Environmental Accounting,etc.), as well as to the commitments subscribed by theEuropean Cities at the Aalborg Conference in 2004(Aalborg Commitments).

The Guidelines summarise the outcome of this workand report the main observations derived fromdiscussions between the cities. They have beenintegrated with additional proposals or with furtherreading suggestions.

The Chapters of the Guidelines have been structuredaccording to the 4 steps previously outlined:■ Chapter 2 and 3 (Starting or relaunching the

planning process)■ Chapter 4 (Baseline Review in detail and

identification of preliminary targets)■ Chapter 5 (Development of contents and

Implementation of the Plan)

Note

2. Link to the website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/thematic_strategy.htm; Link to the “Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment” -11.1.2006 - COM(2005)718 final report http://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/pdf/com_2005_0718_en.pdf

3. Link to the website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/towards_com.htm ; Link to the report “Towards a Thematic Strategy on the UrbanEnvironment” - 11.2.2004 - COM(2004)60 final report http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2004/com2004_0060en01.pdf

4. Link to the website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/experts_working_groups.htm;link to the report http://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/pdf/fin_rep_urban_emps.pdf;

5. 10 Commitments towards sustainability signed by around one hundredEuropean local administrations: link to the websitewww.aalborgplus10.dk; www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/urban/aalborg.htm; the ACTOR Project http://www.actor.sustainable-cities.org.uk/ is developing a website (www.localsustainability.eu)containing documentation and tools helpful for implementing the 10Aalborg Commitments.

6. To read the integral version seehttp ://www.europar l .europa.eu/s ides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2006-0367+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

7. Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment - 11.1.2006 -COM(2005)718 final version

8. Belgium (Flanders), Denmark, France, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia:legislation; Cyprus, Czech Republic: are studying the mechanism; UK:some elements; in Slovenia, the adoption of an environmental Plan hasbecome a binding obligation for its main cities.

9. ENVIPLANS’ project partners:COORDINAMENTO NAZIONALE AGENDE 21 LOCALI ITALIANE – thisorganisation was constituted in 1999 in order to co-ordinate Italian LocalAgenda 21 processes and to promote sustainable development models.

Official website: www.a21italy.itCOMITÉ 21 – the French Committee on Environment and SustainableDevelopment was established in 1994. Its main objective is tocontribute to the implementation of French Local Agenda 21 processes.Official website: www.comite21.org,www.agenda21france.orgF.A.I.C.T. - FORUM OF ADRIATIC AND IONIAN CITIES & TOWNS –association of cities and States of the Adriatic and Ionian area,promoting economic, social, cultural and scientific integration. Officialwebsite: www.adriatic-ionian.orgAMBIENTE ITALIA – a Scientific Research and Consulting Group,operating in the field of local and environmental planning, assessmentand project development. Official website: www.ambienteitalia.itBRISTOL CITY COUNCIL – situated on Britain’s western coast, the city ofBristol has adopted a development strategy based on the protection ofenvironmental resources such as air, water, soil and energy, in order toguarantee a healthy future to its citizens, children and wildlife faunapresent in the city. Official website: www.bristol-city.gov.uk

10. Examples for Italy are the CLEAR project (www.clear-life.it), theTANDEM project (www.provincia.bologna.it/ambiente/tandem/) andSustainable Cities Working Group (www.cittasostenibili.it); an examplefor the Adriatic area is the ADRIATIC ACTION PLAN (www.aap2020.net).

11. Other projects have been funded by DG Environment for this purpose. Aclose collaboration with the projects Liveable Cities http://www.eurocities.org/liveablecities/index.php and MUE25 http://www.mue25.net has been activated.

12. www.enviplans.net 13. ENVIPLANS’ experimental Core Group:

The urban area of Florence (Italy)The urban area of Padova (Italy)The urban area of Cosenza/Rende (Italy)The urban community of Ouest Provence (France)The city of Rijeka (Croatia)

2Getting started to launch

or relaunchthe planning process

19


2 Getting started to launch or relaunchthe planning process

As outlined in the previous paragraphs, the weakplanning and management capacity of the urbanenvironment in southern Europe urges for thedevelopment of new tools.However, any new definition or developmentmust bear in mind the strengths and weaknessesof current planning tools in these countries.For this reason ENVIPLANS decided to place therunning of a so-called “Pre-audit” as the first stepof the planning process.

2.1 Baseline review: understanding the context. ENVIPLANS’ Pre-audit method

ENVIPLANS’ Pre-audit undergoes a processcalled “Peer review” (an evaluation completed byequals), generally carried out by one or more“auditors”: an expert in the field, one or morecolleagues from another local authority (andsomebody appointed with the task of arrangingand reporting back findings).The aim of the Pre-audit is to develop a preliminary Baseline reviewand evaluate initial conditions, strengths andweaknesses, before starting a new integratedplanning cycle.

During the assessment, the auditors, along withthe technicians and city administrators, will:■ identify local challenges and priorities on which

to act on;■ examine the possibility of integrating existing

plans;■ specify the key passages needed at local level to

develop an integrated environmental planningcycle;

■ identify the human and financial resourcesneeded to start the planning cycle;

■ define the Road Map and guidelines needed tolaunch (or relaunch) the planning cycle.

2.1.1 Pre-audit: the steps to follow

Identify an internal “referee / co-ordinator”■ He/she will play a crucial role in helping the city

preparing and carrying out an audit and willinteract with the external auditor. This personmust:• be acquainted with the city, the working of the

public administration and its internal andexternal key contacts;

• ensure that all key persons (politicians,officers, head of departments, consultants)have been contacted and manage relationswith the external auditor;

• help to explain and to interpret correctly theinformation requested by the Pre-audit report;

• ensure information collected is correct andmade available in time.

■ These arrangements should not take up morethan 3-4 days. The efforts made will help savetime later on and are an efficient way oflaunching the planning process in the rightdirection.

Assistance ■ The external auditor will contact directly the co-

ordinator appointed by the city. However, if thecity hasn’t yet nominated a co-ordinator, thenthe auditor will have to make the additionaleffort of identifying more subjects and involvethis wider group.

■ Contacts occur via e-mail or phone and aim atclarifying final goals of the Pre-audit.

■ Plan a site visit and arrange interviews which willtake up approximately half a day. Or else, sendvia mail some instructions on how to completethe Preaudit report, asking the local authorities tocollect and organise the documents andinformation needed.

■ Once the first information has been collected,the auditor sends either the minutes of theinterview or a preliminary draft of the Reportto the referent of the city. At last, the auditorreviews the final version of the Report.

21

2.1.2 Pre-audit: contents of the report

Socio-economic frame (latest up-date)■ Population density and number of inhabitants

(it is suggested to cover a wider area, such as ametropolitan area or a cluster of annexingmunicipalities etc.)

■ Main economic sectors and vocation (suitability)of the local area

■ Demographic and socio-economic trends(income, employment, social cohesion. etc.)

Institutional and organisational aspects■ Time frame of the elected administration■ Internal organisation (especially of departments

and services dealing with environmental issues)■ Availability of human resources working on

environmental issues (internal staff and externalconsultants)

■ Presence of development agencies and publicutility service companies

■ Level of decentralised competencies (delegatedat district-level etc.)

■ Existence of partnerships between annexingadministrations (metropolitan authorities etc.),generating better conditions for vertical/horizontal co-operation

General priorities and political commitment towards the environment ■ Existence of formal acts committed to

sustainability (for example, signing-up to theAalborg Commitments, municipal resolutions,joining of a network, aiming at activating aLocal Agenda 21 process, etc.)

■ Political commitment towards the environmentby the public administration (mandate’sprogramme, council’s resolutions)

Planning tools dealing with environmental issues (binding)■ Urban Area Plans, Waste Management Plans,

Mobility Plans, Energy Plans, etc. (even thoughthey do not directly fall under the publicadministration’s activities, operational plans ofpublic utility service companies should also beconsidered, especially if under public control;higher institutional plans – for example, provincialplans – should also be considered if relevant forimproving co-operation at institutional level)

Participative planning tools, of environmental relevance (voluntary)■ Strategic Plans, Local Agenda 21 processes, etc.

Management and reporting tools (voluntary)■ ISO14001, EMAS, RSA, regular environmental

accounting, etc.

Solutions adopted to promote the integration of environmental and local policies■ Harmonisation (aiming at implementing Local

Agenda 21 processes or other sustainabilitystrategies) of different Departments or UnitOffices (internal Forum), joint decision-makingprocedures, impact assessment of local strategieson the environment (SEA or similar tools)

Participation and partnerships■ Existence of citizen’s Forum, consultation

structures and participative processes■ Agreements, arrangements and protocols

between the public and private sector

Financial resources■ Allocation of funds for the running of

assessments, concerted actions, implementationof environmental planning tools, Local Agenda21 processes etc.

2.1.3 Pre-audit: main environmental aspects

Using all the data, information and reportsavailable, a preliminary description of existingweaknesses should be possible (critical points,non-compliance with norms etc., even a simplequalitative analysis is sufficient).Main aspects to consider:■ Air■ Water■ Noise■ Natural resources and biodiversity■ Land use■ Cultural heritage and built environment■ Waste■ Local development ■ Mobility■ Climate Change and energy■ Enterprises■ Other themes (for example those covered by

the Aalborg Commitments)

2 Getting started to launch or relaunch the planning process

2.1.4 Pre-audit: self-evaluation

The local administration carries out a SWOT(Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats)analysis, based on the information gathered in thefirst part of the report. It should consider thefollowing points:■ Strengths: success stories experienced inside the

administration, on which it can further built on(competencies, resources, best practises,successful policies etc.)

■ Weaknesses: factors inside the administrationthat could hinder the development of theplanning process (lack of staff involvement, badorganisation, slow decision-making etc.)

■ Opportunities: external factors that couldinfluence positively the planning process (newsynergies and co-operation opportunities,positive political trends etc.)

■ Threats: external factors that could harm thedevelopment of the planning process (lack ofpolitical support at higher levels, oppositionfrom strong parties, etc.)

☞ TOOLS ARCHIVE Accessible via linkGO TO THE PREAUDIT CHECKLIST http://www.a21italy.it/a21italy/enviplans/guidelines/tools

The Local Evaluation 21 Project14 website proposesan interesting method to assess the quality ofparticipative approaches (Local Agenda 21,Participative Planning etc.). As the informationprovided aims to highlight strengths and weaknessesof present planning processes, the website might beof interest to administrators and auditors.

2.2 ENVIPLANS Pre-audit: findings

The Pre-audit experimented with the 5 Core Groupcities (followed by an examination of results by the30 advisory cities) turned out to be very useful andhas revealed a very varied situation. Findings aresummarised in the report “ENVIPLANS Pre-audit –integrated reading and summary evaluation of the 5case studies” – which represents a first step towardsthe drafting of a Baseline Review, as recommendedby the Aalborg Commitments.

☞ DOCUMENTS ARCHIVE Accessible via linkGO TO ENVIPLANS PRE-AUDIT (INTEGRATED READING ANDSUMMARY EVALUATION OF THE 5 CASE STUDIES), AS ANEXAMPLE OF HOW TO DEVELOP A PRE-AUDIThttp://www.a21italy.it/a21italy/enviplans/guidelines/tools

However, the interesting feature worth a mention,and common to all 5 cities, is the presence of a setof planning tools, which differ for their function,theme and intervention scale, but to which thenew planning cycle needs to link up and relate in acoherent and systematic way.

2.2.1 Other plans to be taken into account

First of all, it must be said that, thanks to Europeanpolicies, southern Europe has started, in recent years,to adopt sectoral environmental Plans (at municipallevel or as urban agglomeration). These defineactions focusing on the protection of specificenvironmental compartments (in Italy, for example,there are Noise Control Plans, Clean Air Plans,Electromagnetic Radiation Control Plans, EnergyPlans etc.). Executive plans of public utility servicecompanies (especially when under public control)also need to be included – even if not directly fallingunder the public administration’s tasks. This is alsotrue for higher institutional plans – for example,provincial ones – if they represent an opportunityfor improving institutional co-operation.Other local Plans, of a more established tradition,are those defining strategies and procedures formanaging development patterns which influencethe environment (Urban Traffic Plans, WiderUrban Area Plans, Trading Plans etc.).Some of these Plans are rather weak in terms ofstrategic weight (environmental) or executive power


2 Getting started to launch or relaunch the planning process 23

(local). Above all, however, these Plans do not linkup with each other and do not approach problems inan integrated and participative way. Nevertheless, allthese plans have usually a regulatory function andare generally (but not always) provided withresources and state clear objectives, at least, inregard to their main area of interest.

Secondly, it is worth remembering that localadministrations in southern Europe are finallystarting to adopt internal “management” tools: inItaly these are represented essentially by the so-called “Piano Esecutivo di Gestione” (PEG) or“Work programme”, setting the administration’sobjectives and targets, and by the “BudgetPlanning”. Ideally, these tools stem from morestrategic programmes and plans (although currentlynot much developed, unless in form of a shortmandate programme) and aim at allocatingadministrative activities and human resources in theshort and medium term. Cases, in which these toolshave been integrated or influenced by moreinnovative management tools, concerned withenvironmental priorities (such as the production ofenvironmental and sustainability reports andenvironmental accounting) are still rare. However,these latter are the tools to which the planning cycleneeds to refer in order to guarantee itsimplementation and management in the long run.

Furthermore, in recent years, there has been aspread of more innovative planning tools, whichadopt integrated approaches and which are morein line with the Thematic Strategy’s proposal of anintegrated environmental plan. In Italy, theformulation of Action Plans, as a result of LocalAgenda 21 processes has been practised for thepast 10 years, while in France, local participativeenvironmental strategies, called Chartes pourl’Environnement15, have been developed since1992 and are voluntary-based and similar to LocalAgenda 21 processes. Recently, the adoption ofStrategic Plans has become more popular in bothcountries. Either as a result of voluntary-basedinitiatives coming from some larger cities, or else,as a result of European Commission policies,which consider it a pre-requisite for allocatingStructural Funds. However, from a decisionalstandpoint, initiatives are “weak” in the majorityof cases. They lack in executive and institutionalpower, compared to other decisional tools.

Nevertheless, in some cases the starting-up ofthese processes is launched by a formal, politicalcommitment (for example, a City Council orBoard resolution acknowledging the AalborgCommitments, or environmental commitmentsstated in the mandates’ programme).However, they set out overall visions andstrategies which have been developed throughlocal consultation and by addressing communityinterests rather than “strong powers” or individualinterests. Therefore, they are much more wide-ranging than traditional planning approaches.Thus, they represent the best “source” for thedevelopment of urban environmentalmanagement Plans, characterised by a widervision and by a bottom-up approach.

The fact that local Plans, along with all othersectoral Plans, are becoming – thanks to a EuropeanDirective – subject to Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment (SEA) procedures, pushes them, or willin the future push them, towards innovation, forcingthem gradually to include environmental issues. Themajor obstacle in applying a SEA procedure toPlans is often due to the absence of environmentalobjectives and strategies (in other words, the lack ofa local environmental plan), on which to base anddevelop the required (impact and continuous)assessment. In the absence of an environmentalplan, the SEA procedure needs to formulate a set ofobjectives for itself. However, the setting ofobjectives is considered part of the planningprocedures the SEA is supposed to assess. Thus it isnot eligible (and generally, the SEA neither has theautonomy, nor the time or the resources to do it)and usually ends up developing an assessmentwhich is self-referring (only of internal coherence,based merely on the Plan’s objectives it is self-assessing). Recalling the SEA is therefore justuseful to highlight the urgency to produceenvironmental plans and strategies as acomplementary tool to guarantee the correct andindispensable application of the SEA.

Finally, although still carried out on a voluntarybasis, a reference needs to be made to theEnvironmental Improvement Plans required byEMAS or ISO registration. If adopted by the localauthority, they represent a planning model(provided with a management system, an externalaudit scheme and a regular updating record), very

similar to the one proposed by ENVIPLANS.Hence, any (rare) presence of an environmentalmanagement system would constitute the basis onwhich to built an environmental management Planprovided with a strategic vision. In the reversedcase, an EMAS registration would be a nearlynatural outcome of the Plan’s development.

In this context it is worth mentioning the fact that,in its recent Resolution, the European Parliament,”considers that the SUMP should take intoconsideration, among others, the followingdocuments:■ Waste management plan (directive 75/442/EEC

on waste, as amended16

■ Noise maps and action plans, if available(Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessmentand management of environmental noise)17

■ Local air pollution plan or programme ifavailable (Directive 96/62/EC on ambient airquality assessment and management)18

■ Local Environmental Plans and Programmespursuant to Directive 2001/42/EC on theassessment of the effects of certain plans andprogrammes on the environment19

Other important aspects that have emerged fromPre-audit findings and which need to beconsidered, are the institutional and organisationalassets of each case study: time frames of theelected administration, internal organisation,availability of human resources working onenvironmental issues, the presence of developmentagencies and public utility service companies,decentralised competencies at municipal level,partnerships between annexing administrations,possible organisational or administrative solutionsto promote the integration of environmentalpolicies into other local policies. All aspects which,as we will see in the next chapters, will play animportant role in influencing institutional andorganisational choices.


Note

14. http://www.localevaluation21.org/index.php?language=en15. Established by the ministerial communication of 11 May 1994,

Environment Charters are documents of a “contractual” nature. Thelocal authority commits itself to improving the environment and thequality of life of its community, while the State guarantees compliancewith the objectives, acknowledges the political and executive roleplayed by the local authority and provides financial assistance (duringthe set-up and implementation phase). The Environmental Charters usea participative approach and – similar to Local Agenda 21 processes -

consist of 3 key steps: assessment (Report on the State of theEnvironment), identification of strategic goals; drafting of an ActionPlan under the guidance of a pilot committee, constituted by theregional and local authorities concerned.

16. OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39. Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC)No 1882/2003 (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p.1)

17. OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 1218. OJ L 296, 21.11.1996, p. 5519. OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30

3Considering organisational

and institutional aspects for the development of the plan

25


3 Considering organisational and institutional aspects for the development of the plan

3.1 Defining what constitutes the planning cycle

3.1.1 The Plan’s themes

Above all, planning and management should focuson the most pressing environmental problems of aspecific urban area. However, their correlationwith regional and global questions of sustainabledevelopment should not be disregarded.The European Thematic Strategy for the UrbanEnvironment lists them in regard to Europeanpolicies, as follows:

■ Climate protection ■ Protecting biodiversity, the natural

and urban landscape, the cultural heritage ■ Promoting quality of life■ Preventing noise and air pollution■ Sustainable use of natural resources such

as soil, water, energy, waste■ Sustainable transport■ Energy efficiency in the building industry■ Controlling urban sprawl and soil

impermeability■ Reuse of brownfield sites■ Green public procurement.

Taking into account existing toolsHarmonisation with other plans Enforcement level, authority

Themes

Defining main characteristicsType and level of analysis

Local community area

Time frames

Launching the process

Setting organisational procedures

Internal and external resources

Motivating technical staff

Financial resources

Identifying the actors

Activating participative processes

Clarifying decision-making procedures

Organising and managing participation

Raising citizens awareness

The results of the 5 Pre-audits, outlined in theprevious chapter, have been discussed byENVIPLANS’ Core Group and participants.Through concerted action they sought to define thenature and ideal qualities of an integrated planningand management cycle for the urban environment.

They also took into account the harmonisation withother existing management tools, as well as thespecific context of each situation.The overall observations produced have given rise tothe following “Guidelines”. They are aimed at thewidest number of European local administrations.

Also worth mentioning are the Urban EnvironmentAccords20 promoted by the United Nations andsigned in San Francisco during the WorldEnvironment Day in 2005. These identify thefollowing intervention themes:■ Energy ■ Waste■ Urban Design ■ Urban Nature ■ Transportation■ Environmental Health■ Water

Another important source of reference are theAalborg Commitments21, which develop further theenvironmental themes listed by the Strategy, using amore integrated approach and extending issuestowards:■ economic implications (encourage employment

and promote good corporate practice in business,industry, trade, tourism)

■ social implications (equity, cohesion, gender, safety)

and by renewing efforts in matters of■ Governance (transparency and involvement of

citizens in decision-making processes) and■ Management (action plan, definition and setting

of objectives and targets, monitoring progress,relaunching the planning cycle).

Themes covering social aspects (poverty,education, health etc.) are also the main issuesdealt by the Millennium Development Goalscampaign promoted by the United Nations andsigned by many city networks.22

To clearly define priority actions, it is advisable toseek the Pre-audit’s findings (the AalborgCommitments refer to a “Baseline Review” whichwe discuss in Chapter 2) and to broaden contents byelaborating a Report on the State of theEnvironment and Sustainability (similarly, EMASrequires an initial environmental assessment and inChapter 4 some recommendations are made inregard to it) and to update it periodically in an

3 Considering organisational and institutional aspects for the development of the plan 27

Equity

Social cohesion

Gender

Safety

GOVERNANCE

MANAGEMENT

Employment

Local products

Sustainable Tourism

Environnemental Innovation

Global climate and Energy efficiency

Quality of life and Sustainable Mobility

Reduction of noise and air pollution

Natural resource protection (air, soil…)

Control on land consumption and requalificationof brownfield sites

Promotion of Green Public Procurement (GPP)

ENVIRONMENT(priority)

SOCIETY ECONOMY

objective and well-documented way, in order tohighlight priorities, progress and problemsencountered.

3.1.2 Profile and level of analysisThe level of analysis reached by the planning cyclestrongly depends on the context. However, threedifferent situations can be identified:

■■ CASE 1. IDENTIFYING A NEW LONG-TERM STRATEGYIf no wide-ranging “sustainable” planning tools (such as forexample the Aalborg Commitments or an Agenda 21 Plan) doyet exist at local level, then a management and planning toolis needed, which allows to move towards a wider, mediumand long-term vision, as well as towards sustainability.

■■ CASE 2. STEERING AND INTEGRATING EXISTINGSTRATEGIES THROUGH INTERVENTION PRIORITIESIf a strategic Plan already exists (mandate’s programme,local development Plans, voluntary-based strategicPlans) without, however, being directed towardssustainability, it still represents a good starting point.However it will need some integrations, specifying whichaspects need most improvement in the light of referenceframes such as the Aalborg Commitments.

■■ CASE 3. IMPROVING IMPLEMENTATION OF EXISTING STRATEGIESShould these strategic and sustainable tools alreadyexist, instead of duplicating efforts, it is important toadopt tools capable of improving management andimplementation procedures of these Strategic Lines.


A-M. SacquetComité 21

The UEMP should refer to the following 6thematic goals:1 Reduce the ecological footprint2 Regenerate ecosystems3 Invest in sustainable development

economies4 Ensure well-being and safety

for everybody5 Promote for a competent

and responsible community6 Exchange and co-operate with

other cities of Europe and the World

■ Garlaban Huveaune Sainte-Baume. These plans must refer toparticular local problems. The UEMP mustinclude objectives and not simply list anindex of measures.■ SAN Ouest-Provence. The conceptof ecological footprint is a way to expressconcern for different environmentalimpacts: energy consumption, wasteproduction, food production etc. Footprintcalculations help to raise pro-activeinvolvement of the actors of the project.■ Ouest Etang de Berre. Urbanspatial scale should be taken intoaccount, as it is a cross-sectional theme,

which covers many of the challenges ofsustainable development: trafficcongestion in cities, air pollution, energyconsumption, loss of biodiversity etc.■ Dracénie. One cannot talk abouturban environment without consideringarchitecture and urban design■ SAN Ouest-Provence. Car trafficcauses safety problems, pollution, climatechange and health problems. The car isalso the cause for the disappearance ofurban centres: the exclusion of pedestrianareas, the closing down of small shops,due to the location of supermarketsoutside urban centres

E. NoraProvincia di Modena

The UEMP must focus at once on well-defined environmental themes, as well ason the wider context of sustainability. TheUEMP should not be simply seen as a tool

to solve environmental emergencies atlocal level, but should incorporate theconcept of sustainability itself. Having across-sectoral approach, it embraces amultitude of aspects and modifies theinterpretation of environmental issues.

For instance, the use of materialsextracted from a quarry outside the localcommunity’s boundaries produces large-scale environmental impacts, which mustbe considered when making decisions.

COMMENTS

3.1.3 Which local scale should be adopted

As has been stated, different situations may needdifferent solutions; but overall it can be said that:■ In regard to the definition of strategies and goals,

planning should refer to a homogenous localcommunity area, usually of a higheradministrative level (this is true, in particular, fortopics such as air, mobility and water, which, bytheir nature, are not linked to the administrativeboundaries of a single municipality).

■ From a more operational standpoint, actionsshould be run by the authority closest to the areaof competence, and need to specify this aspect.Nowadays this position is generally held atmunicipal level (except for cases in which anaggregation of municipalities holds some effectivepowers, such as the Union of Municipalities andCde Agglomeration in France, or, as in othercountries, the decentralisation of municipalitiesinto district-zones etc.)

The Interim Communication “Towards a ThematicStrategy on the Urban Environment” (as well as theEuropean Parliament Resolution) identified urban

agglomerations – as classified below – as priorityintervention areas. It suggested that Member Statesshould appoint (in accordance with regional andlocal bodies) the pertinent authorities and structuresresponsible for the development and implementationof the plans, as well as define the geographic areacovered by each plan: “portion of territory with apopulation of more than 100.000 inhabitants and/orwith a population density for which the Member Stateconsiders it alike an urban area. All capital cities andcities with more than 100.000 inhabitants areincluded”.

The final Communication “Towards a ThematicStrategy on the Urban Environment” makes nolonger an explicit reference to this definition.Instead it undertakes the role of disseminatingintegrated urban environmental managementapproaches ”by recommending to all Europeanurban areas the adoption of management plans andsystems to ensure the effective implementation ofintegrated approaches”.

3.1.4 Time frame of the planning cycle

Planning should develop over two time frames: along-term planning period (in which to developstrategies and pursuit in full the goals set) and ashort-term planning period (in which to plan theachievement of a given set of actions and to reachthe prefixed intermediate targets).

According to the Expert Group on UrbanEnvironment, the “UEMP must define strategieswhich have a time horizon of 15-20 years. Thereupona more detailed programme must be drafted, takinginto account the long term vision and the specificshort and medium term targets coherent with theoverall strategic goals. The Plan has to be up-datedevery 4-5 years, just the same way as provided bynational/regional law for the other plans”.


The French advisors present at the Draguignan and Martigues meetings

Urban conglomerations (intercommunalité) seem anappropriate scale, as they get hold of the competenciesand financial resources needed. However, cities remaina crucial base for social support (nearer to its citizens,quality of services).

Italian advisors present at the workshop held in Venice

For the Italian case study, the two time frames couldlook as follows:a long-term strategic planning period (5-10 years), lastingbeyond the political mandate of an administrationa short-term operational planning period (1-3 years)The executive programme of the UEMP should be linkedup to the financial and human resources programme ofthe authority (for example, the annual or 3-years’ PEG). Itis advisable not to overlap time horizons of the UEMPwith the time horizons of politics.

COMMENTS

3.2 Defining the relationship with other existing plans, regulations and statutes

3.2.1 Taking into account both existing and pending plans and tools

The new integrated planning cycle should provide amore organic structure to the overall planningsystem present at local and “inter-municipal” level,in order to influence environmental sustainabilityof the area and to overcome contradictionsderiving from an excessive fragmentation ofsectoral policies23. Well co-ordinated and coherentmanagement solves not only potential conflicts, butprovides furthermore an opportunity to strengthendifferent sectoral policies.

The integrated Plan represents, therefore, thedocument where existing goals and strategies aredrawn up into a methodical plan. It completes theframe in cases where environmental policies havenot yet been developed or are not appropriate,and – at the same time – where environmentalstrategies are already in place, it integrates andrelaunches them with more detail.

The Plan defines its own structure also by takinginto account time frames and the need for othertools. For this reason it is fundamental to producea sort of map of existing environmental planningprocesses, in order to gain a broad vision of thestarting situation. The Pre-audit phase representsa first step in this direction. Once the mostrelevant planning system has been identified andselected, it is possible to proceed with theproduction of maps in a more systematic way andthe creation of a record of public Plans/Projects(including private projects, see chapter on“Participative methods”). Following points shouldbe highlighted:■ Hierarchy of plans (if known, otherwise

highlight possible overlaps)■ Themes dealt with (stating the level of analysis

and state of implementation, if known)■ Time horizons scheduled and persons

responsible for its implementation

3.2.2 Level of binding commitment and institutional power of the Plan

While waiting for Member States to take on therecommendations proposed by the ThematicStrategy and by the European ParliamentResolution (and by these guidelines), and to turnthem into legislative and administrative practices,the Plan can be formalised and become morebinding at local level by different means:■ A formal act (a resolution signed by the City

Council or Board);■ by formalising the decision to consider the

recommendations made (by the City Council orBoard) and to include them into the frameworkof more official local Plans;

■ by allocating economic resources and budgetexpenses expressly for the implementation of theactions (or part of actions) defined by the Plan;

■ by linking it up to the general managementprogramme (“Work Programme, settingobjectives and targets”);

■ by joining an environmental certificationscheme (ISO or EMAS – procedures anddocumentation needed to achieve thesecertifications do not differ from those describedin these guidelines)

If there is the wish to create an interaction betweendifferent environmental plans in order to drawthem into one methodical plan and avoid the planto be treated as marginal, then the obstacle derivingfrom sectoral competition and fragmentation – atboth political and administrative level – must,however, be overcome from the start (by organisinginitiatives to raise politicians’ and technicians’awareness).



Ouest Etang de Berre and Pole Azur Provence

It is hard to imagine another co-ordination document, in addition to theSCOT. The UEMP may nevertheless bea further elaboration of the SCOT,specifying environmental approaches.

Garlaban Huveaune Sainte-BaumeThe Plan must be integrated intoexisting planning tools. What isneeded is a method of environmentalcoherence – a Roadmap definingambitious objectives.

DracénieExisting regulatory measures alsoneed to be considered, such as, forexample, the local sustainabledevelopment Plan and its impactassessment studies.

Ouest-ProvenceThe Environment Charter can helpdevelop a Plan capable of directing

the SCOT towards “environmental”issues.

Pôle Azur ProvenceOur Action Plan, developed on thebasis of the Charte, includes oneobjective entitled “keeping an eye oncross-sectoral approaches” in orderto ensure that environmental aspectsare being integrated in everyplanning document.

Urban agglomeration Chieti-Pescara (IT)Participation generates politicalrelevance. In fact, plans developed byLocal Agenda 21 processes do actuallyraise the role of environmental andsustainability themes in Urban orStrategic Planning (as ENVIPLANS’case study in Florence has shown).

Working Group on Sustainable Cities (IT)The environmental Plan must be aconstituent of the PSC (MunicipalStructural Plan or equivalent urban

planning tool: the PRG, in the case ofItaly – or other analogous tools in othercountries of the Mediterranean area)and a point of reference for wider-arealocal planning. For this reason it shouldexert the same binding power. It is notenough to act on building codes.Regulations on urban planning, as wellas on land use destinations, should bedirected by the environmental Plan.The “urban design”, which comprisesthe architectural project or urbantransformation, should thereforecomply with an environmentalevaluation of energy performances ofbuildings (SEA). The environmentalPlan should also help extendparticipative approaches to urbanplanning. The environmental Planshould intersect with the main urbanplanning tools. Of course, in order to dothis, it must be able to provideresources and define objectives viaformal access to annual budgets orinvestments.

COMMENTS

IITALYItaly: Environmental policies in Italian citiesIn 2005, CERIS-CNR/APAT carriedout an analysis on planning toolsexisting at local level, subdividingthem into three macro categories.The report also proposes amapping system. ■ Plans, programmes and lawsconcerning specific environmentalsectors: energy master plan,renewable energies, noise zonationand abatement, public lighting,methane pipelines, green areas,electromagnetic pollution.

■ Urban planning: urban masterplan (PRG), executive plans, districtplans, construction regulations,integrated intervention plans (PII),urban regeneration plans (PRU),urban regeneration and localsustainable development plans(PRUSST), European URBANprogramme, district contracts,urban redevelopment plans.■ Mobility and congestion: urbanmobility plan (PUM), urbancongestion master plan (PGTU),urban parking plan (PUP), 3-yearslocal public transport plan, home-work mobility plan, time schedulesplan. www.areeurbane.apat.it

FRANCEThe SCOT - Schéma de Cohérence Territoriale With the introduction of the law onSolidarity and Urban Renewal (SRU)in 2000 in France, the SCOT (Schémade Cohérence Territoriale) has theaim to ensure coherence betweenthe different local urban plans (localurban planning, urban mobilityplans, local construction plans etc.)developed by the municipalitiesbelonging to the same urbanagglomeration.

FURTHER READING

3.3 Resources and terms needed to develop and implement the Plan

3.3.1 Organisation: who initiates the process and how

In order to obtain the necessary political support andresources to implement the Plan, a structural solutionat organisational level can be sought. For example:■ the Mayor and the most important councillors

take on the political responsibility of promotingthe Plan and pass the mandate on to theDirector General

■ the Director General networks with the variousdepartments and services and hands theformulation of the Plan (this task must be

inserted into the administration’s overall “Workprogramme, setting targets and objectives”)over to a technical Co-ordinator (a Headofficer, provided with resources and staff).

■ the Co-ordinator organises the necessaryresources and constitutes a “Plan Unit Office”,characterised by an inter-sectoral workinggroup (the most appropriate staff members areselected with the joint approval of the Directorand of the other Senior officers)

It is important that the public administration sets upits own working group (for other Plans the term“Plan Unit Office” is frequently used), via co-ordination by the appointed Senior officer, whoworks out (directly and with the support ofconsultants) all the technical steps (or part of it, if


COMMENTSCesano Maderno, Desio, Meda and SevesoThe objectives of the Plan need to besupported by the Mayor and theDirector General. Their approval mayhave a driving effect on theadministration.

PadovaThe political involvement of theCouncillor is crucial: working with aCouncillor who is aware of theimportance of sustainability and ofthe meaning of the Plan, benefitsinternal performance.

CosenzaThe Director General is the one leadingfigure inside the local authority mostsuited to involve the political class andto co-ordinate the offices.

The French advisors present at the Draguignan and Martigues meetingsThe entire staff of the administrationshould be engaged in the set up of thePlan (cross-sectoral approach).However, the administration mustselect one co-ordinator responsible forkeeping the process alive and formonitoring progress, as well as for

evaluation and continuous maintenanceof the process in time.

Pôle Azur ProvenceThe Services Department shouldmanage the process.

Ouest Etang de BerreThe Services Department shouldmanage the process, while theEnvironment Department shouldmanage its application.

DracénieThe most suited person to manage thePlan would be the SCOT co-ordinator.

Italian advisors present at the workshop held in VeniceTo achieve the ideal structure and“Statute” of the “Plan Office”, the mostappropriate solutions to minimise risksshould be sought:• an internal working group,purposely constituted, with staffderiving from various services of thepublic administration. This solutionencourages a cross-sectoral approach.However, it risks immobilisation.• an internal office, that already exists,

has the task to gradually involve allinterested sectors, as the projectadvances. From an operational point ofview, this might be a rather effectivesolution. However, it risks failing theinvolvement of some key offices.• an external agency, purposelyconstituted (fulfilling technical co-ordination tasks). This solution helps toopen towards the outside, but riskslowering the sense of responsibilityinside the administration.

The French advisors present at the Draguignan and Martigues meetingsA “steering committee”/working groupshould be set up, made of electedmembers of the public administrationand institutional partners (RegionalCouncil and Province, GovernmentServices, Chamber of Commerce andIndustry, Chamber of Professions,associated enterprises etc.)

the public administration chooses to transfer sometasks outwards. See below).Some passages of the Plan (for example: the Pre-audit phase, some in-depth assessments, publicconsultation, set up and subsequent monitoring of aForum) may be handed over to an “external” figure(outside the administration).This choice may also beuseful in situations where it is crucial to keep themost disparate stakeholders of a network together“equably” (the municipalities of a metropolitan area,socio-economic interest groups, etc.). In this case, amore structured organisation (a permanentCommission, an Agency, an Association betweenprivate and public sector, a Foundation), accepted ordirectly appointed by the public administration, maybe set up. The fact of being a permanent structure,open to the local community, will furthermore raiseits importance.

3.3.2 Activating internal and external resources

With often scarce internal resources, optimisationshould be sought. Offices should be provided withthe necessary competencies and understanding


COMMENTS

Italian advisors present at the workshop held in Venice Training courses must be improved in order to raisestaff’s participation and productivity.

PaviaInternal training programmes (seminars, professionalexchanges) are the best solution for managing plans andprojects, as they generate competencies, motivate internalstaff and raise participation.

VeniceAttendance of seminars and courses may conferprofessional credits to the staff.

The French advisors present at the Draguignan and Martigues meeting:■ Ouest Etang de Berre. Information and awareness-raising events (handbooks, presentations etc.) should beorganised for all persons carrying responsibilities for the Plan.■ Pôle Azur Provence. Staff should be informed aboutthe various local community targets – energy, waste,transport, etc. – in a cross-sectoral way, but without beingtoo general.■ Ouest Etang de Berre. There is a real need for trainingof elected members.

and should avoid the duplication of efforts, byeliminating functions no longer required and byconcentrating responsibilities.External consultants – if needed – should beemployed mainly during the most difficult andinnovative phase of the planning process, in order tohelp transfer knowledge and operational methods tothe public administration. This will guaranteecontinuity in future management and up-datingactivities.

3.3.3 Setting up, motivating and training technical staff

Training of staff members, as well as of the electedconstituency, is of fundamental importance, if youare to improve their understanding of the problemsto be solved, increase their motivation and the levelof participation. Training programmes must refer tospecific themes (management and up-dating tools or

TrentoThe internal working group must be made up of memberswith a certain sensitivity towards the topics that are dealtwith, as motivated persons guarantee better results.

PaviaTo include only motivated persons into the development ofthe Plan could be a bad choice, since the implementationof the Plan calls for the involvement of many interestgroups, especially persons holding key positions.

The French advisors present at the Draguignan and Martigues meetingsPrivate partners may join the working group to defineobjectives of advancement and common evaluationindicators. All enterprises having an environmentalimpact should be identified: authorised dealers, publicservices, private enterprises, industrial areas

Ouest Etang de BerreThe private sector may represent a developer for goodpractices.

COMMENTS

methodologies to implement specific actions of thePlan) and to their practical implications. They mustinvolve the staff in “hands-on” project experiences(under the guidance of instructors and experts).Training programmes may be supported by award-winning incentives. For instance, the acquisition ofknow-how, followed by practical implementation,may represent an award-winning incentive.

European funds, provided they represent someinnovative approac