Daugiau informacijos rasite Europos Tarybos plėtros banko svetainėje: https://coebank.org/en/tenders/

Paraiškų pateikimo terminas yra 2022 m. liepos 19 d. 18.00 (CET).

Climate change mitigation and adaptation are central elements of Águeda’s city strategy and our work on resilience and sustainable development. At the same time the arts and culture, cultural heritage and creativity play a key role in Águeda’s quality of life and economic prosperity. Over the last 10 years in particular, we have seen the positive economic and social benefits of nurturing our arts and culture scene. However, we are also now living the consequences of climate change – flooding and forest fires in particular.

We first heard about the Manchester Arts Sustainability Team (MAST) in 2017, when Manchester was recognised as a Good Practice City under the EU’s URBACT programme. Manchester’s winning formula - MAST’s collaboration on climate action and engagement, in a city which recognised the value of culture and was itself demonstrating climate change leadership – struck a chord. In 2018, we joined C-Change: Arts and Culture Leading Climate Action in Cities - a network of cities with URBACT funding aiming to learn from and adopt a similar approach to Manchester. Over two years, Águeda’s local C-Change group, modelled on MAST, has been at the heart of our C-Change journey. This group of committed people has, against the odds of COVID-19, managed to survive, adapt and thrive, finding new ways to keep collaborating, acting and engaging people on the climate crisis and environmental protection through the arts, culture and creativity. 

“URBACT Local Groups (ULG) are a fundamental building block of the URBACT programme. Each URBACT partner is required to set up a Local Group gathering key local stakeholders in order to co-produce city strategies and action plans.” We had a strong foundation to build on in our C-Change journey. The municipality was already taking an integrated approach to policy-making, for example, with an integrated environment and tourism department. Developing partnerships involving NGOs, public agencies, the private sector and civil society had proven to be a key component in design and implementation of effective urban initiatives. And we had extensive experience with engaging local community and stakeholders through initiatives such as Local Agenda 21, our participatory budget an d eco-schools projects. Our Climate Change Adaptation Plan 2019-2027 foresees the involvement of the community, different sectors and stakeholders, including the arts and culture, through specific actions and measures.

We had a reputation as a creative city in particular as a result of our Umbrella Sky project, which has been replicated in other cities around the world, our Urban Art Programme and, our annual AgitÁgueda Arts Festival. City support and funding for arts and culture was strong and, as a municipality, we were already promoting climate change and environmental projects through our flagship Urban Art programme and AgitÁgueda Festival. However, up to 2018, there hadn’t been any specific climate change or environmental support for the arts and culture sector.

Through C-Change our ambition, by the end of 2020, was to see culture and climate change collaboration, support, and engagement happening in our city and to align city culture and climate change policy. We knew we needed a strong local C-Change group to make this happen. Beyond getting the group up and running, we had two key concerns, how to get the group to work effectively and how to work consistently across the culture and the environmental departments. We started as we intended to continue, with both our environment and our culture departments agreeing to take on a joint role in establishing, leading and supporting the local group.

Through exchange and learning sessions with Manchester and the four other C-Change cities, we learnt more about the MAST model – participating in a MAST meeting and seeing and hearing about the type of action MAST members were taking, individually and collectively. The sessions also helped us come up with a plan for sector support. Back in Águeda we began to establish a local group bringing together organisations and individuals from the arts and culture sector we knew were already committed to climate action and engagement.

Once our local C-Change group was in place, we organised regular meetings, led by the municipality’s head of culture and/or head of environment. In the early days these meetings were more focused on planning and exchange of ideas, but they were soon to lead to concrete action and collective initiatives including: Monty Python-inspired ‘silly walks’ against pollution; environmentally-themed street mural painting with children in disadvantaged neighbourhoods; Projeto Circular, one of our two ‘Agents of Change’ pilot actions exploring the idea of connection and love for our planet through a story-telling astronaut and children’s performance , and The Sea Starts Here urban art installation.

Three local group members - Luis Silva from the Manuel Alegre Municipal Library, Viktor Fernandes a local artist involved in the GlocalMusic co-operative and Águeda Arts Centre’s Laura Almeida - did a train-the-trainer carbon literacy session in Manchester. They developed a test version of the training which was
delivered in February 2020 for a mix of city and sector representatives. In July 2020, 17 people mainly from the local group, participated in a sector-specific training session combined with a visit to Águeda’s Smart Lab neighbourhood demonstrating solutions which could be easily scaled up such as a solar bench for charging phones. Then in October 2020, Luis and Viktor did a version of the training for the public during the Águeda Smart City Lab open day. Both July and October sessions featured a take-make-repair activity and a visit to Viktor’s materials workshop to see how he was putting sustainability at the heart of his artistic practice.

When the Covid-19 pandemic hit, the group moved to virtual meetings and began to work more independently of the municipality, using tele-esplanada an on-line collaboration tool and creating its own WhatsApp group and Facebook page to keep communication going. During online meetings the group mapped out what the arts and culture sector was doing across the city on environment and climate change, discussed topics of common interest as well as municipal projects on low and zero carbon solutions and how they might put these solutions in place.

As we progressed on our C-Change journey, the municipality was increasingly investing in nature and climate-change themed urban art projects. At the same time new members joined the C-Change group, including not only cultural organisations and local artists, but also environmental protection associations, local environmental activists and even outdoor sports enthusiasts. This resulted in some new collaborations such as: Agueda Arts Centre’s project with a local high-school on material reuse in artistic practice; CircoAgitado no Vale using circus arts to raise environmental awareness at the Vale Domingos Botanical Park, and; AgitAgua artists crossing the river Águeda in bamboo structures they had built, performing as the voice of water and the life which it supports, telling us why and how we need to conserve and protect it.

Today Agueda’s C-Change group has 27 members, including the Águeda Arts Centre, the Manuel Alegre Municipal Library, the Vouga Railway Museum, the cultural cooperative Glocalmusic and Living Place an eco-tourism organisation. It has become a self-sufficient group and a model of collaboration which are extending to other sectors such as sports and tourism. This group, our agents of change, is committed to future action on climate and engaging with the people of our city on the climate crisis and environmental protection.

By recognising its complexity and breaking it down into its component concepts cities can better manage integrated urban development. One of the findings of the recent study of URBACT cities’ Integrated Action Plans (IAP Study) was that cities need to fully understand, but also break down, the complexity of ‘integrated urban development’ in order to better take on the challenge of systematically improving their approaches.

Integrated Urban Development: a challenging concept

Previous efforts by URBACT to communicate what 'integrated urban development' means have typically focused on the ideas of ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ integration. These are useful concepts for enabling a general understanding of the topic, but the IAP Study found that practical efforts to both improve and assess the integration of an urban action plan require more detailed definitions.

‘Horizontal integration’ potentially incorporates: diverse policy areas/sectors; different locations and spatial relationships; the diversity of local stakeholder groups; and the balancing of economic, social and environmental objectives. Thus, the apparently simple question “is this action plan horizontally integrated?” becomes extremely difficult and complex to answer in practice. The various dimensions mean that a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is not enough.

Meanwhile, ‘vertical integration’ between levels of governance can refer variously to the engagement of decision-makers and stakeholders, the alignment of strategies and the mobilisation of funds from different levels. Once again, the question of whether an action plan is vertically integrated or not becomes complex and nuanced and does not lend itself to a simple answer.

In this context, it is perhaps unsurprising that the IAP Study found that cities were often struggling to process and communicate the complexity they were dealing with in trying to deliver integrated approaches to urban development.

The Integrated Action Plan of Medina del Campo (ES) from the CityCentreDoctor network describes the revitalisation of the city centre “as an integrated process. Integrated because it includes social, economic, environmental, cultural and institutional areas.” This definition does not really do justice to the level of integration demonstrated. In fact, the IAP shows coordination between sectors, across locations and spatial relationships, between levels of governance and with stakeholder groups, as well as between economic, social and environmental aspects.

The need for a clear and detailed definition

For some IAPs then, the lack of a clear and detailed definition of ‘integration’ affected their ability to fully communicate the complexity of their plans. However, for many, the lack of such a definition also increased the risks that certain aspects of integration would be missed.

In conducting its analysis, the IAP Study found that the picture was extremely varied across and within the IAPs. Sometimes aspects of integration were clearly addressed. Sometimes they were addressed, but not clearly or not fully. Sometimes they did not seem to be addressed at all. And when they were missing, it was not clear if this was an oversight or an intentional decision not to focus on an aspect not considered to be of importance.

For example, we can consider the IAP of Södertälje (SE) from the AGRI-URBAN network. This is generally an excellent example of an integrated action plan, which is presented extremely clearly and demonstrates various aspects of integration as well as good practice in stakeholder engagement and transnational exchange. However, unlike some other IAPs, it does not mention cooperation with neighbouring municipalities in developing actions. It is not totally clear if this potential aspect of a fully integrated approach to food policy was not considered or not deemed relevant.

Meanwhile, the IAP of Strasbourg (FR) from the BoostINNO network does not set out actions that are integrated across sectors or that address different locations or spatial relationships within the city. This might seem like a major omission. However, given that its whole approach is to foster social innovation across all aspects of work and across the whole of the city, it is perhaps both understandable and legitimate that its actions are focused on governance aspects that lack sectorial and spatial dimensions.

What these two examples show is that it is not enough to simply observe the presence or omission of one of the aspects of integration in order to assess the quality of the integration. It is important to also have an understanding of whether this aspect of integration is relevant and/or a priority in the specific case being addressed. Integrated action plans should ideally explain their choices clearly.

Six aspects of integrated urban development

The IAP Study strongly advocates that cities carry out a more systematic approach to developing their approaches to integrated urban development. This will not only enable cities to build a fuller picture of the complexity of integrated urban development, but also to do so in a way that is manageable in practice – by dealing with each of its component parts in turn.

The IAP Study identified six aspects of ‘integrated urban development’ that all towns and cities should consider when working to improve the integration of their approaches in practice. These six aspects were mainly identified by separating out the various dimensions of horizontal and vertical integration demonstrated by cities. They also include the overarching elements of: the need for sustainable approaches and the involvement of stakeholders in implementation (in addition to consultation in the planning).

Systematically addressing this list can help ensure that cities do not forget to give environment and social objectives equal billing in their plans and to demonstrate this clearly. It can encourage them to think about spatial dimensions within their city and integration beyond the scope of their municipality – whether with neighbouring municipalities or different levels of governance. The list can also ensure that cities do not forget to include stakeholders in the implementation of their plans – beyond a simply consultative role.

Practical differences in applying integrated approaches

Working systematically through the aspects of integrated urban development does not mean that each city has to plan actions on each or become somehow formulaic in its response. The systematic approach means only that cities need to consider improving their integration in each aspect and make a conscious decision on how to address it. This is why a quality planning process is such a crucial pre-requisite to effective integrated urban development and also why no two integrated action plans will ever be the same.

For example, in the IAP of Szombathely (HU) from the MAPS network, the actions show a good level of integration of sectorial and spatial dimensions focused within the city limits, principally on the site of the former military barracks that is targeted. The plan balances economic, social and environmental aspects and engages stakeholders well. However, the study found no evidence of coordination with neighbouring municipalities and little evidence of multi-level governance. This might be justifiable, but the plan might be stronger if it explicitly addressed such potential.

A very different example is provided by the IAP of Cluj (RO) from the REFILL network. The focus of the network on vacant spaces leads the city to prioritise governance aspects that will facilitate temporary use. This focus on governance rather than physical interventions leads to very different strategic choices in developing its integrated action plan. For example, there is no particular sectorial dimension to the actions planned – rather, such aspects will need to be considered in the actual implementation of temporary use that the action plan seeks to facilitate.

A final example here is the IAP of Antwerp (BE) from the sub>urban network. The plan presents actions across multiple relevant sectors, with a strong spatial dimension and specific actions to collaborate with neighbouring municipalities. This fits quite logically with the focus of the network on the urban fringe. However, the IAP is less clear about its specific approach to multi-level governance and what potential this might have to improve the approaches developed.

What seems clear from the IAP Study is that there are no objectively right or wrong answers when it comes to developing more integrated approaches. The topic addressed has a major impact on the aspects of integration that cities need to prioritise, with the strongest difference being between topics that are focused on a specific physical space (e.g. revitalisation of a city centre or former military site) and topics that address a way of working (e.g. supporting social innovation or promoting temporary use). However, a more systematic approach to addressing each aspect of integration can ensure that no dimensions are missed and that cities are able to show and justify their strategic choices.

Focusing on the journey towards more integrated approaches

A concluding message for cities and those that work with them is that this approach to integrated urban development is relevant and can be applied to all cities, no matter their starting point and previous experience with integrated approaches.

When addressing any topic or challenge, every city can reflect on the six aspects of integrated urban development and ask itself where it can improve the integration of its approach and add value. For cities that are new to integrated approaches or new to a topic, this might mean choosing some limited priority areas of action rather than attempting to do everything at once.

The IAP of Klaipeda (LT) from the Gen-Y City network shows an approach where such clear strategic choices were made. It states that “ULG Group members decided to narrow the initial version of the Integrated Action Plan and to focus on the main objective and related measures for attracting and retaining talents in Klaipeda”. The strong focus of its actions on supporting freelancers aims to fill a particular gap identified in the existing service provision. The ongoing challenge for the city will be to add additional dimensions to make the approach ever more integrated over time.

More experienced cities can still look at their existing approaches and identify areas where the integration can be improved. Maybe they have missed one dimension in their plans so far. Maybe some aspects could be dealt with in more depth, integrating yet more stakeholders or additional sectors or improving the multi-level governance. Most action plans could improve the rigour with which they show the balance between economic, social and environmental objectives.

There is no such thing as a perfectly integrated action plan. The important thing, wherever a city is on its own pathway, is to be constantly seeking improvement and reflecting with stakeholders on where it can still further improve the integration of its approaches, using the six aspects of integrated urban development as a guide.

***

For more information on cities’ differing approaches to integrated urban development in practice, see the 7 illustrative case studies of URBACT cities’ Integrated Action Plans, along with the full IAP Study report, findings and recommendations.