|
|
European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research - COST Action C11 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Working Group 2 - Public policies/policy instruments Email comments and information to Unn Ellefsen Working
Groups Notes for
Munich National data
on planning systems National
data on planning systems WG II IN
MUNICH. 6-9.06.02 POLICY
INSTRUMENTS. IMPLEMENTATION Friday
07 June 2002 from 9.30-11.30 a.m.: 1. Reports from
Breda meeting. 2. Process from
Breda to Munich. Key questions
from every member of the group. (compare to
annex) 3. Case studies
in relation to the "policy arrangements model"
(presented by Marleen in Breda). Summing up the
main themes from the cases of Sheffield, Marseilles
and Breda. (compare to annex) Saturday
08 June 2002. 9.00-12.00 a.m.: 4. Case study
of Munich. Key questions, (current situation, main
approaches , what has been of vital importance for
implementation and what has happened with the
greenstructure Proposal:
Interview with actors (land-owners, developers and
representative of the planning administration of
the municipality) of transformation projects within
the city of Munich. (To be confirmed!) Sunday
09 June 2002. 9.00-11.00 5. Next
meeting. Further discussion. How to classify the
case studies and which case studies are to be
chosen. ANNEX 2. Key
questions. Questions which
ought to be put forward to the Munich
meeting: - the
effectiveness of planning concepts
instruments, regulations, etc. for
green-structure planning need to be assessed.
For instance, does the compact city model
enhance preservation of the urban green
structure? How effective is the greenbelt
concept? Specific concepts, goals and targets
for green- structure planning are needed for
effective preservation and improvement of the
urban green-structure in the different city
zones and the city region. 3. Case
studies in relation to the "policy arrangements
model" * Management
and maintenance of the greenstructure within the
city have leaded to innovative practices. NGO's
working in different ways to keep the greenery in
good shape conditions. *protection of
the agricultural land within the urban region
&endash; promoting systems such as greenbelts or
green fingers as a desirable way to organise good
balance between built-up areas and open spaces in
the poly-centric urban region which is gaining
everywhere. * Special
attention to the areas in immediately contact with
the dense part of the city. Green structure as an
heritage, and the ways to manage it in planning.
Water systems &endash; creation of the water-feeder
(Marseille's canal)in the middle of 19th- after a
period an increased lack of balance between green
and urban in the town. Giving water to Marseille's
grey and green town . "Bastides" area of the
northern part- estates which show a upgrade comfort
in urban life and to permit people to settle in a
favoured position;- having water, controlling
climate, possessing a "fresh garden". Bastides
belong to the daily life and the countryside is
belonging to the town (a century ago), the same
person live in both. Bastide on Sunday and in the
summer, in town for work. Bastides remain the
symbol of quality of life and wealthness. All the
un-built territory appears as a potential of
diversity. A special attitude as to be searched ,
to respect a continuation in territorial history, a
soft evolution. Thinking urban extension not as
colonial settlement but as a dialogue between two
different cultural trends needs to have a special
skilled approach in housing programs, in rules of
land-occupying, in landscape plan ANNEX and urban
planning, criteria to define concerning the
importance of each building program, search of
compacity, urban forms and mix uses. What is the
challenges of Breda case? Compare to
report from WG2 meeting in Breda, interview with
Sjef Langeveld from the Netherlands (earlier
"Alterra") where he explained how the programme of
Greenstructure was conceived and how it was
implemented. We have to sort out more from the
inteview and try to use the arrangements
model. A
Greenstructure plan for Breda occured around 1986.
After implementation Breda won a price for
Environment, proving that it was/is a very good
plan. o Ideas about
the greenstructure plan were good (Sjef was a
colleague of Sybrand Tjalingii and conceived the
greenstructure plan with two networks system: the
black and the blue (the black traffic network
steering dynamic human activities and the blue
water network steering low dynamic functions
connected to the natural environment). o Sjef had an
important approach to the inhabitants, having
talked with people in each neighbourhood, which
gave much knowledge about people's real interests
(with this knowledge transmitted, the head of the
park department got prestige). o But the
period was bad. Funding cutbacks had to be done,
and the abandonment of one greenstructure project
was envisaged. Sjef had to go to see the head of
the park department to ask him to defend the
project in the municipal budget
negotiations). o Because of
the important knowledge gathered on site by Sjef
about people's opinion about the city
greenstructure and a special event which happened
before (the slaughtering of chickens for the boss),
the discussion with the boss was equal. Sjef thus
was able to explain his viewpoint and to obtain the
boss's support. This shows that
history cannot be told without speaking of the
chain of external facts constructing the
relationship established between the people
involved. These facts were most important in this
case. The boss worked
hard to organise the proposal to be best wellcome'd
for the vote of the municipal council. A principle of
consensus was established, a good tactical mean to
have the plan accepted in the poltical arena. 4
large principles were written instead of the 21
proposals thought of previously. 2 - ?
(anyone who can supply?) 3 - ?
(anyone who can supply?) 4 - For each
piece of green sold for urban purpose, the money
have to go to a special fund and serve for
reparing greenstructure. Munich? other
case studies? Comments to
the approach and agenda in Munich Some main
points regarding the agenda in Munich. In Marseille we
tried to define the main challenges regarding
greenstructure and urban planning and public
policies, policy instruments and implementation. We
also agreed to describe the legislation in each
country, in order to have an overview and a common
basic for further discussions. And then keep the
main focus to the cases and use the policy
arrangement framework as a tool to analyse the
cases. From our point
of view there is at this stage a need
for: 1. Repetition
and further developing the main challenges we first
described in Marseille 2. Clarifying
of what we mean by implementation - this is also a
form for repetition and is close connected to the
challenges. 3. How to use
the cases in the best possible way - the cases are
both an important result from the working group
itself (by describing challenges and approaches
from different countries), and a basis for analysis
and discussion. 4. Defining a
simple and relevant approach in our analysis
regarding the broad theme we are dealing
with. 5. Discussion
of how we document results in the process and
consecutive make it available for members of the
group and others (document structure,
responsibility for finishing defined
theme) Comments to
some of the points above: Experiences
from Norway show that the challenges regarding
Greenstructure and Urban planning are rapidly
changing. Increasing power to the market, public
poverty, rapidly increasing area values, changes in
planning practice and actors influence sets the
greenstructure under pressure. In spite of a well
functional formal planning system and routines for
integrating green aspects in planning. Plans are
however often not carry through as they are
adopted, or rapidly changed often in disfavour of
the greenstructure. We think Bettina gives an
excellent description of similar challenges in
Germany in her note "Challenges for Greenstructure
Planning in Germany". In our opinion it is
essential to discuss if the challenges are
different in the other countries participating and
give an overall description of the
challenges. This leads to
the question about what we mean when we talk about
implementation. We think we need a more practical
approach, and to discuss the importance of and
distinguish between: -
Implementation in meaning of integrating green
aspects in planning processes and plans. -
Implementation in meaning of carry through adopted
plans - how to ensure that green aspects are
preserved and maintenance in long terms and through
development phases. This is a main issue in Norway
with landowners and developers as important actors,
and we are looking for new tools to deal with these
questions. It is important
to define a simple way to analyse the cases. It
could be useful to clarify if the challenges we
describe is mainly attached to some dimensions of
the Policy Arrangements Framework. Perhaps we
should be careful to do a further dividing of the
framework, but see what definite knowledge the
cases give, and then decide how to carry out
further analysis. A precise case description
(process, content) will be an important basis for
the analysis. A
suggestion for the meeting in Munich Marleen FRAMEWORK
for HYPOTHESES/LEADING QUESTIONS on
GREENSTRUCTURES and URBAN PLANNING With reference
to the agenda for the Munich meeting. It made me
think about how we could possibly make the things
we do more coherent. In sum, the things we have now
are: What we still
do not have in my perception is a clear set of
hypotheses about what we think is problematic when
we talk about greenstructures and urban planning,
even although we have some implicit ones, such as
the one provided by Stephan Pauleit on the
effectiveness of greenstructureplanning ("The role
of green- structure planning is weak in the urban
development process. To improve this situation: a.
the social, environmental and economic performance
of green structure, for urban sustainability need
to be more clearly documented and; b. the
effectiveness of planning concepts instruments,
regulations, etc. for green-structure planning need
to be assessed." Stephan adds some questions on
success and failure of spatial planning
concepts.) In order to
structure our results and in order to make use of
what we do have, I suggest we use some time in
Munchen to formulate these hypotheses. This could
be done by using the policy arrangements approach.
We can make a subdivision of the national and case
scale/ level (or depending on the planning system
another level and explain why). Then, we could
formulate hypotheses for each dimension of the
policy arrangements approach (please look at the
handout given to you in Breda. In the handout, the
four dimensions policy discourses, policy
coalitions, power and resources and rules of the
game are clearly explained by Jan van Tatenhove et
al.) For both the national planning system as well
as for the case, we could then formulate one or
more hypothesis (or 'leading quesiions'),
descriptive and normative. Then, the question is
whether we can make one framework for all
countries, or make a framework per country.
Ideally, for the sake of comparability, we may
strive for the first. A big challenge! But if this
is not realizable, we can opt for the second
option. Which is also interesting because
differences among the hypotheses themselves will
already tell us a lot about the peculiarities in
each country. The following
matrix appears: Dimensions
of the Policy Arrangements
Framework National
planning system Case Policy
discourses Descriptive: The
most influential planning discourse in
relation to greenstructures in urban
settings has been the discourse of cities
and countryside as separate systems. This
has also been reflected in national
planning systems. Prescriptive A new,
more successful generation of
structure-planning should bridge the
distance between urban and rural and
between 'red' and 'green' planning. The
national planning system should promote a
more integrated discourse. Descriptive Prescriptive Policy
coalitions Descriptive Prescriptive Descriptive Prescriptive Power
and resources Descriptive Prescriptive Descriptive Prescriptive Rules
of the game Descriptive Prescriptive Descriptive Prescriptive I included a,
definitely Dutch-biased, example of hypotheses in
the matrix. The first
question that Unn raised to tackle in Munich, about
what we mean when we talk about implementation and
about whether or not implementation is the right
word, is then still not answered. There is a huge
amount of literature about implementation. Could
one of the group perhaps shortly summarize the
discussion in the academic world, so that we do not
do that all over? Still I agree it is important to
discuss it and try to achieve some common
understanding. (If you want to do this and have
difficulty to find someone to do this I can put
down my impression of the discussion.) By using this
approach, the second and the third question will be
part and parcel of the hypotheses in the matrix,
but they will be more differentiated in terms of
important policy aspects such as discourses,
coalitions, resources and rules of the game.
(Stephans questions are more about the resource
knowledge and about financial
resources.) What do you
think, could this be a fruitfull approach
to Hope this
reflection of my thoughts is of use for the working
group, Marleen Challenges
for Green Structure Planning in England Carolyn
Harrison Challenges for
Green Structure Planning in England: some points
for discussion based on my attempt to use the
structure proposed by Marleen Often there is
more than one policy discourse running
concurrently. In the UK the 'urban containment'
discourse has the longer pedigree but has run
alongside the 'urban regeneration' one throughout
the 1990s and into the 2000s Policy
discourses: Descriptive:
very much one in which green structures in the city
are seen to be separate from those in the
countryside. The recent Government White Papers
(2001) - one each on the Future of Rural and Urban
areas - maintains this separation. Green Belts
around most major cities are seen as the main
policy instrument for maintaining this separation.
Revisions of county and regional plans continue to
reassert and sometimes extend the area protected by
Green Belts. Green Belts are essentially
restrictive on development on whatever
scale. The current
planning discourse about 'where 2 million hew
houses should be built in the period up to 2010'
favours building on brownfield sites not greenfield
sites &emdash; the former are mostly urban sites -
and hence current national policy serves to
reinforce the inviolability of Green Belts.
At the same
time one of the supposed benefits of maintaining a
strong Green Belt is that it assists in urban
regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of
derelict and other urban land. There is little
evidence to suggest that is the case. Hence, 'urban
regeneration' became a new policy discourse in its
own right in the 1990s when economic recession and
structural changes in the economy left many old
industrial areas derelict and many people
unemployed. This perhaps is the discourse of the
moment but the greenfield/brownfield debate is the
new manifestation of the old containment discourse
now meshing with the 'global discourse' of
sustainable development and its manifestation in
Europe as the 'compact city' etc. Prescriptive
policy discourse: Question:
I am not sure whether in England we can anticipate
the advancement of the concept of the city region
in the way that Bettina and Stephan suggest for
Germany. In some ways the Labour Government's
decision to press ahead with Regional Development
Agencies and with Regional Planning Advice etc
might suggest this. Certainly some of the planners
in London would support this &emdash; especially if
Sustainable Development rhetoric is to mean
anything on the ground. The concept of the
'ecological footprint' of the city meshes with the
city region approach and is perhaps something we
should discuss. This concept has informed some of
the policy development thinking for the new London
Plan Policy
Coalitions Descriptive:
support for the maintenance of existing Green Belt
policy comes from local and district authorities
seeking to respond to their constituents who have
literally moved out of the city and have bought
into the 'countryside aesthetic myth'. They are
supported by a number of national, non-governmental
organisations such as the Council for the
Protection of Rural England (CPRE) who are fuelled
by a desire to 'conserve the countryside for its
own sake' &emdash; that is for intrinsic/aesthetic
reasons not necessarily for functional and
ecological reasons. This preservationist lobby is
extremely powerful in the UK. It is also supported
by the agricultural lobby largely because
agricultural and forestry land use are regarded as
'confoming land uses' in Green Belts and not really
subject to planning controls &emdash; other than on
buildings. Currently the proposed London Plan
prepared by the new Mayor of London does not
contest the Green Belt which means that planning in
London is to proceed within the discourse of
'densification' and 'the compact city'. Prescriptive
coalitions: The Countryside Agency (formerly
the Countryside Commission) now favours a more
integrated approach to rural development. Farming,
tourism and environmental land uses are seen as a
positive means of addressing falling farm incomes,
diversifying the rural economy, conserving fine
landscape, enhancing biodiversity, and contributing
to sustainable development. But, there is no
equivalent national agency concerned with the
promotion of green structure planning in the urban
area &emdash; many researchers and practitioners
believe such an agency is required. Recently the
national Forestry Commission and the CA have
expanded their activities in the urban area through
particular programmes and projects. Such approaches
are supported from within the urban area by The
Urban Wildlife Trusts and a range of other local
amenity NGOs. The emergence of Urban Park Forums in
a number of cities including London is evidence of
loose but as yet untested coalitions &emdash; often
following new funding initiatives and lacking any
strategic overview of need or of
outcomes. In the South
East and elsewhere the Housebuilders' Federation
has repeatedly contested Green Belts and their
extension. They continue to do so and argue for
sensitive release of land for housing development
that is well served by communication corridors.
(Extensions to Stevenage just north of London would
be an example.) Based in the private sector the
Housebuilders'Federation does not form coalitions
with NGOs although with the costs of house building
on brownfield/polluted sites likely to be much
higher than 'greenfield sites', and with government
reluctance to help the housebuilders out with
'compensation' for this high costs &emdash; perhaps
some movement in their position might be expected
to occur. Perhaps a move to master planning on
large scale re-developments advocated in the Urban
White Paper may suggest closer relationships
between developers, local authorities and other
stakeholders, communities etc….Plus if
European legislation seeks to 'regulate' businesses
so that have to demonstrate how they contribute to
sustainable development, this 'stick' may also
galvanise some of the larger developers to put
their house in order and enter into longer term
local partnerships. Question:
In terms of what we saw in Breda where the 'blue'
structures of water courses are addressed as part
of green structure, much less has been achieved in
England. This would require the involvement of the
Environment Agency &emdash; so a new cross-agency
approach would be required to achieve a blue/green
approach in urban areas. Is this true
elsewhere? Question:
Do state agencies with responsibilities for green
structures in other European countries operate
effectively in urban areas? Question:
Is there evidence that the private sector is
entering into local urban partnerships to deliver
strategic and local gains for green structures
rather than providing mitigation for environmental
losses? Power and
resources: Descriptive:
Development during the Thatcher years became more
private-sector led at a time when
local plans became more plan led. This dominance
resulted from the cuts in local authority budgets
inflicted by central government. Local Authority
Plans identified priority areas/zones and sites for
development and as a result the private sector
began to build up close relationships with the LAs.
Economic efficiency came to dominate local
authority service delivery and the public became
construed as customers/clients with individual
interests rather than as responsible citizens with
collective concerns. At the same
time 'Partnership approaches' to development became
the basis for gaining entry to new funding sources
from central government and Europe &emdash; the
Single Regeneration Budget; Disadvantaged Area
Status etc. Often the local community and
environmental groups felt excluded from detailed
discussions about environmental damage/mitigation
until the end of the process and 'deals' appeared
to have been done between the LA and the developer.
At the same
time in the 1980s-1990s Competitive Contract and
Tendering (CCT) meant that maintenance contracts on
public greenspace were standardised rather than
fitted to needs of place or users. Many green
spaces became little more than green deserts while
others fell into disrepair. New funding
opportunities from the National Lottery in the late
1990s designed to fund local, community-based
initiatives have benefited urban areas but have
failed to tackle the profound decline in the
condition of many urban parks and open spaces
&emdash; they lack a strategic perspective and it
is difficult to know if grants are awarded on the
basis of need or good practice. Prescriptive
power and resources: with reduced income from
central government and without a central agency
responsible for providing strategic advice and
agreed standards of provision/management for green
structures, political commitment to green
structures in urban areas is low and highly
variable. A national policy focus on urban
regeneration during the economic recession of the
early and mid 1990s saw the creation of a number of
local development partnerships many of which paid
only lip service to the role the environment can
play in regeneration. However, the Recent DTLR
Report on Improving Urban Parks, Play Spaces and
Green Spaces (May 2002) identifies several examples
of partnership as good practice. In particular The
Green Estate partnership in Sheffield is cited as
demonstrating 'a wide range of creative and
innovative features of good practice'. It is seen
as a scheme which demonstrates how green spaces are
integrated at a strategic level through a
multi-agency based approach to regeneration that
links environment and economy. There is a
sense that the reduced funds available in LAs have
served to initiate through necessity 'new
partnerships' that better reflect local people's
needs, and can contribute to a sense of community
empowerment and to economic regeneration. However,
experience is very patchy and the
'development/renewal context and opportunities
differs regionally. A separate
issue is the recent proposal in England to
implement a system of 'environmental fees' to
'offset' environmental damage of developments
rather than to negotiate how environmental damage
might be valued and mitigated on an individual
basis. In other words a move from negotiated to
prescriptive solutions to mitigate environmental
damage. It is unclear how the community is to be
involved in this process &emdash; probably not! In
practice, Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) - the tool of
environmental economists - has dominated how
environmental damage is to be assessed, especially
on large infra-structure schemes. The Government
has expressed its support for alternative methods
of appraising infra-structure studies &emdash;
multi-modal studies &emdash; which include an
opportunity for local stakeholders to be
represented on local partnerships established to
review alternative proposals. They are usually
out-numbered by other interests, and CBA still
dominates as the method of assessing overall
project benefits/disbenefits. Question:
Does the same regional disparity in development
opportunities exist in other countries? In London
development demand is high &emdash; so threats to
existing green space are high. Elsewhere as in
Sheffield perhaps the primary motivation for
integrating the environment into development is
more a concern for community development. Context
is really important. Question:
Does Master Planning facilitate early dialogue
among environmental consultants, the local
community and the developer and local state or not?
Does it make a difference to the implementation of
green structures on the ground? Question:
Is the move from negotiated outcomes of
environmental damage to prescriptive solutions
replicated elsewhere in Europe? Does environmental
economics dominate as the main way of framing how
the environment is to be valued? Rules of the
Game: Descriptive:
The role of the LA in the development process
is one of facilitator and enhancer, rather than as
regulator and guardian of the pubic interest. This
enhancement role in the development process, grew
during the 1990s. Several high profile developments
that threatened nationally important wildlife sites
were permitted to go ahead by the Secretary of
State. For example, the Music Corporation of
America's application to build a theme park on
Rainham Marshes an SSSI on the edge of London ( a
small part is in the Green Belt) was permitted to
go ahead; and the Cardiff Bay development is
another case in point. Crystal Palace Park in
London is another example where permission for
development was strongly contested by local groups.
Investment in parks and open spaces was withdrawn
&emdash; it is always one of the first
discretionary areas of LA spending to be eroded at
times of financial hardship and without agreed
minimum standards of provision, withdrawing funds
is easy to justify. The spiral of neglect is often
associated with calls to put sites to 'beneficial
use' &emdash; ie development. In the south east of
England where development pressures are high,
financial returns from luxury housing development
to local government are also high. Mitigation
measures only really apply to sites of designated
importance for wildlife etc, and many small green
spaces were lost to development (GLA Report
confirms loss of green space). These same
conditions do not apply to other areas outside the
south-east. As a result there are strong regional
differences in what has happened to green
structures and green spaces that are affected by
wider economic trajectories. Prescriptive:
multi-agency partnership in which the full range of
environmental, social and economic benefits of well
designed and managed green spaces is recognised at
a strategic and local level. This requires
inventiveness and creativity so that a range of
funding sources can be tapped. It requires new
skills and modes of working amongst a range of
professionals in the public, private and voluntary
sector. It requires cross-agency working;
cross-departmental working in LAs etc and it means
the voluntary sector has to work with private
developers &emdash; their traditional adversaries
etc. It also
requires a quantitative and qualitative audit of
the green space resource. At the moment most LAs do
not have this kind of audit in place. It would also
require monitoring and a base line 'standard'
agreed on so that progress in developing and
meeting targets could be part of this approach.
Question:
the voluntary sector including Urban Wildlife
Groups has played an instrumental role in Sheffield
in promoting and leading innovative projects that
address social, economic and environmental
regeneration. Is this the case elsewhere in Europe
and is this an English or just a Sheffield
phenomenon? Question:
How effective are partnerships at representing the
legitimate needs/wants of local people? In other
words how well are community needs addressed in
these partnerships? Question:
For me, and others perhaps, questions of ethics
also arise: why should local communities and the
voluntary sector be required to deliver services
that are the legitimate responsibility of the local
authority? Without minimum standards of provision
and management and a comprehensive evaluation of
the full range of benefits (economic, social and
environmental) that are associated with
greenspaces, the LA can abdicate responsibility for
something that is first and foremost valued because
it is a common property resource. So while some
successful partnership approaches suggest that
'necessity' has been 'the mother of invention',
community involvement and partnership can also be a
double-edged sword. Is this a question others
believe to be important? Key
questions There is a need
to re-assess the positive contribution Green Belts
can make as green structures that function as
eco-belts - similar to Stockholm's Green Map
mentioned in the Greenscom report. How can this be
promoted and pursued? What can we learn from
Europe? 'Partnerships'
tend to be very unequal &emdash; the voluntary
sector and the community give lots of time and
energy that isn't always 'rewarded' through
ownership of projects they are instrumental to
delivering. How to demonstrate and reward the value
of community effort and commitment so that future
generations benefit? Is there a role for Land
Trusts owned by the local community as part of the
implementation process? ((Most of the
questions that Bettina and Stephan raise for Green
Structure Planning in Germany also apply to
England)). Preliminary
Agenda COST C11,
Munich, June 06-09, 2002 Working group
2: policies 1. Expected
participants: o Unn ELLEFSEN,
Norway, chairwoman of the working group o Ann VAN
HERZELE, Belgium o Karen
ATTWELL, Denmark o Matti ERONEN,
Finland o Ann Carroll
WERQUIN, France o Bettina
OPPERMANN, Germany o Giedrius
DANIULAITIS, Lithuania o Marleen. VAN
DEN TOP, The Netherlands o Barbara
Szulczewska, Poland o Marta GARCIA
NART, Spain o Björn
MALBERT, Sweden Maurizio
MERIGGII, Italy Jorge Martinez
CHAPA 2.)
Agenda. Friday,
June 7 9.30-11.30:
Session 1 at Munich Technical University at
Weihenstephan, Freising o Welcome of
delegates o Adoption of
agenda o Approval of
the minutes from the last meeting o Report of the
chairwoman (U. Ellefsen) o Case studies:
State of the art o Presentation
and discussion of individual case
studies Saturday,
June 8 9.00-12.00:
Session 2 at Planning Department, City of
Munich o Presentation
and discussion of individual case studies,
continued o
Discussion: - Comparison of
the results -
Methods - Further
information required to complete case
studies - Work program:
conclusions Sunday,
June 9 9.00-11.00:
Session 3 at Munich Technical University at
Weihenstephan, Freising o Work program
for the year coming: state of art and case
studies o Future
meetings o Proposals for
invitation of experts o Proposals for
STSM o
AOB Proposed
Agenda Unn AGENDA WGII,
BREDA MEETING 17-20 NOVEMBER 2001 Following items
could be appropriate to discuss: 1. Status since
Marseilles meeting. Presentation of
different planning legislation within the
network and diversity of application of the law. (A
matrix will be prepared for
France, Germany, Spain and Norway (these are
the countries
from which we have received information) 2. Main
challenges for WGII. Extract of the
brain storming in Marseilles, described and
summarized by Bettina Oppermann is
enclosed 3. "Policy
arrangements";- a presentation by Marleen v d.
Top. Clarifying and
detailed explanation compared to a concrete case in
the Netherlands (Breda). In which way can WGII make
use of this concept? 4. Choose of
cases. Describing the
cases making use of "policy arrangement" s concept.
One alternative is to use cases as Breda,
Marseilles and Sheffield to describe different
organisations, policy discourses- coalitions etc.
(Proposal) 5. Summing
up. What will be
the main task for the next meeting? Email comments
and information as soon as possible to
Unn
Ellefsen Brainstorm
in Marseilles DESCRIBED AND
SUMMARIZED BY BETTINA OPPERMANN "BRAIN
STORMING" FROM THE MARSEILLES MEETING · Low
economic potential to exploit green structures -
public sector is poorly funded in regard for green
structures (fact/claim that can be confirmed
by the working group!?) ·
Greenstructures are often planned but rarely
realised - (need for a new approach in
planning!) ·
Difficult to find investors willing to implement
good quality in plans - (need for new tools to
ensure implementation!) · The
NIMBY-phenomene - everybody enjoys the
greenstructures but disagree to protect them if
personal gains are at stake, and; ·
Improving public involvement in the planning
process - how will the roles in the democratic
system change. ·
Densification that ensure greenstructure in the
compact city - workgroup 1? · Restore
environmental and ecological quality in brown areas
and old industrialised city regions - workgroup
1 · Develop
greenstructures for urban expansion - workgroup
1? ·
"Environmental quality standards" - workgroup
1 Contribution
to framework of discussion (notes from the WG2
meeting in Marseille), following the points of
Unn's Agenda, Ann-Caroll Werquin,
France, Comments.
Ann-Caroll Werquin, France : architect and also
certificated in Geography. Working as a consultant
in the field of town-planning/landscape
architecture. Projects are often about roads or
streets and public space. Practical elaboration is
concerned with analysis of existing landscapes
&endash;urban and rural- and proposals to protect,
to value or to redevelop. I am in the same time
working as a researcher about the relationship
between city and nature. Summing
up last meeting, visit of
Sheffield. Much knowledge
was brought about the use of greenspaces and the
problems of maintenance (see a bigger comment at
the end of this paper) 2. Headline of
the WG (« policy instruments », «
public policies » policy and implementation
» ?). I think we cannot manage by now without
having a wide headline, including policies,
instruments and implementation. 3. Main goals.
WG 1A and 1B are gathering knowledge about
qualities of greenstructure for the users (human
issues) and for the environment (ecological
issues), WG 2 is to examine how these qualities of
the greenstructure are created, implemented,
maintained or supported… by public policies :
persons involved (municipality, State
representatives…), special laws, current
planning processes, … In the research
of the sustainable town and of diverse forms of
urbanisation pleasant for life nowadays, we want to
know the kind of greenspaces, greenstructure and
experiences of greenstructure accomodations that
have to be promote and to know the public policies
(tools, legal instruments or local appliances)
responsible for the initiative, the realisation or
the managing. 4. About
case studies The visits are
opportunities to discover how elements of the
greenstructure are functionnating in this town (and
the country), it is a very rich learning about
which we can exchange experiences. So I think
the towns visited may stay important references for
all the lasting of cost action, examples that can
be deepened in some aspects afterwards when
necessary. Beside, in plus
as we wont have meetings in all countries, it seems
necessary to present relevant other case studies,
from all the countries, visited or not. «
Homework : What is relevant in the country
that could be usefull to WG2 ?» In France. The
Ministry of Environment supported a programm of
Agenda 21, sustainable cities, but it has much more
tiny results than « The sustainable cities
programme » presented by Norway (booklet about
it was given us by Unn in Marseille). Laws have been
adopted in recent decades, which can help
municipalities to be more sustainable and more
carefull with greenstructure, but the effects are
few yet despite good ideas developped by
planners.It is : Mountain Law
(9/01/1985) is to save the space of agricultural
and pastoral activity, to control urbanisation and
to protect environmental balance while developping
touristics units, Quite significative
results. Coastal areas
Law (3/01/1986) is to protect ecological richness
and to bridle urbanisation, to allow public access
to sea-shore and lake-shore. In accordance with
this law, particular documents with special rules
are to be prepared for urbanisation in some areas
such as Marseille : a local guidance is to be
written by the municipality and the State's
representative, and will be applied in the future.
Not applied enough by now, as pressure for
urbanisation related with touristic activity is
important. Law for urban
renewal (13/12/2000 + guidance 18/01/2001) will
permit to have local plans more accurate. Is too
new by now to know result. Comments
about visits. In the visit of
Sheffield greenstructure, and because of the manner
Anne Beer showed us the way a range of relevant
greenspaces were used nowadays, It showed how
important are the changes in needs and use related
to public gardens inside town. We could see
much about the problems of maintenance, of
meanings, of new demand and variety in the
demand. Problems of
cost of maintenance probably do exist in some
french towns, but not frequently, the effort for
creating publics parks were not so important than
in Sheffield last century ; « too much
greenspaces », assaid Anne. The range of
the greenspaces is wide now : the Botanical Garden
appears almost as an important historical heritage
tthan a local equipment for walk and
spare-time. Leisure time
reclaim new types of greenways, and Rivelin Valley
Walk is sure belonging to the type of Natural green
system of the town more municipalities should
promote to answer the demand of sportive walks
offers, open to every one, to link gardens and
parks and to link the inside and the outside
(country) of the town. Being in a valley (an
anciant industrial one) is a important feature to
be noticed. The evolution
of the Victorian sector (Ranmoor/Broomhill) with
the strong densification (and the ecological
richness failure), authorized by the public
policies, was also very rich of learnings. Nowadays
in France, I am not sure it could be possible to do
so in lots of french towns because inhabitants want
so much to protect the character of existing urban
sectors and the greenstructure of residential areas
(in the previous decades, often big blocks of flats
or towers were built no matter how, in the middle
of the individual houses areas and by now in most
local plans densification is wished to be
forbidden). About our WG,
we could see in Sheffield the visual impact on
landscape of Green Belt policy, understand the
relation between efforts made for green belt and
difficulties for managing town public gardens, and
see people and associations implemented in
substitution of municipality for renewing the
public gardens. Spatial planning and Greenspace - the situation in different countries National
data on planning systems Belgium? Norway? Lithuania? Czech
Republic? Notes from the WG 2 in Marseille 21-22 May, 2001 In the following I copy my message from 16.10.01: Below is the proposed agenda for the Working Group 2, Public policies/policy instruments; with as an annex a summarize from the brain storming of "main challenges" . Plus: A- minutes of meeting from WG II meeting in Marseilles (sent earlier, but now with some supplements ) B- comments from Ann Werquin C - Green areas in Spanish urban legislation from Jorge Martinez Chapa D- Challenges for greenstructure planning in Germany and a brief description of the planning system in Germany from Bettina Opperman E- "Policy arrangements" a note by Marleen vanden Top Notes for
Munich The
situation in England
-Carolyn's
response to the suggested framework National
data on planning systems Belgium? Norway? Lithuania? Czech
Republic? |
Meetings Background Meetings Background Meetings Background | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
