European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research -

COST Action C11

INDEX

Working Group 2 -

Public policies/policy instruments

Email comments and information to Unn Ellefsen

Working Groups

1A - Ecological Issues

1B- Human Issues

2 - Policies

Munich Agenda

AGENDA -BREDA

Notes for Munich
Comments
Suggestion

Marleen's suggested Framework

National data on planning systems
see list below

Policy arrangements---

Sweden and Denmark - case studies

May - "BRAIN STORMING" FROM THE MARSEILLES MEETING

Bibliography

 

Policy case studies:

Overvecht - Green plan - issues

National data on planning systems

Italy

Spain

Norway

Netherlands

Poland

England

Germany

Denmark

France

Sweden

Finland

Agenda for WG2 Munich meeting

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:

 

  • Are we comfortable with the word implementation? Do we all mean the same? Or do we sometimes talk at cross purposes? (various meaning ?;- _ see all the way through, accomplish, go through with, carry through, carry out, work out, implement )
  • What do we need of planning systems to accomplish an urban transformation with quality? From the bottom and up
  • Key question from Stephan Pauleit (WG1A);- The role of green- structure planning is weak in the urban development process. To improve this situation:
    • - the social, environmental and economic performance of green structure, for urban sustainability need to be more clearly documented

      - 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"

  • Special approaches in the case of Sheffield

* 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.

 

  • Challenges for the city of Marseilles

* 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.

1 - The Greenstructure of Breda should be based on the plan.

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.

 

  • o About threats and experience findings in this case : - communication has to be not only about problems but also about fun and events, - the local newspaper is an important actor. What is in the paper does exist.
  • Actual problems of Breda GS : problems of creation, managment, protection. The financial crisis in 1998 was quite a bankrupty for the GS projects.

 

Munich? other case studies?

Comments

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:

  • descriptions of national planning systems (Spanish model as a format)
  • suggestions for cases and some actual experiences in the cities where we met because of COST-meetings
  • for analysis: the policy arrangements framework

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

  • do something with the national planning system descriptions;
  • relate them to the cases;
  • put both in a coherent 'structure' to organize our work better;
  • explicitly distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive elements?

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:

 

  • towards a more integrated discourse in which Green Belts and Green Corridors/Wedges close to, and in urban areas, are promoted as having a positive environmental role. Eco-belts would have a range of ecological and sustainable uses, such as small holdings for organic farming, community woodlands, composting projects, wind farms and small-scale biomass power stations (Town and Country Planning Association 2002).

 

  • towards a more integrated approach to urban re-development in which the full range of benefits (economic, social and environmental) associated with green structures are addressed and accommodated ( The Urban Renaissance of Lord Rogers Report 2000.) This multi-functional approach presents a real challenge to a range of professions and agencies engaged in re-development &emdash; not least planners themselves. It also favours a Master Planning approach.

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?

 

  • How to demonstrate a more integrated appraisal of the economic, social and environmental benefits of green structures &emdash; green belts, green wedges and green corridors. Can we agree a common methodology for achieving this?
  • How to undertake and fund a quantitative and qualitative audit of urban greenspaces and green structures? There is no agreed typology of green structures or greenspaces.
  • How to establish minimum standards of provision and management for green structures and green spaces in the absence of any national agency that could take responsibility for this task. How to ensure that at the local level these minimum standards are informed by what people want/need?
  • How to ensure that the private sector makes a more positive and consistent contribution to ecologically sensitive approaches to re-development, both in the development of small sites and large sites, in the inner city and on city fringes? At the moment the ecological modernisation thesis assumes that the private sector will deliver green benefits because technological innovation allows them to and not because they feel a responsibility to the environment. This is often a means of ensuring businesses are not regulated. Green roofs are a case in point &emdash; the technology is there but little used. Is this the case throughout Europe?
  • What is the role of regulation in terms of achieving desirable green structures especially in terms of the contribution green buildings can make?

'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

1 Nov 01

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

May 01

 

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

august 2001.

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

Italy

Spain

Belgium?

Netherlands

France

Poland

England

Germany

Denmark

Norway?

Lithuania?

Czech Republic?

Finland

Sweden

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

Munich Agenda

Notes for Munich
Comments
Suggestion

Marleen's suggested Framework

The situation in England -Carolyn's response to the suggested framework

Bibliography

Nov - AGENDA -BREDA

May - "BRAIN STORMING" FROM THE MARSEILLES MEETING

Comments.
Ann-Caroll Werquin

National data on planning systems

Italy

Spain

Belgium?

Netherlands

France

Poland

England

Germany

Denmark

Norway?

Lithuania?

Czech Republic?

Finland

Sweden

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

All rights reserved - © COSTC11, 2001

update 30 sept 2001