t first glance, 2020 does not appear to have been a banner year for multilateralism. Log-standing organizations and platforms showed worrying paralysis during the onset and spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. And yet, the European Union (EU) has been able to agree on a budget with the potential to generate unprecedented stimulus and guide the bloc’s recovery process. After overcoming resistance from the so-called “Frugals”—rich northern countries inclined toward austerity policies—and the most reactionary populists (especially the members of the Visegrád Group) the EU ultimately managed to lay the foundation for emerging from the crisis.
During the European Council Meeting on 10-11 December 2020, an agreement was reached under the German Council Presidency to adopt a €1.8 trillion budget to tackle post-pandemic recovery. This budget consists of the new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021–2027—the EU's long-term budget—and Next Generation EU (NGEU), an exceptional stimulus package of €750 billion that is designed to tackle the COVID-19 crisis. It includes the Recovery and Resilience Facility, a mechanism for financing member states’ national recovery plans.
EU and national recovery strategies will focus on driving a process of socio-economic transformation based on a redoubled commitment to building a greener, more digital and more resilient Europe that is able to adapt to current and future challenges. Cities, which have been on the frontline of the COVID-19 crisis, have offered widespread support to the EU’s commitment to passing the ambitious agreement. Dario Nardella, President of Eurocities and Mayor of Florence, was very clear when, last November he called on the governments of Poland and Hungary to end their veto of the EU budget. It is time for solidarity, not for vetoes, he argued.
Yet, support does not necessarily translate to influence or power. It remains far from clear whether cities will be properly engaged in the design and implementation of national recovery strategies. To the contrary, it may be that top-down mindsets prevail once again.
Multiple studies have shown the eminently urban dimension of the COVID-19 pandemic both in terms of sheer numbers but also complex knock-on effects. Cities are home to the vast majority of the people affected by the pandemic, and local governments often had to guarantee basic services for citizens at the most complex points of lockdown. But the urban dimension of COVID-19 transcends those well-known features of demography. Cities’ economies have suffered dramatically, accentuating inequalities and creating a social emergency of a magnitude not seen in Europe since the 2008 financial crisis. This emergency is added to the climate crisis which, until a few months ago, had been the focus of many urban-led efforts and which must under no circumstances lose centrality.
The role of cities goes beyond mitigating the impacts of the pandemic. As Ursula Von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, recently acknowledged, cities and urban areas will be crucial to the recovery process. Cities are responsible for a significant percentage of public spending in the EU—an average of 23.3% in 2018—and their areas of competency give them a privileged position in promoting the transformation of local production systems and social behavior patterns, moving towards climate neutrality, and serving the most vulnerable by bridging gaps and guaranteeing rights. Local governments tend to promote alliances with citizens and urban operators to lead collective processes of change. Good examples of this can be found in cities like Amsterdam, where the recovery strategy is based on the circular economy; Barcelona, which is committed to promoting a humanist, rights-based digital transition; and Paris, whose “15-minute city” model proposes a polycentric city that is sustainable, healthy, inclusive, and prosperous.
However, more resources are needed to empower cities to foster collective transformation processes. Such resources must respond to cities’ needs and interests and enable them to design and deploy more effective solutions. In a letter sent last November to the European institutions, the mayors of nine European major cities and capital cities urged the EU to recognize local governments as “key allies” in the recovery process. Crucially, the letter stressed that to fulfil this role, cities need to be better engaged in the design of member states’ national recovery plans, and they should be given direct access to the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RFF)—it proposes earmarking 10% of the RFF for local governments.
But despite this and other advocacy efforts, cities’ aspirations are unlikely to be given due consideration. The policymaking of the European Union continues to be shaped by states’ reluctance to cede sovereignty and by top-down approaches. Most member states do not provide any formal channels to cities for participating in the definition of national strategies such as the forthcoming recovery plans (exceptions include the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and Scandinavian countries). Instead, local governments’ involvement generally depends on their ability to influence national authorities through professional or political ties and in processes that lack coherence. Even if cities will be able to benefit from the EU recovery funds, they will not be given direct access to them. Rather, they will be obliged to follow mechanisms and priorities defined by national governments and, in federal systems, by regions and federal states.
With the EU budget approved, and with national strategies still under negotiation, there is scant evidence that the recovery funds will be allocated according to a multi-level governance logic. Despite the services they deliver, the populations they serve, and the challenges they face, cities will most likely be denied the involvement they deserve. Since the start of the pandemic, they have demonstrated great potential and resilience to stand on the frontline, to address emergencies, and to lead local processes of change. The failure to engage cities in a systematic manner may limit the success of the European recovery plan. If the needs and priorities of cities, their neighborhoods, and communities are not properly addressed the transformation process will no doubt be less solid and sustainable.
a global affairs media network
Building Back Better: Cities and the EU Recovery Plan
Photo by Logan Armstrong via Unsplash.
February 12, 2021
A
t first glance, 2020 does not appear to have been a banner year for multilateralism. Log-standing organizations and platforms showed worrying paralysis during the onset and spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. And yet, the European Union (EU) has been able to agree on a budget with the potential to generate unprecedented stimulus and guide the bloc’s recovery process. After overcoming resistance from the so-called “Frugals”—rich northern countries inclined toward austerity policies—and the most reactionary populists (especially the members of the Visegrád Group) the EU ultimately managed to lay the foundation for emerging from the crisis.
During the European Council Meeting on 10-11 December 2020, an agreement was reached under the German Council Presidency to adopt a €1.8 trillion budget to tackle post-pandemic recovery. This budget consists of the new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021–2027—the EU's long-term budget—and Next Generation EU (NGEU), an exceptional stimulus package of €750 billion that is designed to tackle the COVID-19 crisis. It includes the Recovery and Resilience Facility, a mechanism for financing member states’ national recovery plans.
EU and national recovery strategies will focus on driving a process of socio-economic transformation based on a redoubled commitment to building a greener, more digital and more resilient Europe that is able to adapt to current and future challenges. Cities, which have been on the frontline of the COVID-19 crisis, have offered widespread support to the EU’s commitment to passing the ambitious agreement. Dario Nardella, President of Eurocities and Mayor of Florence, was very clear when, last November he called on the governments of Poland and Hungary to end their veto of the EU budget. It is time for solidarity, not for vetoes, he argued.
Yet, support does not necessarily translate to influence or power. It remains far from clear whether cities will be properly engaged in the design and implementation of national recovery strategies. To the contrary, it may be that top-down mindsets prevail once again.
Multiple studies have shown the eminently urban dimension of the COVID-19 pandemic both in terms of sheer numbers but also complex knock-on effects. Cities are home to the vast majority of the people affected by the pandemic, and local governments often had to guarantee basic services for citizens at the most complex points of lockdown. But the urban dimension of COVID-19 transcends those well-known features of demography. Cities’ economies have suffered dramatically, accentuating inequalities and creating a social emergency of a magnitude not seen in Europe since the 2008 financial crisis. This emergency is added to the climate crisis which, until a few months ago, had been the focus of many urban-led efforts and which must under no circumstances lose centrality.
The role of cities goes beyond mitigating the impacts of the pandemic. As Ursula Von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, recently acknowledged, cities and urban areas will be crucial to the recovery process. Cities are responsible for a significant percentage of public spending in the EU—an average of 23.3% in 2018—and their areas of competency give them a privileged position in promoting the transformation of local production systems and social behavior patterns, moving towards climate neutrality, and serving the most vulnerable by bridging gaps and guaranteeing rights. Local governments tend to promote alliances with citizens and urban operators to lead collective processes of change. Good examples of this can be found in cities like Amsterdam, where the recovery strategy is based on the circular economy; Barcelona, which is committed to promoting a humanist, rights-based digital transition; and Paris, whose “15-minute city” model proposes a polycentric city that is sustainable, healthy, inclusive, and prosperous.
However, more resources are needed to empower cities to foster collective transformation processes. Such resources must respond to cities’ needs and interests and enable them to design and deploy more effective solutions. In a letter sent last November to the European institutions, the mayors of nine European major cities and capital cities urged the EU to recognize local governments as “key allies” in the recovery process. Crucially, the letter stressed that to fulfil this role, cities need to be better engaged in the design of member states’ national recovery plans, and they should be given direct access to the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RFF)—it proposes earmarking 10% of the RFF for local governments.
But despite this and other advocacy efforts, cities’ aspirations are unlikely to be given due consideration. The policymaking of the European Union continues to be shaped by states’ reluctance to cede sovereignty and by top-down approaches. Most member states do not provide any formal channels to cities for participating in the definition of national strategies such as the forthcoming recovery plans (exceptions include the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and Scandinavian countries). Instead, local governments’ involvement generally depends on their ability to influence national authorities through professional or political ties and in processes that lack coherence. Even if cities will be able to benefit from the EU recovery funds, they will not be given direct access to them. Rather, they will be obliged to follow mechanisms and priorities defined by national governments and, in federal systems, by regions and federal states.
With the EU budget approved, and with national strategies still under negotiation, there is scant evidence that the recovery funds will be allocated according to a multi-level governance logic. Despite the services they deliver, the populations they serve, and the challenges they face, cities will most likely be denied the involvement they deserve. Since the start of the pandemic, they have demonstrated great potential and resilience to stand on the frontline, to address emergencies, and to lead local processes of change. The failure to engage cities in a systematic manner may limit the success of the European recovery plan. If the needs and priorities of cities, their neighborhoods, and communities are not properly addressed the transformation process will no doubt be less solid and sustainable.
