Visit of Cascina Cuccagna, a former farm now restructured in an urban social and sustainable food hub during the 3rd EU City Lab in Milan field visits (photo credit: URBACT)
Last month Milan hosted the third EU City Lab on Local Food Systems. What have we learnt about integrated sustainable food systems?
Source: Cascina Claudina, City of Milan, Food Policy department.
Milan will serve the third course of the EU City Labs on Local Food Systems on 23-24 October. Reserve your spot and find out more about sustainable land-use strategies to feed the city.
‘Going local’ is not just a trend or a buzzword; cities throughout Europe are prioritising local food production and consumption as part of a holistic and systemic approach towards integrated sustainable food systems. Scientific and policy research shows that cities with agricultural land have an advantage and opportunity to relocalise their food systems by making farmland and practices more accessible.
On 23-24 October 2024, Milan (IT) will take on sustainable land use at the next EU City Lab, a series of knowledge-sharing events co-organised by URBACT and the European Urban Initiative (EUI).
The Milan edition marks the third EU City Lab on Local Food Systems since March 2024, following Mouans-Sartoux (FR), where we explored changing habits for a healthy and sustainable food system, and Liège (BE), where we considered public procurement for more local, seasonal and sustainable food.
Let’s find out more about what sustainable land-use practices are, why they are important for cities, and what we can expect from the next EU City Lab.
In the EU, artificial land cover increased by 13%, between 2000 and 2018, which accounted for over 1 million hectares of land converted to urban use. Such land pressure has led to uncontrolled urban development (sprawl), together with reducing biodiversity, land for agriculture and increased greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. In a May 2024 report, IPES-Food experts revealed that land inequality is on the rise worldwide. Farmers and the communities, who for generations have produced food and taken care of the land, feel like they are being ‘forced out’.
At a glance, what constitutes ‘available land’ varies greatly between densely populated cities and rural areas, and varied solutions have been applied for the best use of available land. While urban farming will never feed a million-inhabitant city, it can trigger wider changes in overall local production.
European cities – like Milan – are taking necessary steps to make land more available and accessible for farming and food production. Some examples are presented below.
Source: Cascina Linterno City of Milan, Food Policy department.
Before looking at examples, what do we mean when we talk about land-use strategies to feed the city? Food production is often the competence of the regional level of government rather than of the city itself. The city departments leading on this work are mostly those responsible for employment and sustainable economic development, or agriculture and the environment. In practice, this can be quite technical and administrative, taking the form of special zoning regulations or land acquisition schemes to advertise free land and engage farmers.
Cities have developed tools and strategies to make access to land possible for food production. In Palou – Granollers (ES), the focus was on recovering unused and under-used land for agricultural purposes. The city council used several levers to improve access to land and make landowners interested in farming (e.g. taking measures to classify agricultural land, issuing subsidies and other incentives for landowners to sell/rent land for agricultural purposes, etc.).
Before making land available it is key to make it fit for food production. This is the objective of the UIA SPIRE project led by Baia Mare (RO) which have focused on the reuse of heavy metal-contaminated land in the city, through adaptive phytoremediation and the creation of new urban ecosystems, as a long-term strategy for sustainable local economic development.
Since 2010, Eurométropole and City of Strasbourg (FR) has been using a methodology for allocating free land. As of 2021, they have also initiated a price programme for farmers over 55 years old without a buyer. In 2014 in Paris (FR), with support from the city’s water supplier Eau de Paris, 264 ha of agricultural land were made available, including 73% already converted to organic farming. Other initiatives support farming entrepreneurs or scaling up urban and peri-urban food production (e.g. Strée) or direct producer-to-consumer interaction and matchmaking (e.g. Gothenburg).
Source: School garden activities, City of Milan Food Policy department.
Community gardens, public or private rooftops, and nature-based solutions, such as green corridors, improve the environmental standards and promote climate adaptation solutions. Realistically, municipal farms cannot feed entire cities; yet, by providing foodstuffs for example to school canteens, they are part of wider ecosystemic change. Urban farming practices are highly relevant to educate, raise awareness, create a spillover effect for individual and common practices. This can involve joining a Community Supported Agriculture Scheme or merely become more familiar as to where our food comes from, the way it is produced and as such, where it should be purchased. It can also create vocations for agriculture at the outskirts of cities.
Land can also be given to NGOs or citizen groups such as the project La biodiversità dentro la città: la Val d’Astino di Bergamo. De Site (Ghent) and Le Citoyen Nourrit la Ville (Mouans-Sartoux) are other examples of active community gardening sites. Les Jardins d’Arlette in Caen (FR) and Orti Generali in Turin (IT) are educational ‘living labs’ for sustainable impact as well as organic food production.
The community solidarity developed through urban farming can also tackle societal challenges not readily associated with climate (e.g. urban poverty), as was the case in Pozuolli (IT), where unused land was transformed into farmland.
Municipal farm in Mouans-Sartoux. Source: URBACT
Several of these solutions that make land available to farmers can be found in URBACT cities, through previous and ongoing URBACT Networks and joint initiatives. For instance, Mouans-Sartoux (FR) and Troyan (BG) have been working with municipal farms to feed students in local canteens. This practice was developed and transferred to other European cities through URBACT’s BioCanteens Network #1 and #2.
Almere (NL) and Mollet del Valles (ES) have undertaken ambitious urban farm projects through URBACT Networks. In fact, almost 50% of Mollet del Valles is rural/agricultural land, of which 734 hectares (the Agrarian Park of Gallecs) are protected from real estate to promote employment and entrepreneurship in the organic agricultural sector.
Rome (IT) transferred its experience managing urban gardens to other European cities through URBACT’s RU:RBAN and RU:RBAN Second Wave Networks.
The previous sections present a tapestry of local food production efforts in different European cities. Let’s now look closer at Milan, the host city of the next EU City Lab. With a substantial presence of farmsteads distributed throughout the municipal territory, Milan is the second largest agricultural city in Italy, with 2 910 hectares reserved for agricultural purposes. The city’s 2019 Land Management Plan aims to reserve over 3 million square meters of free and/or cultivated areas.
The 2015 Milan Urban Food Policy Pact was instrumental in reinforcing a commitment to sustainable food systems in Milan, but also throughout Europe. ‘Food production’ is explicitly recognised in the Pact’s Framework for Action. The recommended actions are all those aimed at strengthening sustainable food production, stressing the importance of rural-urban linkages to promote and strengthen urban and peri-urban sustainable food production, apply an ecosystem approach to holistic and integrated land-use planning and management enabling secure access to land for sustainable food production, provide services to food producers in and around cities, support short food chains and improve waste and water management and reuse in agriculture.
Today, more than ever, the theme of agriculture in Milan is developed through a multidisciplinary approach that involves productive, economic, social and environmental aspects. It is worth looking closer at key developments in this local policy framework context:
The Milanese Agricultural District (DAM in Italian) is one of five protected rural areas surrounding the city. The mode of agriculture in this area is closely linked to the city, not only by virtue of its physical proximity to built-up urban areas. The DAM Consortium (Consorzio Distretto Agricolo Milanese) was established in 2011, involving a network of local authorities and companies located near built-up urban areas.
This agricultural cooperative is made up of more than 30 farms located in the Milan area, covering approximately 40% of the agricultural territory. The work of the DAM Consortium contributes to landscape and environmental redevelopment and to enhancing the heritage of farmsteads and farm centres.
In Milan, farmsteads are also the corporate headquarters of agricultural enterprises that have progressively developed new projects and services for the public. For example, in many farmsteads agricultural and breeding activities are also accompanied by educational farms and agritourism activities. Recently, various farmers markets have been set up in the Milan area where it is possible to buy agricultural products directly from the farmers. There are approximately nine markets where producers display and sell to the public.
Strengthening the city-countryside connection by linking metropolitan agriculture with school’s canteen procurement and the rural landscape with the dimension of urban life has been an objective of the Municipality too. Thanks to the Mater Alimenta Urbe, since 2015, Milan has been able to provide rice for school canteen locally produced within the boundaries of the city in one of the several Milanese farmsteads.
Source: Milan agricultural park City of Milan, Food Policy department.
Through the Urban Innovative Actions-funded project OpenAgri, Milan adopted a place-based approach, focusing on new skills for new jobs in peri-urban agriculture. In an urban fringe – transition zone between the consolidated part of the city and the agricultural lands – the city developed an innovative urban service aimed at creating new jobs, skills, start-ups in agri-food sector (including production, processing and food waste) while increasing the level of resilience and sustainability of the city.
With this in view, a series of selected partners have been engaged in using in the best possible way a public-owned 30-hectares plot of land surrounding the south Milan Parco Sud boundaries.
Among other project highlights, OpenAgri has been recognised for exploiting the potential of several food policy experiments within a single integrated ‘Open Innovation Hub on Peri-Urban Agriculture’ to prototype disruptive and innovative solutions regenerating the concerned peri-urban zone of the city by making it an example of social inclusion and innovation.
The practice developed through the project was transferred to three other cities (Stara Zagora, Almere, Vila Nova de Gaia) via the URBACT NEXT AGRI Innovation Transfer Network. The learnings and transfer components of this Network will be front and centre at the next EU City Lab.
From 23-24 October, the EU City Lab on Land Strategies to Feed the City will provide a nice conclusion to the three-part series on Local Food Systems. While it will broach issues raised in the previous Mouans-Sartoux and Liège editions, ultimately, this edition will be a stand-alone opportunity to learn from Milan and other European cities implementing innovative land-use strategies.
There will be interventions from Anna Scavuzzo, Vice-Mayor of Milan in charge of Food Policy, and others working on Food, Agriculture and Education in Milan. In addition to dedicated sessions on the situation in Milan and multilevel governance, there will be speeches from URBACT and EUI Network partners from different European cities (some of which were featured as examples in this article). If you need to stretch your legs over the two-day event, Milan got you covered and offers you the opportunity to visit Cascina Campazzo and Cascina Cuccagna.
Are you interested in meeting with other cities, representatives and organisations working on this issue? Register here and check out the event agenda. Seats are limited, so be sure to sign up in advance! The programme is still being finalised, so stay tuned for updates, from farm to fork.
Want to read more from URBACT experts on food and related topics? Visit the URBACT Food Knowledge Hub or check out the URBACT Networks (Food Corridors, BioCanteens #1 and #2, RU:rban and RU:rban Second Wave, Sustainable Food in Urban Communities, Agri-Urban, Next Agri) and UIA projects (OpenAgri, MAC) that have developed solutions to make land available to farmers.
Reposted from the URBACT website
Comment comprendre la collaboration entre autorités publiques et initiatives citoyennes, pour augmenter la résilience des dynamiques locales ?
Dimension 1 : La vie de la collaboration
Une collaboration entre deux acteurs a une vie : elle se prépare, se crée, elle se réalise concrètement à travers divers projets, puis évolue et s’entretient sur les longs et courts termes.
Les dimensions de la collaboration
AVANT
En premier lieu, la collaboration se met en place. Elle est prédisposée par une culture de l’engagement citoyen, qui appartient tant aux citoyens qu’aux autorités publiques. Des initiatives permettent de mettre en place une première prise de connaissance, mais aussi un changement d’attitude et de paradigme pour apprendre à « faire ensemble ». Les pratiques visent pour les autorités publiques à clairement inscrire la participation et la co-création avec des citoyens dans une stratégie claire, voire à établir une unité de participation ou à intégrer clairement le rôle des citoyens dans l’organigramme administratif. Cela s’accompagne aussi de changements de fonctionnements internes (New Ways of Working), ainsi que de stimulation de l’innovation au sein même des fonctionnaires. Ce sont aussi les premiers pas pour aller les uns vers les autres : en organisant des rencontres entre citoyens et responsables politiques et administratifs.
Enfin, c’est à travers le développement d’un écosystème que la culture de la participation se développe : en travaillant avec diverses associations, en s’ancrant dans des réseaux plus larges, en favorisant les espaces de co-working ou co-associating, en organisant des universités urbaines et citoyennes et en partant à la rencontre des projets des uns et des autres.
LANCEMENT
Une fois que les premiers jalons de confiance et connaissance sont installés, la collaboration peut se formaliser à travers des projets ou initiatives concrets. Cela nécessite parfois une signature, par exemple, pour un engagement entre l’autorité publique et les citoyens (sous forme de charte) ou bien pour assurer le suivi du projet en passant d’une majorité à une autre (sous forme de convention), mais pas nécessairement. Il s’agit avant tout de « faire ensemble ».
La collaboration peut s’établir lorsque des processus sont mis en place tant au sein de l’autorité publique que des initiatives citoyennes. Les un.e.s travaillent étroitement avec des acteurs de terrain, déléguer certains de leurs tâches à des acteurs de terrain, mettre en place des postes avec une grande partie du temps sur le terrain, ou voire détacher certains de leurs employé.e.s. En interne, ils cherchent des synergies avec d’autres programmes d’activités (comme les Agendas 21) et favorisent la transversalité ; Tandis que les autres, les citoyens définiront une gouvernance claire, parfois avec la nécessité de se structurer en asbl, pour bénéficier de certaines formes de collaboration.
PENDANT
Une fois que la collaboration est mise en place, des projets peuvent être menés à bien, et des réajustements peuvent avoir lieu. Des apprentissages apparaissent. La collaboration telle qu’établie et vécu au départ évolue au gré du contexte.
Les autorités publiques centralisent la coordination pour faciliter l’interaction avec les citoyens et la rendre plus efficace.
Les citoyens organisent des réunions régulières pour se tenir au courant et agir en collectif. Ils.elles font évoluer leurs modalités de fonctionnement, par exemple en ce qui concerne la gouvernance ou la participation financière.
Des stratégies et politiques sont mises en place pour co-créer des politiques locales, de stratégies locales, des critères de budget participatif ainsi que son évaluation. Des tâches de planification urbaine sont déléguées à des citoyens et l’expérimentation a notamment lieu à l’échelle d’un (nouveau) quartier. En parallèle, l’expertise des citoyens est reconnue, voire monnayée.
La collaboration prend aussi la forme d’un accompagnement de l’autorité publique pour les initiatives citoyennes avec expertise, méthodologie, dans le montage de projets ainsi que de leur mise en œuvre. L’accompagnement peut aussi être proposé par des pairs qui ont reçu une formation.
L’ENTRETIEN
La collaboration évolue au fur et à mesure du temps. Elle est dépendante des personnes la composant, mais aussi du contexte économique, social, culturel, environnementale, … Elle s’adapte et s’ajuste. Sur le long terme elle peut rester dans un format similaire. Elle peut aussi grandir ou rétrécir (en ambition, types de projets, acteurs). Certaines activités de citoyens peuvent devenir salariées. Elle peut aussi changer complètement : se scinder en de nouvelles dynamiques ou fusionner avec d’autres. Elle peut enfin se transformer en changeant d’activité ou se transposer et se répliquer ailleurs.
Pour soutenir cette évolution, des plateformes en ligne sont mises place pour stimuler l’échange entre citoyens et autorités publiques. L’autorité publique organise aussi l’entremise entre parties prenantes, tout en reconnaissant la contribution citoyenne pour le bon fonctionnement de la ville. Cette reconnaissance peut être individuelle tout autant que collective à travers expositions ou journaux. L’autorité publique soutien aussi l’entretien de la collaboration avec un soutien diffus aux projets après leurs fins.
Dimension 2 : Les conditions de la collaboration
Afin d’évoluer dans un projet de collaboration commun, de nombreuses conditions peuvent agir à diverses étapes de la vie de la collaboration. Comme dans un couple dans lequel, par exemple, chacun des membres doit être bien en lui-même avant d’être bien avec l’autre, la collaboration nécessite que chaque acteur.rice fasse un travail interne avant de pouvoir travailler efficacement ensemble. Ce travail a lieu en amont, avant de mettre en place une collaboration, mais aussi à au lancement et pendant, par exemple, afin que les services adéquates d’une autorité publique travaillent de manière transversale pour répondre au mieux aux besoins des citoyens avec lesquels ils collaborent.
7 conditions se dégagent pour une bonne collaboration entre autorités publiques et initiatives citoyennes :
Discover how cities have taken on the challenge to push for more organic, local and sustainable food systems.
URBACT cities and networks have been very active in the development of innovative approaches and solutions when it comes to public procurement and gender-sensitive responses. Their practical insights and experience are told in the different modules of the Strategic Public Procurement Online Course. Some municipalities have also taken advantage of it to re-think the ways we produce, distribute and consume food. Read on to see how cities are taking matters into their own hands.
Food procurement relates to the provisioning of food, via catering services (with or without supply), canteens, and vending machines. It targets the public sector and sectors managed by public authorities: school and childcare centres, health and welfare centres (including hospitals), senior or retirement homes, and public administrations.
Paying attention to the way this food is purchased by public authorities is crucial. The overall environmental impact of the food system is undeniable: it contributes to 1/3 of GHG emissions globally and drive up socio-economic and health inequalities. In addition, within the agricultural sector in Europe, livestock farming is responsible for 78% of biodiversity loss and 81% of global warming. Food waste of the catering sector is also estimated to account for 14% of all EU waste, accounting for almost 12.5 million tonnes. Energy produced effectively by the catering sector could, for example, achieve savings of more than 20% leading to a saving of EUR 95 million (80 million GBP) per year and reducing national energy consumption by over 4 000 million kWh per year.
In terms of economic impact, the current food system sustains unfair working conditions practices for farmers and their respective difficult to access land and to sustainable production. Not to mention the working conditions of migrant workers. With regards to the fact that, on average, 85 million meals are catered every day in the EU (over 50% through contract catering), and that there are about 3.7 million vending machines in Europe that are run by around 10 000 different companies (mostly SMEs and family businesses that employ directly more than 85 000 people and many more in supportive industries), sustainable food procurement in public institutions provides an enormous potential to push market demand for greener products.
In terms of social and health-related impact, the current mainstream food system has led to a higher risk for disease and mortality in Europe: unhealthy diets are responsible for 49% of cardiovascular diseases, with an estimated annual cost of EUR102 billion for health systems and society; and with 16-22% of EU school-age children are overweight, 1/4 of them are obese. Last but not least, 36.2 million people, including children, cannot afford a quality meal every second day, which could be compensated by healthy school meals to a certain extent.
As such, using food procurement strategically can impact the whole society directly. First by promoting the purchase of certified (ideally organic) products, seasonal products, reducing the called “food miles”, and reducing packaging and food waste. Procurement can lower pesticides and antibiotic residues in food air and water pollution and greenhouse emissions. Then by promoting the purchase of certified (ideally fair trade) local products. Procurement can support the fair retribution of producers, boost local economy and employment, supporting local entrepreneurship and innovation, increase or convert organic production. And finally, by promoting the purchase of sustainable products and healthy meals and raising awareness. Procurement can contribute to the reduction of obesity, health problems, boast local communities’ prosperity and wellbeing.
When addressing food procurement, the first strategic frameworks which come to mind are those related to the EU (green) Public Procurement: the EU public procurement directive, the EU Green Public Procurement criteria, the Communication on public procurement for a better environment, Public Procurement for a Circular Economy. Good practice and guidance, and the Food & catering – GPP Product Sheet.
Yet, Food Procurement can also rely on a range of other EU initiatives, to further develop innovative solutions:
Some URBACT cities have been exemplary in seeking to identify practical solutions for the transition of their food procurement processes. Below some city cases:
The city of Liège (BE), partner in the BIOCANTEENS#2 Transfer Network developed a strong knowledge of their local producers, while adapting the needs of their local canteens to their local offer. The city starts all its tendering processes by an analysis of the needs with the food users, such as canteens managers and cooks: products used, their quantities, frequencies and other relevant factors. The research then focuses on local producers and enterprises that could potentially respond to these needs, leading to drafting specifications corresponding to both needs and offer.
Market engagement also enables the city to build the capacity of the market to meet their requirement(s), inform on the design of the procurement and contract, and help suppliers to submit quality bids. This process also tests the maturity of the market, the feasibility of the procurement, the level of technical and product innovation, the type of exiting composition and the concern about sustainability. Once the city is certain that producers can deliver healthy and diversified meals, the tenders integrate a new selection criteria.
It is important to note that market engagement is legally possible under Article 40 of Directive 2014/24/EU, provided that legal consideration are taken into consideration, as transparent and non-discriminatory process, not providing unfair advantage, keeping a record of all market engagement activities, giving equal access to all suppliers and treat all suppliers equally.
The Region of Brussels-Capital (BE), was the Lead Partner of the URBACT II Sustainable Food in Urban Communities Network, which designed a complete training and support for school canteens and caterers: awareness-raising for future catering professionals, pilot projects with catering companies, training schemes, support with communication tools and equipment, and access to a help desk. This scheme is linked to the Good Food labelling of canteens, part of the Region Sustainable Food Strategy – the Good Food Strategy that is now in its second version.
The Region also published detailed Guidelines for canteens which stress the importance of control and monitoring, in order to ensure that the contractor commitments are respected in the delivery of contracts. It can take the form of an administrative monitoring (e.g. on a trimester basis), as well as -surprise (bi-)monthly check at the place of production (in case of on-site production). A third check is only necessary if there is any doubt about a possible problem. The guidelines also distinguish canteens with food prepared on the spot or delivered, describing criteria in concrete details and technical clauses.
As part of its Sustainable School Food Programme, which aims to provide healthy school meals in a social, ecological and sustainable way, the city of Torres Vedras (PT) a partner of the BioCanteens original Transfer Network looks out at food procurement concerns for its municipal kitchens, which prepare 1 400 meals per day. The city seeks to purchases raw food material exclusively and directly from local producers and suppliers, with the following combined solutions:
Indeed, the 2014 Directives allow contracting authorities to both: exclude companies from tendering for not meeting certain conditions (exclusion criteria); and select the most suitable companies to bid based on technical ability and previous experience in relation to the subject matter of the contract (selection criteria).
Mouans-Sartoux (FR), is a flagship URBACT city that has achieved and shared its secret recipe for years now, especially as the Lead Partner of both editions of the BioCanteens Transfer Networks. As part of its overall transition, it has used procurement as a main tool to ensure the coherence of its entire food ecosystem. By combining lots, market engagement, use of labels, weights and criteria, in its tenders it has sought the pave the way and leading role cities can play. Yet, procurement is only one of the tools used to this end, and the dynamics go beyond food itself (see the image below). The experience of this city has been told using different formats (kitchen micro-good practices, Education Micro-good practices, set-up of a Maison de l’Alimentation Durable, among many others) and stories.
Then above-mentioned examples are all accessible for interested readers to consult. And the cities that were used as examples for this article will undoubtedly be happy to share more about their experience. Other material can be found as part of the StratKit Interreg Baltic Sea project, the EU Food Policy Coalition paper on sustainable public procurement of food, and, the Manifesto for establishing minimum standards for public canteens across the EU.
Last but not, least, URBACT will carry on the debate and reflections on the subject of food procurement in the course of this year. So, stay tuned and be sure to check the URBACT Knowledge Hub!
Reposted from the URBACT website
This article follows an in-depth talk we had in December with the ASToN cities sharing lessons from the URBACT programme. URBACT has funded 162 EU networks and over 1000 cities since 2002 and inspired the creation of the ASToN network.
This article shares case studies and key takeaways from the URBACT programme about how cities should approach sustainability of their projects, and begin planning life after the ASToN funding.
Data has shown that 21% of 190 surveyed cities funded by URBACT between 2012 and 2019 have approved their Integrated Action Plan (known as the Local Action Plan in the ASToN network), whereas 27% are currently in the process of getting approval. 18% explain they are about to approve it, whereas 34% are not clear about it.
In addition, 48% of the surveyed cities have secured funds for the implementation of the Action PlanP: more than half from the city’s own or other local resources. Yet, it is unclear whether it was secured before or after the planning of the specific actions. Beyond this generic data, limited quantitative data actually exists on what has happened to the networks after their URBACT life.
Here are two examples providing more insight into the varied experiences of URBACT cities in approving and implementing their action plans.
Case 1: the Region of Brussels Capital’ Good Food Strategy
Whereas the Region of Brussels Capital, in Belgium, had been working in an unstructured way around the questions of sustainable food, since 2008, it became the Lead Partner of the Sustainable Food in Urban Communities network in 2012 (until 2015). Together with 9 other cities, it sought to transition towards low-carbon and resource-efficient urban food systems, while focusing on the whole food chain: production, distribution and consumption.
Its Action Plan designed 6 actions, all of which were completed and led to the co-design of the Good Food Strategy, the Sustainable food and Urban Agriculture Strategy. Since then, the methodology used for the co-design has been improved and a new Good Food Strategy (v. 2.0) is under way.
Case 2: The City of Schaerbeek’s work on Public Procurement
The City of Schaerbeek, Belgium, was part of a network focusing on Public Procurement, led by Preston (in the UK), with 5 other cities, Making Spend Matter. Between 2018 and 2021, Schaerbeek learnt from Preston on the ways to use spend analysis as an evidence tool: to enhance the impact of procurement by public and anchor institutions and to bring additional economic, social and environmental benefits to the local economy and its citizens.
Because of a lack of resources, Schaerbeek has not implemented the 20 actions of its Action Plan yet. Yet, it has carried out its spend analysis and designed a strategy for improving its Public Procurement. It has also become a member of an International network of cities working on Public Procurement, Procura +.
Based on these two cases in particular, and many other experiences observed and analysed throughout the years we have identified the following takeaways:
1) The key legacy is the methodology
The URBACT methodology, focusing on integration, participation and transnational exchange and learning has been a key gamechanger in the way the cities work. This includes:
● Learning to co-create with a variety of stakeholders, starting from the identified needs rather than administrative or political push (e.g. in Brussels’ case, for the first time all stakeholders gathered to discuss local food policies and remain the core of the Food Council) ;
● Developing transversality of administrations and the ability to work beyond silos (e.g. in Schaerbeek, the Local group was composed of civil servants from different departments who keep on working together);
● Nurturing learning and exchange amongst peers, if not transnationally, at least regionally and/or nationally (see below the roles of networks);
▪ Promoting and supporting (social) innovation within their constituencies and within the administrations themselves (transparency being a key challenging learning for Brussels and Schaerbeek: Brussels is evaluating and improving the process and content of its Good Food Strategy every 2.5 years); and,
▪ Keeping an integrated approach to local policies’ design and delivery, while developing adequate capacities and skills (e.g. Schaerbeek is investing in trainings for the Funding unit, then available transversally to all civil servants)
2) Creating an action plan provides a strategic push
Another key outcome of the participation in such networks has been development of the action plan: both as a process and as an output. Indeed, it has served in many instances as a driver for integrated sustainable development in cities. It has helped them become more systematic in approaching an issue (e.g. the Brussels’ Good Food strategy). More importantly, these are seen as living documents, adjusted iteratively on an on-going basis in parallel with the evolving needs, priorities and resources.
3) Seek out other network and funding opportunities
As a follow-up from taking part in such networks, cities have also participated in other European projects and networks. At the individual level, civil servants are increasingly interested in being part of such approaches and see the added value of further learning and exchanges (e.g. a recently carried out study with the municipality of Schaerbeek showed an unexpected high level of satisfaction from participating in Making Spend Matter and the wish to continue investing such working experiences). At the institutional level, some cities have designed specific strategies to further work with other European cities. For example, the URBACT experience has comforted Schaerbeek in drafting a Strategic note on European projects (including a SWOT and some concrete solutions) as well as an opportunity study.
Cities are also developing competences for looking for EU funds, putting together proposals, applying for these funds and implementing successful projects. This also includes having a clear vision of the timing for calls (notifications and deadline) and necessary human and financial resources.
4) Individuals play a key role in ensuring continuity
Following-up on such networks has also been possible only through the commitment and involvement of key people. Civil servants are at the forefront, they can act both as a leverage for their elected representatives and other stakeholders, and to ensure the continuity, e.g. in the implementation of strategic plans.
Elected representatives from different levels of governances are also crucial to support the follow-ups, to promote them more widely. Importantly as well, they can use follow-ups as self-praising, which is then a win-win for the implementation (e.g. in the case of Brussels, the Ministry of the environment made the Good Food Strategy one of her greatest achievements even though she was nominated only after the URBACT network).
Last but not least, stakeholders need to be engaged in the follow-up the same way, even if not more than in the Action Plandesign: they are crucial to co-design the actions, co-implement them and also be their ambassadors and take-up while supporting and promoting.
5) The power of keeping in touch
After networks like URBACT or ASToN, it is of utmost importance for cities to remain in contact with each other. This is quite successful in an informal way, at the level of individuals, via Facebook, Whatsapp, Linkedin and emails. At a more institutional level, Twitter is also efficient. Communities of practice (e.g. via Slack — see the TechPlace community and via LinkedIn groups — see the Walk’n roll cities and Gender Equal City groups) are also successful.
Beyond this direct networking, cities can keep on meeting and exchanging while taking part in various events — both as participants and speakers. National and international networks, either generic (e.g. ICLEI, Metropolis …) or thematic (e.g. Cities Coalition for Digital Rights , Milan Urban Food Policy Pact, …) ensure cities keep on exchanging amongst each other, in an enriched way, beyond their initial network.
Some final considerations
Life after a network such as URBACT or ASToN can be very smooth or complex, depending on the city context. Political support might ensure the follow-up of the activities but evolving local priorities and/or available human and financial resources can be barriers for continuation.
Continuing the work requires changing the way the administration works, which is a long and never-ending process. It requires transparency, honesty, and humility. It requires frontrunners. Individuals who will keep using the methodology, keep driving to implement the action plan, will seek out other funding, will ensure continuity, and will continue to build a wider community of sustainable and inclusive cities.
Article reposted from ASToN’s blog (French version here)