Connecting cities Building successes

For the next round of EU Cohesion Policy investment in 2014-2020, two tools have been introduced  to implement territorial strategies on the path to social and economic cohesion. So what’s behind brand new acronyms ITI and CLLD? Let URBACT Thematic Pole Manager Peter Ramsden introduces them and their potential impacts, included within URBACT. 

Ten differences between Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) and Community Led Local Development (CLLD)

1. CLLD can be part of an ITI but ITI could not be part of CLLD

2. CLLD is always bottom up. ITI is more likely to be top down

3. ITI is always integrated. CLLD doesn’t have to be

4. ITI is public sector led, CLLD is multi sectoral and there is an inbuilt balance between public, private and civil society actors none of which have more than 49% of the votes

5. ITI brings together funding from several priorities either of a single programme or of several programmes and/or funds. CLLD is programmed under a single priority (TO9 for ERDF and ESF).

6. ITIs report back their outputs and results to the parent priorities in the programmes from which they draw funds whereas CLLD can report all outputs and results against a single thematic objective 9 while having the scope of all Thematic Objectives.

7. Funding for a single ITI would normally be much larger than funding for a single CLLD local action group.

8. You can have many CLLDs in one city but you would normally only have one ITI – although the ITI could take several forms (for instance focusing on regeneration areas, or opportunity areas.

9. In cities CLLD is for neighbourhoods , whereas ITI is for larger parts of cities (for example large scale regeneration zones), whole cities or even regions

10. They have completely different acronyms so they are entitled to be different!

There Are Ten Similarities, Too

1. Both are territorial tools with a focus on areas (e.g. in cities, in rural urban areas, in rural areas, in maritime and fisheries areas)

2. They both require a strategy phase to prepare an action plan

3. Both bring together packages of projects

4. Both are driven by partnerships (but remember CLLD is bottom-up!)

5. Both are new in the programme period 2014-20

6. Both can be single fund or multi fund taking in the European regional fund – ERDF, social fund – ESF, fisheries fund – EMFF, –rural development fund EAFRD and even that dark horse the cohesion fund, but this last one only rarely!

7. Neither are well understood (except CLLD in rural areas after 25 years of LEADER)

8. Both are perceived as complicated, and even complex

9. Both are being avoided by most Managing Authorities – low take-up is predicted for both urban and social CLLD new programme period. There will be high take up of CLLD in EAFRD (because it is compulsory 5% of the programme) so all 28 Member States will do it and in EMFF (because it has been tried out already and will be available in 21 Member States). ITI for urban areas has been written into approximately 18 of the Partnership Agreement

10. Despite uncertain take-up both CLLD and ITI might well out-perform the main sectoral programmes.

Three Ways To Include Urban Development In Operational Programmes

The 28 EU Member States have submitted their partnership agreements. URBACT cities will have the chance to participate in operational programmes to support integrated urban development. There are three broad ways under Article 7 that urban development can be included in the operational programmes to fulfil the requirement for 5% of ERDF.

· As an operational programme

· As a vertical priority

· As an integrated territorial investment (ITI)

Relatively few Member states have said that they will use ITI for Article 7 but Poland has indicated that it will do so for all of its regions. There are also possibilities in Hungary (although at County level), Finland, Ireland, Slovenia, Lithuania, Germany, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Romania and Portugal.

For Urban Community Led Local Development, Hungary, Slovakia, Austria, Romania and Portugal have given indications that they may use the ERDF. For social inclusion focused CLLD Hungary, Slovakia, Lithuania, Romania and Portugal have indicated that they may use the ESF. It is possible that the situation will change during the negotiations of the Partnership agreements and the subsequent programmes which will be negotiated and hopefully signed later this year.

Note that some of the strongest practitioners of community led urban approaches, such as the EU cofinanced Soziale Stadt programme in Germany will not make use of the new territorial tools under either ESF or ERDF.

URBACT has commissioned a study on territorial tools aimed at practitioners in cities that will produce three thematic reports. The first on urban CLLD was the subject of a workshop in Thessaloniki in June and will report in September. The second workshop on Article 7 and ITI will take place in Rome and will report late in 2014. The workshops are by invitation only.

By Peter Ramsden, URBACT Thematic Pole Manager