Case Studies  The Berlin Case Study: The Socially Integrative City.Wrangelkiez, Boxhagener Platz, Ostkreuz

From Here on Further: Recommendations for the Future

From these experiences, first suggestions can be formulated that address the funding policy of the EU as well as the institutional design of the neighbourhood oriented funding policy in Berlin.

Recommendations for the future design of the European Structural Funds 2006+

The basic structure of the URBAN II programme proves to be sustainable. If continued beyond 2006, it would be a suitable basis, but it would need a tightening of the bureaucracy. Ambitious programmes like this need an approach based on direct communication rather than on paper. The following aspects should be seen as suggestions:

The programme procedure should be restructured according to the Danish Kvarterloft programme:

Phase 1: Area application based on a SWOT-Analysis, a rather broad strategy, administrative structure, financial resources and programmatic priorities (resource distribution indicatively) (period: 6 months)

Phase 2: Elaboration of the programme with all actors within the area (period: 1 year)

Phase 3: Implementation of the programme, i.e. project decisions and their realisation (period: 5 years)

Phase 4: Completion and transition (period: 2 years)

The resource distribution is to be re-organised accordingly: during phases 2 and 4, resources for project development and anchoring are needed; in phases 3 and 4, the existing n+2-model can be applied. Also, there should be left a margin for smaller adjustments locally without the involvement of the EU Commission.

A crucial point is: An early determination of the requirements reduces the effort. Supplementary requirements later on usually lead to extensive reprogramming, which – given the already limited time resources - are to the disadvantage of the project accompaniment.

Suggestions for the Further Development of Integrated Procedures in Berlin

In the forthcoming years, the Berlin neighbourhood management model will see a strengthening of the role of the districts. For this reorganisation, experiences from the URBAN II programme could be helpful:

The relation between Senate Department and Districts could be organised similar to the relation EU/City State: The districts apply with single areas (specifying strategy and priorities) and receive a certain sum for a medium-term period.

It should also be considered, how to build on the positive experiences with the steering committee: e.g. by an advisory board at the district or city state level. Despite all the efforts involved, one should keep in mind that this committee is an important communication tool. This is even more important since a smooth communication process is of outstanding relevance to the success of integrated programmes.

A co-funding model based on projects proves to be ambiguous. It is especially striking that so far it is nearly exclusively limited to the fields of urban design or job promotion. Other resources can only rarely be acquired. It should be investigated, though, whether it would be possible to apply such an instrument to at least some part of the other resources in order to stimulate an integrated programme development across the various administrations.

So far, a project-related form of organisation within the district administrations of Berlin has been difficult, as has been illustrated. The main reason is a lack of budget integration or a single budget. So far, a combination of resources is only achieved by addition and not by an integrated budget approach. The integrated approach to neighbourhood management primarily takes place at the level of single projects or at the strategy and organisational level. However, probably examples from comparing cities could show ways for optimising this structurally problematic situation.

3.Summary: Cooperation and Coordination in Neighbourhood Development in Berlin     Annex