Netherlands

Cooperation between local authority and residents

In the Netherlands one hears about three waves within urban policy: the first wave is characterised by physical approaches and the second by social approaches, while the third introduces an integrated, area-based approach. The waves are also characterised by the fact that they are elements of general efforts to achieve decentralisation; more and more decisions are being delegated to the local authorities.

1. Until 1989 urban regeneration policy concerned almost only housing and public spaces. There was a need for extensive urban regeneration and this was supported and controlled by the central government. However, it was realised that this action alone would not solve the social problems, which were becoming increasingly concentrated in individual, deprived urban areas.
2. The government therefore introduced a programme designated as "social regeneration", which is an expression of the second wave. The programme was characterised by social policy. The main action areas were:
   - work, education and income
   - improvement of living conditions and quality of life
   - promotion of sociocultural activities
   The programme, which pooled the funds from four ministries, was implemented in 1991-96. The framework for the programme was fixed centrally, but the local authorities and players had wide possibilities of filling out the framework. This produced very different projects - successful in some places and unsuccessful in others.
3. Therefore, in 1994, a real, integrated and area-based urban policy was introduced. The programme for "social regeneration" faded away and became an integral part of the new policy. The government now saw urban policy as a key area that was to be taken care of interministerially, and a special junior ministry was created to develop and take care of the policy.

There are actually two urban policy programmes: one for the 4 largest cities and one for 21 (originally 15) medium-sized cities. Deventer and Nijmegen are examples of the latter. The criterion used for choosing the cities are problems with concentrations of unemployment, ethnic minorities, run-down housing and poor environmental conditions. Deventer and Nijmegen fulfil the last criterion. Generally speaking, the Netherlands is experiencing economic growth but a failing demand for housing because of the population structure. That naturally sharpens the competition between urban areas and affects the weak ones. There is therefore extra reason to take action. Actual covenants are signed between the government and the cities or towns. The covenants are intended to strengthen the towns as a whole and, particularly, the social and economic basis in particularly deprived areas. The key words are partnerships, integration and result orientation, and the objectives for the medium-sized towns are:

• to ensure that a more varied population feels at home in the areas in question
• to encourage ownership and commitment to regeneration of the areas
• to get different public services integrated in 24-hour centres to raise the level of education
• to increase the amount of outwork
• to ensure that unemployment never reaches a higher level than half the town's average to increase security
• to increase internal movement in the areas so that people remain there in different phases of life.

Deventer is a medium-sized town with about 70,000 inhabitants in the eastern part of the Netherlands. It is an old Hanseatic town and there is net immigration at present.

The town is a successful example of decentralisation in the Netherlands. It fills out the framework of the "social regeneration" programme and the recently formulated urban policy in the best possible way. The Dutch prime minister regularly holds it up as an example, and in 1996 it was mentioned as a model of "best practice" at the UN Habitat 11 summit in Istanbul.

Deventer's policy is not addressed only to at-risk areas but is an integrated urban policy.

On the basis of the 'Social regeneration" programme, the local authority asked an active residents' organisation called RASTER Foundation to develop proposals for involving the town's local communities in the programme. The aim was to get the residents involved in both identifying problems and setting up models for solving them. RASTER developed a model, and in 1992 a cooperation agreement was entered into between RASTER and the local authority. In this model, the town is divided into 5 districts, each with about 15,000 inhabitants. The districts are in turn divided into areas with about 3,000 inhabitants.

Each of the 5 districts has been assigned an annual budget of around DKK 675,000, and the general aim is to strengthen participation and solve the problems raised by the residents. Each year, the residents are urged to identify problems and suggest ways of remedying them. On this basis, a project catalogue is prepared and sent out for public consultation. Lastly, a district plan is drawn up. Between 40 and 70 meetings a year are held with the inhabitants of each district and approx. 50 project groups are created in each district each year. The process is cyclical and is repeated each year.

The nature of the projects has changed over the years. For the first few years, the debate was mainly about traffic, cleaning and playgrounds. Today, it is more about social problems, employment and education. RASTER has found that residents want to start with the physical improvements. Until visible successes have been achieved here, it is not possible to get the fundamental problems discussed.

An official from the local authority - a so-called district manager - is appointed for each of the 5 districts. In the daily work, he or she works together with a community employee appointed by RASTER. Together, they constitute a steering committee.

The Model has been very successful in solving short-term problems, such as establishing playgrounds and closing roads. However, no work has been done on large projects or long-term solution models. RASTER only concerns itself with short-term projects with a time horizon of not more than 3 years. RASTER hopes that the project will develop so that it can gradually accommodate bigger initiatives and longer-term solutions.

Nijmegen, a town with 150,000 inhabitants situated about 100 km south east of Amsterdam, has also participated in the "social regeneration" programme, but has chosen particularly deprived areas. One of these is Oud West.

Oud West is an area that has functioned as a rehousing area in connection with refurbishment work in the inner city. 50% of the housing in Oud West is from the pre-war years, 25% is from 1945 to 1955, and the last 25% from 1975 to 1985. Approx. # of the housing stock is social housing. The area is isolated, the housing and open spaces are neglected, there is a heavy traffic load, and green areas are lacking. The area has a disproportionately high number of unemployed people and a low level of income and education. There are also problems with drugs and crime.

The project started in 1990, and within six months a group comprising residents and institutions had drawn up an action plan for the area.

It contained about 10 project proposals within three main areas of the 11 social regeneration" programme. In 1991, the local authority approved the plan and granted a complete budget without specifying how much was to be spent on each project. A group of local residents called STOUW was appointed to take care of the plan and the budget.

As in Deventer, the local authority has appointed a district manager who works together with STOUW and other interest organisations in the area. STOUW has also engaged a part-time employee.

STOUW receives about DKK 1 million a year from The Hague. Of this, it spends DKK 300,000 on personnel, premises and communication and about DKK 700,000 on the actual projects. In addition, the district manager can distribute DKK 700,000 of local authority funds.

The projects have been very wide-ranging. They include a project to make the school a community centre. Various training schemes have been established; a town maintenance team has been created; and playgrounds and a community farm have been established. In addition, an assistance office has been set up to help people find employment.

The project has so far proven a success. The model of an independent organisation with its own budget has proven sustainable. The area has managed to reduce its negative image; a broad network of committed residents has been established, and there is less drug abuse and crime in the area than when the project started.

As in Deventer, it is mainly small projects that are initiated. Decisions on really big changes are made in other fora. For example, the biggest housing association is planning to demolish a large number of terraced houses and replace them with more modern housing. Neither the district manager nor STOUW has any say in this decision, which is causing much concern in the area.

Bijlmermeer is a suburb south west of the centre of Amsterdam. The area has 12,000 homes, mainly in the form of 10?storey blocks of flats built in a beehive pattern. The residents are of mixed extraction, about 1/3 of them being of Dutch extraction, 1/3 Surinamese and 1/3 Asians or Africans.

BijImermeer is an example of a planned residential area from the 1960s and 1970s that is undergoing radical physical change. 25% of the area's tower blocks are being demolished and the rest are being refurbished, traffic is being integrated, public spaces are being privatised, and new lower blocks of freehold flats are under construction. A whole host of projects have also been initiated within integration and education/vocational training.
The area had problems from the very start, with a high removal frequency and vacant flats. In the mid eighties, the removal frequency was up at 35% and 25% of the flats were vacant. In the 1980s various attempts were made to rehabilitate the buildings, but it was only in 1992 that a start was made on a genuinely integrated regeneration project in the area. It is being financed by Amsterdam Municipality, the local district council and the housing association, which owns 90% of the homes. The total budget for physical renovation was set at about DKK 3 billion, but it has been found that the actual cost will be at least DKK 8.5 billion. In 1995 Amsterdam Municipality and the Central Fund for Rehabilitation of Non?profit Housing with Problems each undertook to cover 50% of the shortfall within a 10?year period. In the social area, the EU has provided the project with support of around DKK 67.5 million.
The main aims of the project are: improvement of the area's position in the housing market; improvement of the residents' socioeconomic status; and job promotion. As will be seen from the foregoing, most of the money is spent on the first point.

Back to ENSURE