Integration and subsidiarity are central themes of sustainable development. What role towns and cities might play in achieving and implementing more sustainable development depends to a crucial extent on the autonomy they are granted in the national context, on their human and financial resources, and last not least on their respective stages of development. Since, unlike their administrative aspects, cities also extend in structural and functional dimensions beyond their respective borders, close association of urban areas (in legislative terms as well) in higher dimensions of regional and other planning is essential for their sustainability potential to be developed.

In our view, these question complexes are, in addition to specific content and sectoral contexts, critical with regard to future EU policies and strategies since, among other things, they also to some extent point to totally different target groups and decision makers to be addressed.

In the fields in question there are (at least at detailed level) quite substantial differences among the candidate countries.

Legislation in the areas of environment and areas related to urban planning (including prescribed procedures for public participation and information) corresponds by this stage to EU standards - as the harmonisation process in preparation for EU entry would lead one to expect. This is particularly true of countries that are expected to join the EU in 2004. Thus the environment chapter in the accession negotiations for traffic and energy for all the accession states - with the exception of Romania (at least provisionally) concluded (cp. annex). Transitional arrangements have, however, been made for all countries as far as waste water is concerned, and also in the chapters on traffic and transport and energy there are a number of transitional arrangements.

Important differences arise, however, in those areas that do not form an element of the Acquis Communautaire and/or have not been regulated by EU legislation, particularly with regard to implementation.

While the 'traditional' sectoral areas of action such as water/sewage as well as solid waste disposal have (often with EU support) shown progress, other areas are characterised by great deficits in implementation, although covered in part by legislation.

All candidate countries, for instance, have passed comprehensive and tiered legislation delineating areas of public participation and information in planning procedures as well as for large individual projects. At the same time it can be observed, however, that implementation in almost all countries has taken place only very hesitantly or under pressure from interest groups or lobbies and NGOs a phenomenon, it must be stated, which is in no way typical for candidate countries alone. There are two important reasons for this lack of action. They are:

• resistance, disinterest and lack of information on the part of administrators and politicians;
• to some extent, civil society can exert only weak influence (absence of public interest, not yet established NGO and interest group structures)

Particularly in the former socialist states, there has been in some cases a perceptible distrust of state-run public information and participation campaigns, which are still superficially dismissed as 'propaganda'.

In some countries (or towns and cities), 'softer' instruments (such as Round Tables, 'future' workshops, urban fora, etc.) have been applied in physical and transport planning as well as in individual projects. While no comparable empirical studies on these issues in the candidate countries are available, evidence points to the following:

• legally prescribed and formal information and participation procedures can be better and more often implemented if accompanied by 'softer' and informal versions
• distinctively state-run or urban information campaigns and policies lead to a more pronounced 'participatory culture'
• in areas where traditional planning and management instruments have failed, politicians and administrators are more inclined towards participation; (on the other hand, there are also instances in which noticeable problem areas have produced rather tendencies towards battening down the hatches).
• public participation takes place more often in countries with more and larger NGOs (to some extent with strong municipal umbrella organisations or professional associations as well), i.e. existing legislation can be better implemented.

In some countries, innovative instruments in sustainability policy, (environmental impact assessments in planning procedures, eco-audit procedures as well as EMAS principles, etc.) which are by no means legally required in a number of member states, have already been anchored in legislation or are currently being so incorporated. In this connection mention may be made of Bulgaria, Estonia, Romania and Slovakia as well as Slovenia. Regrettably, in part implementation is absent or inadequate.

There is also a further problem area - again primarily in former socialist countries - in that rapid system change which was also in evidence in city-based planning and management fields, especially in the unstable political situation of the 1990s, led in some cases to repeated political changes at the top in towns and cities. In combination with harmonisation (sometimes in stages and repeated) with EU standards and the primary need to increase economic efficiency, this evidently led to difficulties in almost all countries (and the towns and cities in them). They are:

• insecurity in municipal planning and other departments
• in part abrupt changes in specified (political) strategy and objectives
• discrepancies in timing with overlapping aspects in different planning areas (e.g. in traffic and transport and in zoning (land use) planning)
• main points of emphasis on developments in towns and cities in fields that are to some extent incompatible with sustainability criteria (economic development; economic location policy; extension/developments in infrastructure / road building; in some cases with by EU funding)
• decisions based on serving patronage and clientele, projects and developments that are not compatible with existing (and democratically agreed) plans.

Particularly as regards the last mentioned point, whether there is a qualitative difference to the situation in some member states or not, is a moot point. Taken as a whole, differences in these areas between member states and candidate countries may well be primarily quantitative in nature. What needs to be established, however, is that these problem areas are essentially more pronounced in all (former socialist) countries than in the average member state, thus posing definite obstacles to sustainable development and to implementation of laws and regulations.

The obstacles referred to become more pressing due to deficits in professional education and training. On the one hand, there is still a majority of urban planners who completed their education in 'socialist urban development', which to some extent followed quite different models than those in member states. On the other hand, only in some cases have sustainability criteria been integrated into training curricula for urban planners, architects and civil engineers. Among others, Estonia, Latvia Slovakia and Slovenia are to be mentioned here. In yet other instances, larger NGOs or umbrella/professional organisations have incorporated further training in the sustainability issue into their field of activity. By and large, a large number of planners, architects and engineers are dependent for continued professional education and further qualification on their own initiatives. What is deplorable is the poor participation by some countries/towns or cities in them in international projects, which are in addition valuable in affording exchange of experience.

The degree of municipal autonomy and self-government as well as the scope for independent financing of municipal budgets in candidate countries are (as in member states too) very varied. This is equally true of the hierarchical system of spatial planning units and their related competency.

All candidate countries have in the past few years shown a trend towards decentralised decision making and accountability structures, and towards more local self-governance. However, some countries are still given to taking or directing municipal decisions at central level. An example in the extreme is afforded by Malta, where local government has only come into existence since 1993, and where almost all planning is carried out by national ministries or agencies. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Romania - and until recently Slovakia and the Czech Republic - are also characterised by strong centralised influence on urban planning and management areas.

While some countries possess a multi-layered planning and decision making structure (i.e. the national state, regions, municipalities: examples of which are Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic), other countries have limited themselves to a dual system (the national state and municipalities: for instance, Malta). Other countries occupy (with respect to decision-making competency) positions in between these extremes. To be mentioned in this connection is Latvia, where the district councils are set up by the municipal councils. However, in Romania, district-prefects are appointed by the national government and they effectively control urban policies. Clearly, through these differentiated structures, agreement or coordination between urban planning and generic spatial (and other) planning activities is decisively influenced.

A special role is played in some countries by their capital cities, and also a few larger cities (e.g. in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Latvia), which not only have the status of municipalities but also that of higher spatial/administrative units. Hence their decision-making competency is greater than that of other towns or cities.

The varying autonomy of cities is partly reflected in their financial structures. Whereas the three Baltic states (Latvia in particular) have relatively wide financial independence from the national state, towns and cities in other candidate countries hardly have practical or legal opportunities (taxes, revenue) to raise income on their own (e.g. Malta). Latvia has found an interesting solution here by introducing a 'natural resource tax' (tax on consumption of resources as well as financial penalties for infringement of environmental legislation), 60 % of which remain with Latvian towns and cities. The remaining 40 % goes to the National Environment Fund, which is also utilised to some extent in redressing spatial disparities.

While municipalities in all the candidate countries have assumed increased responsibilities in recent years, their financial resources have not risen in proportion; they have either remained unchanged or even declined. In addition, expenditure in the environmental sector of the entire country has fallen in some cases, as in Slovakia.

With the exception of Poland - and with limitations - the Czech Republic, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovakia, candidate countries demonstrate no pronounced urban systems/urban networks. Even larger countries such as Hungary are dominated by their capitals. This urban structure exercises an influence on the relationship between urban and regional planning, links between a city and its hinterland, and the pattern of urban growth (urban sprawl) - attributes that all candidate countries (to some extent in enormous measure) display (cp. below). Cyprus and Malta assume a special role. Malta, with a population density of 1200 inhabitants per m2, is perhaps a rather large agglomeration (with variations in built-up densities), while Cyprus consists of just three more urban areas apart from the capital, comprising small municipalities, communities and some tourist settlements.

In the decades before the political and other transition changes, the majority of candidate countries (in varying measures) were influenced by socialist urban development and the principles enshrined in the Charter of Moscow. Their spatial and functional structures are therefore still considerably differentiated from those of western European towns and cities:

• generally speaking, severe mono-functional structuring
• mixing of functions in city centres
• wide roads and large open areas in city centres (venues for parades)
• state or national imposing built structures (in city centres)
• large residential estates, usually on the periphery, lacking social or economic infrastructure

These structural characteristics are particularly striking in new urban foundations which took place during the socialist era (e.g. in Romania).

These structures contribute also to considerably hampering more sustainable urban development (mono-functionality), further accentuating spatial developments (decline of inner cities), offered and continue to do so targets for pressure from investors (pressure for land use) while also providing scope for improving local amenities in residential areas (open spaces) or for more sustainable spatial structures (mix of functions in city centres) (cp. below).

At the same time, the socialist era also saw some countries adopting a very careful approach towards historical legacies in towns and cities (at least, on a small scale and selectively, possibly also as counter-reaction to socialist urban planning). Protection of historical monuments rates a high status even today in all the candidate countries.

Municipalities in candidate countries see themselves confronted by a host of environment-related tasks and problems that cannot - or only indirectly - be addressed through the four priority fields. The focal points of urban policies in the past number of years (and in part with EU support) were in the following areas:

• solid waste disposal
• air pollution
• water supply and waste water disposal

Another focal point for municipal policies lay in extending technical infrastructure and road networks (see also sections 2.5 and 2.6). While improving technical infrastructure was often in accordance with more sustainable development, the majority of countries and cities placed a further (financial) emphasis on extending road networks and thereby aggravated the traffic and transport problem considerably.

The share of municipal waste in the total waste production of candidate countries is higher than that of the average of member states (per unit of their consumption, not in absolute terms per capita). In absolute terms, the production of municipal waste in the past years has risen, in some cases steeply. While there has been significant progress in waste management, especially in those countries that are scheduled to become EU members in 2004, several countries are still facing severe problems in this field, namely with illegal waste dumping (for instance, Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus). In all candidate countries only a very small fraction of waste is sorted, not to say reused and recycled. As in several cases waste treatment and management is within the duties of municipalities, this problem area will still be on the priority agenda of towns and cities for the next decade.

Since the early 1990s, air quality in the candidate countries has markedly improved on an average national level. This is partly due to new legislation and standards, but also to the decline in several industrial sectors. In major cities, however, there usually has been a severe backlog due to fast growing motorisation and in part to aged heating systems and heating management (for example, individual consumption not being determined, the same applies to some extent also to water consumption, e.g. in Bulgaria). While air quality is on the political agenda of most cities, noise is widely ignored as an environmental and health problem (cp. below).

Progress in improving water quality is not as impressive as in air quality (on a national level). Improvements are happening, but still the capacity and quality of sewage treatment stations (some of which are municipally-owned) are too low. In several cases severe (even extreme) leakage in the water supply system, but also in the waste water system, are known to exist (for instance in Sofia).

In essence, candidate countries are beneficiaries under the two EU funding programme packages known as Phare and ISPA. In addition, some institutions in candidate countries are also involved in the 5th Research Framework Programme with urban and environment-related issues; in other cases, measures were funded through the LIFE Third Country Programme. All candidate countries have projects and programmes addressing the above-mentioned problem areas using support from these two programme packages geared towards preparation for EU entry. However, these programme packages are often also used to support infrastructure and other measures, where the contribution to sustainability is at best doubtful.

Differences between candidate countries and member states in legislative and administrative areas are - as indicated above - essentially quantitative in nature. By and large, it may be stated that:

• environment and urban planning legislation correspond to a great extent to the standards of EU member states (above all in those candidate countries that will join the EU in 2004); implementation, however, is in many cases indeed deplorable (cp. section 2.1.1).
• there are a host of political decisions that in part diametrically contradict strategy and detailed urban planning (i.e. democratically approved by the local council) (cp. sections 2.1.2 and 2.5).
• planning and decision making processes are, as a rule, sectoral and poorly integrated (cp. section 2.4.1).
• coordination between municipalities and the surrounding (administrative) area or region is, as a rule, poor (cp. sections 2.4.1, 2.5, 2.6).
• innovative instruments (innovative also in the entire European context, cp. section 2.1.1) have been in some cases legally stipulated, but are often either inadequately or not at all implemented. On the whole, innovative instruments and methods are largely confined to LA 21 matters (which is carried out to varying degrees in individual countries; cp. section 2.4.2).

• data capture and analysis as a basis for urban management is veering towards nil in some countries, is only used ad hoc or is limited to traditional planning data (cp. section 2.4.2).
• in-service training and exchange of experience are supported by local or other governments in a very few cases. Capacity building for more sustainability thus needs to be greatly improved (cp. section 2.1.2).
• public information and participation are legally stipulated in all critical areas for urban management but to some extent are very inadequately applied in practice (cp. section 2).
• the roles of NGOs and other stakeholders in the various countries are very variously established (cp. section 2.4.3).
• influence of investors on municipal decisions is often sizeable (cp. section 2.5),
• financial and human resources for sustainable urban development are in some cases very inadequate and financial resources have even declined in some countries in recent years (cp. section 2.1.3).

In the following section only points not dealt with above or in other thematic fields will be touched on briefly.

Planning and decision making follow - generally speaking - a rather sectoral approach and, at best, abide by integrated standards only on paper. Cross-sectoral cooperation and coordination is normally limited. Only in very few cases do transport questions and spatial planning, for instance, observe similar standards, aims and time frames. In most cases, responsibility for different fields of planning and decision making (such as land-use planning, transport planning and construction) lies within the jurisdiction of different departments and institutions, which in some cases are even at different spatial / administrative levels. In addition, these different planning fields often are irreconcilably different, not only in terms of time-frame, but also, in some cases, in spatial or physical dimension. For example, in Slovenia responsibility for land use or zoning plans rests with the municipalities - but building permission has to be obtained from national authorities.

Countries with comparatively speaking pronounced centralised planning and decision-making structures (cp. section 2.1.3) have an additional problem in that decisions are taken far from the concrete problem areas, thus the principle of subsidiarity is here not being observed. On the other hand, it appears that correlation between urban and regional planning functions better in such cases, where physical and other planning uncoordinated between municipal area and hinterland are at least to some extent avoided.

Some countries have certainly shown - due to new laws and regulations (e.g. administrative reforms, drawing up strategic plans for the entire urban area, among other measures) - trends towards integrated planning and decision-making procedures (at least in some fields), for instance, Cyprus, Estonia, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Bulgaria.

Although some countries have introduced innovative instruments within sustainable development policy (environment impact assessments in planning procedures, eco-audit procedures or also EMAS principles, cp. section 2.1.1) by means of legislation or regulations, in the majority of countries, however, these approaches are confined to Local Agenda 21. The level of commitment is, in fact, widely differentiated in practice. For instance, whereas the Baltic States, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Bulgaria are relatively active (in some cases with state support), Cyprus hardly has any LA21 activities and Malta has none. The range and quality of individual agendas appear to be very different. In some cases the measure is more political in nature ("we’re active in something") or is used as an instrument in public education. Apart from its status as an additional municipal task, it has in no way moved up to form part of key municipal action areas.

Information gathering and analysis, in most countries under review, is carried out in a rather traditional manner, very often on an ad-hoc basis and not very systematically. GIS systems are still rather seldom used, except in some larger cities (or are being developed at the moment). Only in few cases has development (or even use) of indicator systems been undertaken to benchmark and measure, at least in certain fields, sustainable development.

While NGOs and others do not play a significant role in certain of the countries, they are assuming increasing importance in others (occasionally only in some decisive areas of sustainable development, such as education and public elucidation: for instance in Malta), in diverse model projects (for instance in Bulgaria and Latvia) or through new laws (in Slovakia). On the whole, it may be observed that the importance of NGOs has increased, particularly in the last five years.

As the significance of public involvement and of stakeholder groups has been summarily dealt with in another section (2.1.1), at this point only a brief overview will be provided of the role of public-private partnership and of business in urban management. Although in some cases, classic municipal tasks such as spatial planning or also local public passenger transport (generally in smaller municipalities) are being carried out by private enterprises, apparently there is considerable resistance in some municipal authorities towards cooperation with the private sector. One reason may have to do with lessons learned in some of the countries (especially in the first few years after the radical system change), with patronage and corruption involving a number of municipal projects. Another reason stems from the fact that cities and towns (especially urban development planners) witnessed how, during the process of restitution (of real estate property - which in the meantime is more or less concluded), privatisation of municipal land resulted in the loss of an important steering instrument, without any timely adequate recompense.

Along with municipal supply and waste management services, traffic and transport problems are the sphere most affected by existing EU environment laws. While the number of private (passenger) cars per inhabitant in EU member states rose only by some 20 % in the last decade, numbers on average in the candidate countries rose by some two-thirds. In some countries it has doubled, in some cities (for instance, Riga) it has even quadrupled. Some major cities in the candidate countries have already exceeded the level of motorisation obtaining in comparable towns and cities in the EU. There is a clear correlation in this respect with economic efficiency in the countries concerned.

These are fast and furious developments in comparison with member states' experience, and as a result towns and cities in candidate countries are facing enormous problems, without possessing the necessary instruments with which to take counter-measures (cp. also section 2.4). Taken as a general view, it may be stated that municipalities are beset with the following problem areas:

• enormous increase in individual vehicle traffic (and increase in noise and air pollution, decrease in road safety, pressure on land use)
• increase in urban goods transport
• considerable decline in public passenger transport (section 2.5.3)
• seriously out-dated state of private cars and public vehicle fleets (section 2.5.3)
• bad condition of roads; bottlenecks in road network
• pressure on use of green and open spaces (section 2.5.1)
• massive car parking problems in city centres (section 2.5.1)
• in part, lack of traffic, transport and strategy plans (section 2.5.2)
• poor integration between traffic and transport, spatial, environmental and development planning (section 2.5.3)
• weak integration of transport planning on different spatial levels (section 2.5.3)
• in general, inadequate integration between various carriers (transport modes) and very rare coordination with transport and traffic in the surrounding areas (section 2.5.3)

• no infrastructure (and no plans for it) in some countries/urban areas for alternative mobility modes (bicycles, pedestrian zones) (section 2.5.2)
• enormous urban sprawl and greenfield development, leading to increase in individual motorised traffic / transport (section 2.5.1)

Urban sprawl - besides the 'psychology of private car ownership' (freedom and prosperity) - is one of the main reasons for the tremendous increase of private motorised transport in all towns and cities. Another reason for the rapid increase in urban traffic is the out-dated spatial structure in many of the former socialist-influenced towns and cities with their severely functional set-up. In Malta, urban sprawl and uncontrolled development could be cited as an additional reason. Section 2.6 addresses the reasons for this development.

In many cases, towns and cities have, however, also directly contributed to the enormous increase in traffic. Somewhat large municipal development measures (such as residential developments) are often to be found, for instance, on the outskirts of the town or city, while urban brown and grey fields remain undeveloped. Road construction and road safety are often regarded as the highest priorities in traffic and transport planning, in some instances at the cost of green and open spaces.

The design of some municipalities in the former socialist countries (wide roads in the inner city, cp. section 2.2) intensify pressures on traffic, transport and parking spaces. In combination with extending roads in (likewise, often typical) traffic bottlenecks, it definitely gives rise to 'car-friendly' cities, an approach long since rejected in western Europe.

There is a low level of integration between traffic, transport and other planning activities (cp. also sections 2.1.3 and 2.4) in a majority of countries. Counter-acting trends are most certainly at work, for instance, in Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia. Linkages or correlation between municipal traffic and transport planning and the surrounding areas worthy of mention are observable only in countries with stronger central planning systems (cp. section 2.1.3)

The majority of cities do not draw on long-term traffic and transport plans. Traffic and transport planning often appears as road planning. Long-term and comprehensive strategic planning has, however, been passed by the authorities or is in preparation in some of the larger municipalities in Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

There is thus also greater need to set up an indicator and analysis set of instruments so as to be able to record success of strategic planning of this kind . Capture of traffic-relevant data so far is more or less confined to traffic census, selective measurement of air quality and (in rare cases) noise (cp. also section 2.4.2).

Apart from the above-mentioned situation, programmes for cycle paths, traffic calming, pedestrian zones, park-and-ride systems or also parking space management are already in existence or in preparation in some towns and cities in Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Local Agendas or also participation in Europe-wide mobility campaigns (such as the 'car free' day) are rarely found, in comparison with EU member states. With the exception of parking space management, fiscal instruments as far as we have been able to ascertain, are not in use. By and large, prevalent measures such as these in EU member states are rather the exception in the candidate countries.

All in all, awareness (and knowledge) amongst urban planners and political decision makers concerning more sustainable mobility seem to be less in evidence. Road construction and road safety are at the focal point of their decisions - apart from several exceptions. On the other hand, there are a host of countries/ cities, in which there is an increasing sense of awareness of the problems.

With the exception of Slovenia, the share of PPT in almost all towns and cities in former socialist countries is considerably above 50 % and rises to more than 70 % of the modal split in some of the larger cities. However, Cyprus and Malta have an insignificantly low share of PPT (Nicosia in 2001:2 %). This in general major significance of PPT as compared with EU member states should not, however, disguise the in part dramatic collapses that are evident in all municipalities. Data from Prague, for instance, reveal that the number of PPT passengers in 1999 represent only 68 % of passengers transported in 1991.

The following reasons may be adduced for this development:

• old, uncomfortable vehicle fleet
• lack of coordination between inner-city transport operators' timetables and those in the surrounding area
• restrictions in routes served and reduced operational frequencies for reasons of cost
• considerable financial problems for transport undertakings (as all transport undertakings - including private companies - need to be subsidised by municipalities, the financial situation of local authorities also has an effect in this respect; there is to some extent psychological resistance on the part of the public against fares that cover costs - "Why should I pay for something that previously was (virtually) free of charge?")

Privatisation of transport undertakings and issuing licences to private businesses, which has taken place in a majority of the countries (especially in smaller towns or cities), seems to have - if anything - aggravated the problem.

Because of this development, former socialist countries are in danger of losing their one advantage in the context of more sustainable traffic and transport aspects - the relatively high proportion of PPT.

The basic spatial structure and starting positions of towns and cities in candidate countries have been already outlined in 2.2. Some urban areas in former socialist countries reveal the still strong functional-spatial structure which acts as a decisive impediment to more sustainable urban design. In Malta, the key problem lies in sprawl. Generally speaking, the following problems can be identified in (nearly) all towns and cities in the candidate countries:

• (in some respects) mono-functional spatial structure (section 2.2)
• decline of inner cities, namely historical centres (sections 2.6.1, 2.7)
• (in some cases extensive) urban sprawl (section 2.6.2)
• urban brown and grey fields (section 2.6.2)
• decline in large pre-fabricated housing estates (except in Cyprus and Malta) and/or serious maintenance, construction, technical and infrastructure problems (sections 2.6.3 and 2.7)
• densely built-up areas through economic development (to some extent roads) (section 2.6.1)
• unapproved development and land-use planning (section 2.4)
• (in part) illegal construction ('black' housing) (2.6.2)
• increase in social (in some cases ethnic) segregation (2.6.3)

In many of the (historical) city centres there are clear symptoms of decline and considerable functional change. In former socialist countries, where city centres clearly had more residential functions than in many EU towns and cities, a definite decrease in this function is evident. However, in the historic centres of Maltese or Cypriot cities too, decline and some dereliction pose a considerable problem. On the one hand, migration from these areas to the surrounding areas is an unbroken trend. On the other hand, there is to some extent tremendous pressure on land use in these areas by private (and even some public) commercial enterprises, investors and developers. These problems are aggravated by the unclear and varying restitution, giving rise to lack of clarity in ownership situations and liability, and also through lack of finance. As a result today’s inner cities quite often include a mix of less competitive shops and workshops, old residential and commercial buildings lying vacant or under-used, as well as individual, scattered buildings fully restored or newly built for commercial, residential or institutional use.

As in large housing estates, some city centres give evidence of social decline and sometimes beginning ethnic segregation. While the new middle class are leaving the inner city (and urban quarters with old building stock), inhabitants from rural regions (migration from rural areas), and certain ethnic groups (Romany, migrant workers) move in. A clear connection with the level of economic efficiency of the country in question is discernible here.

Almost all larger towns and cities (above all, those with tourism significance) are therefore striving, partly through state programmes, at least to revitalise historic city centres, and have invested not inconsiderable funds in maintaining and/or restoring historical buildings. However, this has not prevented the trend towards outward migration.

By far the greatest physical planning problem for all larger, but also for many smaller towns or cities is posed by urban sprawl (consumption of land; traffic; threat to the natural environment). Admittedly, exact figures are only available for very few towns or cities, however on average the increase in surface area may well be more than 10 % during the last ten years; in some larger cities or conurbations (urban regions) the figure could be considerably more. This trend, initiated during the socialist period in the first instance by large new housing estates on the outskirts of towns or cities, has strengthened considerably. There are in essence two reasons for this phenomenon:

• Industrial and trading site development on greenfield sites, generally in ribbon developments alongside roads and motorways, which are frequently accessible only by using private individual transport (which also to some extent represent severe competition for inner city commercial and trading operations and have contributed to the decline of city centres, e.g. large new shopping centres). By the end of the 1990s, the share of large-area retail trade premises in some towns and cities had risen to between 15 and 30 %. If we reflect that even in the home of shopping centres, the United Kingdom, their share was not more than 12 %, then the significance of this development becomes totally clear.
• In particular the newly emerging and comparatively affluent (higher waged) middle class is moving away from urban areas into the surrounding areas (in Estonia, for example, the figure for building of one-family housing between 1990 and 2002 has increased by a factor of five, whereas the figure for other types of building has not even doubled).

Due to the factors listed in sections 2.1.3 and 2.4 (in particular: lack of coordination with the surrounding area; competition with settlements in the surrounding area; non-coordinated physical planning; absence of instruments, e.g. taxes; political/economic pressure), towns and cities are quite defenceless faced with this development. Around the outskirts and in the surrounding area of some towns and cities (e.g. Ljubljana) during the 1990s, for example, a large number of 'illegal' or non-authorised residential properties ('black' housing) has come about, which is without adequate supply and disposal connections. In Warsaw in the same period of time, 4 out of a total number of 18 large-area retail trade centres were constructed on sites which were not destined for such development in the land use or zoning plan.

In contrast to urban sprawl, several towns and cities are experiencing dereliction on former industrial, commercial, railroad or military sites. Latest figures available indicate that in some cities derelict or under-used land comprises up to 0.4 % of the total urban area. Again, due to partly unclear ownership, uncoordinated planning, financial restrictions, an absence of financial instruments and sometimes severe contamination, cities are very often unable to bring these sites back on to the property market. It seems, however, that frequently planners and politicians are even not aware of this problem (and follow-up problems such as negative effects on areas in the vicinity).

In some of the countries at issue, up to 40 % (EU: 3 % - 7 %) of the housing stock is formed by estates with more than 2,500 units, mostly pre-fabricated. In some cities this number rises up to 70 %. On average, more than 45 % of the inhabitants of the 10 former socialist capitals lived, at the end of the 1990s, in large pre-fabricated housing estates (ranging from 20 % (in Ljubljana) to 80 % (in Bucharest)). Because these large housing estates contain hardly any functional mixing, the local amenities (green or open areas, social and other types of infrastructure) are in some respects quite inadequate and also because the physical state of the estates meets neither current residential nor environmental standards, they represent one of the most serious challenges for towns and cities.

In the economically prospering countries (i.e. especially those who will accede to the EU in the first tranche) these large housing estates are becoming not only in urban design terms, but also because of the reasons listed above, in addition also social crisis points (in some cases comparable with many large residential estates in member states of the EU).

The tasks of improving and renovating these estates are made more difficult, because for very many years the housing industry was not sufficiently developed, and now a major part of the apartments themselves are privately owned (approx. 70 % over the 10 former socialist capital cities), however, land is either in local government or other ownership (for a long time in some cases also with still unresolved ownership status). Because in addition there are only very few pilot or model projects, which would for example indicate required costs, financing of this renovation by means of bank loans, due to lack of back-up security via land or real estate values and also the unclear costs, will hardly be possible, and thus will be dependent on (seldom to be found) government subsidies.

In addition to these barriers, it is in particular the problems already listed in previous chapters which complicate finding solutions.

Direct overlaps between the topics of the Working Group on construction and that on urban design are probably greater than those of other thematic areas (cp. minutes of these groups). For this reason the following section will outline only the absolute essentials of the Country Reports and apart from these items, please refer to section 2.6.

Besides the probably most severe problem area with respect to more sustainable construction methods and techniques in the former socialist candidate countries - i.e. the large housing estates - the following common issues in the thematic field of construction may be highlighted:

• In the majority of these countries, building regulations correspond to EU standards (as far as new building is concerned, there are - in addition to purely building technology regulations - primarily energy saving requirements, and sometimes also stipulations on indoor air quality, noise protection or insulation and similar).
• In all the countries there are extensive prescriptions concerning listed buildings (monument protection) - and (in endangered countries) for seismic protection. Regulations made by towns and cities are generally speaking confined to questions of monument protection, building heights, design of building facades and so on.
• Implementation and checks on legal requirements are at times highly inadequate, and in many cases are also not part of local authority competences (e.g. in Romania, in Slovakia, Slovenia; cp. section 2.1.3 and chapter 2.4)
• Some countries are now dependent on imports of construction materials in order to comply with legal requirements. There is, as a consequence, in some cases a considerable (commercial and political) lobby against more sustainable building materials.
• Costs of more sustainable building are noticeably higher in all the countries under consideration than of conventional construction, and are therefore regarded as a significant barrier.
• A number of countries have put in place programmes (as a rule of a fiscal nature) directed towards energy saving or with a view towards ecologically more compatible construction materials (e.g. Hungary, Latvia, Romania, Slovenia).
• Although in all these countries building or demolition waste forms a considerable part of the total solid waste volumes, recycling or re-use of building waste, if it is to be found at all, remains an exotic or niche activity within the waste industry. Malta has made plans to strengthen this field in future, however, and in Slovakia too there are positive initial steps due to the procedure of eco-labelling being applied to construction materials.
• Sustainable construction methods and techniques have been implemented in some countries in education and training curricula for (civil) engineers and architects (e.g. in Bulgaria), or are at least present in part, as approaches. In some cases also, however, professional organisations (associations) and NGOs have taken over responsibility for this kind of further or professional education and training (cp. section 2.1.2). As a whole, however, knowledge and know-how is regrettably inadequate.

All environmental and planning-related legislation as encompassed by the Acquis Communautaire has to a major degree been harmonised with EU standards in all the candidate countries (with the exception of Romania). However, differences between these countries and EU member states arise in those areas which are not covered in the acquis and/or regulated by EU legislation, as well as in implementing legislation.

The differences in the problems being faced and in the barriers preventing more sustainable urban development in the candidate countries and in EU member states are in the majority of fields more of a quantitative than of a qualitative nature. It must be admitted that in some cases the sheer size of a problem and the (temporal) dynamics of its development present such a huge hindrance, that in effect the problem itself becomes a barrier.

Against this background, the following differences between EU member states and the majority of the candidate countries may be identified:

• The dynamic nature of the complete system change in the former socialist countries, political changes which were so prevalent in the 1990s, repeated (often only step by step) harmonisation with EU regulations and directives and (traditional) professional training which many urban planners have undergone, as have political decision makers: all these factors have led to an increase in insecurity in local authority actions and have impeded more sustainable urban development.

• In all the countries (and their towns and cities) there is (sometimes with a reference to forthcoming EU membership) a clear political priority ordering of economic development and an increase in (material) standards of living. Objectives in the sustainability agenda are by comparison much further down the line.
• True, a civil society with definite influence on national and on local government actions has come into being, however generally speaking it is surely less clearly delineated than in member states.
• Sustainability is in general terms far more rarely incorporated in professional training curricula for urban planners, architects and (civil) engineers than in most member states.
• Spatial structure in the majority of the towns and cities (mono-functional structuring in many formerly socialist-influenced municipalities, uncontrolled sprawl in Malta) lead to far greater difficulties in implementing more sustainable development when compared to many towns and cities in the member states.
• All of the candidate countries are struggling with decay and decline in (historical) town and city centres, which in some cases has reached such a level as would hardly be encountered in any member state.
• Urban sprawl because of shopping centres and other commercial or business locations and because of (new) housing is continuing in all the countries in question at such a pace and to such an extent, which again is seldom known in any member state, and is often accompanied by the phenomenon of shrinking municipalities (in the existing administrative boundaries).
• (Pre-fabricated) large housing estates are an extremely common feature throughout all former socialist countries (on average, more than 40 % of all inhabitants in major cities live in estates of this kind); because of their dimensions and their (actual and potential) problems (renovation needs, inadequate building technology and insulation, local amenities, absence of social and other types of infrastructure, mono-functionality, social decline) they represent a very particular problem for ten out of the twelve candidate countries.
• Increase in private motorised vehicles has proceeded so rapidly that in some municipalities by now a higher level of motorisation has been reached than in many towns and cities in member states. Contemporaneously, there have been recorded (with only very few exceptions) in some cases quite dramatic decreases in PPT use. In this way the municipalities (with the exception of Malta and Cyprus, where PPT is anyway of marginal importance) are losing one of the very few positive features of improved sustainability policies.
• Overall, a number of problems has developed in towns and cities in the candidate countries at such a pace that developing and applying instruments, methods and tools which might be used in resolving the problems could not possibly keep up with development.

As a result of this list of those we consider to be the most important differences between the candidate countries and EU member states, at the same time the most significant similarities amongst the candidate countries themselves may be determined. In addition, further central areas of congruence or divergence in the candidate countries may be mentioned which are relevant for more sustainable development within the four thematic fields:

• In all the candidate countries, over the past ten to twelve years, local authority independence and self-government have increased. Nevertheless, some countries still have, comparatively speaking, a strongly characterised centralised urban planning and decision making system.
• Urban planning procedures generally take place in a sectoral context. Integrated planning activities are an exception. Frequently there is a lack of long-term planning, particularly of strategic planning.
• Cooperation and correlation between municipalities and the respective surrounding area is an exception rather than a rule in all the fields of action in the four thematic areas.
• Implementation and checking on regulations is in most of the countries considered in need of improvement.
• Innovative instruments and indicators enabling (sustainable) development to be monitored are present in the vast minority of countries. In a number of instances, even application of 'traditional' monitoring and analysis procedures is unsatisfactory.
• Levels of knowledge and information concerning sustainable urban development are often unsatisfactory.