1. The 2006/2007 Urban Audit data collection
Teodora Brandmuller
Unit D2 - Regional Indicators and Geographical Information
Eurostat

2. Background
Urban Audit - a core task of Eurostat in support of Cohesion Policy initiatives on urban development
Included in the Eurostat Financing Decision 2006
Included in the DG Regio budget for 2006
The budget for the 2006 Urban Audit data collection is still in preparation.

3. Outline The Grant Procedure Timetable
Changes and novelties in the 2006 data collection
Estimations needed !
State of play in the Urban Audit II database

4. Chapter 1
The Grant Procedure

5. Some facts on the grant proposals
20 Member States submitted a proposal by the extended deadline
LU and FR submitted a proposal after the deadline – both were taken on board
IE and MT refused to participate
CZ will participate without a grant
Total eligible cost approx. 1,800,000 EUR 1,000,000 EUR financed by Commission ,000 EUR financed by NSIs

6. The grant procedure Launch call for proposals March
Submit proposals April
Evaluation May-June
Contacts modifications July-Sept
Award of the grant Aug-Oct
Individual commitments Oct
Signing of agreements Oct-Nov
The launch of the call for proposals (ESS) planned for January 2006 was somewhat delayed as a result of various requests for modification. The call for proposals was sent out in March 2006.
Approx s sent and received in the last 6 months on ADMINISTRATIVE matters

7. The grant agreements
The Eurostat standard grant agreements will be used
The agreement has 3 parts
a descriptive part with the special conditions and the standard general conditions,
a technical annex (based on the call for proposals) and
an annex with the budget details
States the eligibility period - exact date or on the date when the contract enters into force
Eurostat signs first - the agreement enters into force on the date when the other party signs

8. The payment provisions
In principle, no pre-financing below € anymore (or below a Community contribution of €)
DE, IT, UK will receive pre-financing
Pre-financing payment automatically upon reception of the signed grant agreement by both parties (no payment request necessary)
No intermediate payments

9. Chapter 2
Timetable

10. Time-frame of the project
Key tasks
Deadline
Starting date of project t
Classify the complete list of variables on the basis of availability and transmit the conclusions to Eurostat
t + 2 months
Compile data (category A and B) and transmit to Eurostat
t + 9 months
Compile data for the Large City Audit and transmit to Eurostat
Transmit maps on the spatial units in the Urban Audit
t + 6 months
Participate in the quality control of variables and indicators
t + 12 months
Write and transmit an operational final report to Eurostat
t + 18 months

11. Overview of project start
2006
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct BE CZ DK DE EE GR ES FR IE IT CY LV LT

12. Overview of project start (2)
2006
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct LU HU MT NL AT PL PT SI SK
FIN SE UK

13. The “Champions” Greece was the first to send data and use e-DAMIS
ES, DK, DE, LU, EE have also sent data
EE, IT, UK have sent classification

14. Urban Audit in Candidate Countries
BG and RO are currently collecting Urban Audit historical data (1991; 1996)
TR finished the Urban Audit II
In BG, HR and RO Urban Audit 2006/2007 will be funded from PHARE 2005 Planned start of the action RO – Jan HR - March BG – July 2007

15. Urban Audit in CH and NO Switzerland
Zürich, Genève, Lausanne and Bern participate in the UA 2006/2007
Work has already started in May 2006
Future plan is to include 5 more cities
Norway
6 Norwegian cities will participate
“Letter of intent” was signed in June 2006

16. Changes and novelties in the 2006/2007 collection
Chapter 3
Changes and novelties in the 2006/2007 collection

17. Increased geographical coverage
63 new UA cities in EU UA cities in EU25
14 UA cities in RO
7 UA cities in BG
5 new UA cities in HR
9 new UA cities in CH
6 new UA cities in NO
26 cities in TR (?) - no funding available yet

20. Large City Audit 222 LCA cities in the EU25
Involves all “non-Urban Audit cities” with more than 100 000 inhabitants in the EU
Data should be supplied for 53 variables at the core city level for the reference years 2001 and 2004
No maps required

22. Changes in the variables
The basic idea was to deviate as little as possible from the concepts used in the 2003/2004 data collection
Why did we need to change the variable list?
improve comparability
Increase data availability
enhance quality
new policy needs

23. Changes in the variables

24. F.A.Q. For new variables data for 2001 and 2004 should be sent
For new spatial units (new cities; revised LUZs; new Kernels; new SCDs) data for 2001 and 2004 should be sent
For DE2005V and DE2006V the concept of EU25 should be used also for 2001!
Data collected centrally will be sent out for comments to NUACs

25. Chapter 4
Estimations needed!

26. Special characteristics of the Urban Audit 2006
Spatial units
sub-city districts - small area
Larger Urban Zone –do not always follow administrative boundaries
Reference year
2004 – no census
Variables
National standards can deviate from the European definition
Estimates are needed!

27. Response rates for sub-city districts in UA 2003/2004

28. Response rates for sub-city districts in UA 2003/2004

29. Response rates Larger Urban Zones in UA 2003/2004

30. Classification of variables for UA 2006/2007 – city level

31. National Urban Audit Coordinator and partner at local level
Knowledge needed
Potential data providers
Authorities, ministries, public service providers
Data available at local and at national level
Registers, surveys
Understanding of the local and national situation
reasons for disparities or similarities between result
National Urban Audit Coordinator and partner at local level

32. State of the play in the Urban Audit II database
Chapter 5
State of the play in the Urban Audit II database

33. Availability for core cities
Taking all variables into account, we have a response rate of 79%, i.e. on average 79% of the cities have a value for a given variable
This ignores Turkey, where the response rate is very low
If we only take into account the variables that will be kept for the 2006 data collection, the response rate increases slightly to 81%

34. Core city availability by country

35. Core city availability by country

36. Thanks for listening