REPORT

The New Dimension of Regional Planning

Class: Sustainable Urban Regeneration A (2010-2011) / Lecturer: Ass. Prof. KATAYAMA Kensuke
Name: Bebio AMARO / Dept. of Architecture
The University of Tokyo

1. Introduction
For the purpose of this report, I would like to discuss one regional planning
initiative that was carried out in my country (Portugal), during the last 16 years. It was
called Programa de Recuperao de Aldeias Histricas de Portugal (PRAHP), and it can be
translated to English as Program for Recovery of Historical Villages in Portugal. It was
carried out in several stages, from 1991 to 2005, rehabilitating a total of 12 villages in the
interior and central area of the country, a territory that borders with Spain (see Maps 1 and
2).
Historical villages are small, extremely old urban nucleuses that already existed
before the establishment of Portugal as an independent country in the year 1147. They are
usually established in high grounds, and were built mostly for defensive purposes (to protect
the local inhabitants, and also to protect the borders of Portugal against attacks from Spain
and other countries). As a result, they contain very valuable examples of medieval military
architecture. However, despite their importance, by the late 20
th
century they were
experiencing several problems: gradual weakening of its productive capacity, an aging
population, and decreasing population (desertification).
As a result of Portugal joining the European Union in 1986, it became eligible for
receiving structural and cohesion funds, in order to promote its development. From then on,
Portugal has established the following structural and cohesion funds programs:

Name of Fund Program Time Period
Pre-QCA 1986-1989
QCA (Communitary Framework for Support) 1989-1993
QCA II 1994-1999
QCA III 2000-2006
QREN (National Strategic Reference Framework) 2007-1013

2. Outline of the Program
The Program for Historical Villages (PRAHP) was initially created in 1991, but
its implementation as a pilot program (for testing purposes) only began in 1994, as a part
of QCA II (known in English as CSF II). Later, during QCA II, another 2 villages were
rehabilitated as part of this program. However, for reasons of brevity, in this report we will
focus only on the QCA II period (which is the most important). The position of PRAHP
within the larger framework of QCA II can be summarized in the following way:
QCA II has 4 Axis of Intervention (each Axis contains several programs):
Axis 1 - Qualifying Human Resources and the Job Sector.
Axis 2 - Reinforce the Factors of Economic Competitiveness
Axis 3 - Promote the Quality of Life and Social Cohesion
Axis 4 - To Strengthen the Regional Economic Basis

Inside Axis 4, there is a Program called Program for Promotion of Regional
Development (PPDR). The main objective of PPDR was to increase the value of the local
potential for development. The way by which it planned to achieve this was:
- To reinforce the mechanisms of cooperation between the Central Administration (the main Government in Lisbon),
the Local Administrations, and local organizations for development.

This last item (local organizations for development), basically means the "civil
society", or in other words, local associations and local organizations, including private
companies. The second main objective of PPDR was to explore the potentials of internal
markets, in order to reduce unemployment in cities and rural areas. Another objective was
to reinforce the local and regional corporate (entrepreneurial) structures, improve the
environment and quality of life, and correct problems that existed inside the current
structures that promoted regional development.
The methods for achieving these objectives were:
1 - To give support to initiatives for local development
2 - to give support to the framework of companies (basically micro and small companies) that exist in interior regions,
and reinforce the services of proximity that these companies provide.
3 - To give support to specific actions that can correct imbalances within the existing structures that generate local
development.

Inside PPDR, 3 sub-programs are included:
1 - Iniciatives of Local Development
2- Regional and Local Incentives
3 - Specific Actions towards Rebalance

Inside this sub-program 1, there are 3 measures:
Measure 1 - Actions for Increasing the value of Traditional Production
Measure 2 - Actions for Economic Development in Rural Nucleuses
Measure 3 - Actions for Rural Development
Measure 4 - Support to Agents and Associations of Local Development

Inside Measure 3 is the Pilot-Program for Rehabilitation of Historical Villages. 10
villages were chosen to be a part of the pilot-program: Almeida, Castelo Mendo, Castelo
Novo, Castelo Rodrigo, Idanha-a-Velha, Linhares da Beira, Marialva, Monsanto, Pido and
Sortelha.
In general terms, PRAHP proposed to minimize the problems facing these villages,
and contribute to the reinforcement of social and economic cohesion in national territory.
Another objective was to restore and preserve the rich architectural and natural patrimony
that exists in these areas, and was rapidly deteriorating. In order to improve the quality of
life of the population, three types of initiatives were planned:

in Portuguese, autarquia) and the Central Administration, including all the
investments of a public nature that are usually designated as public good;
Interventions by private agents, who are essentially associated with obtaining income, and which include
investments that go from recovering houses for touristic purposes (for example, creating touristic housing, if they
cannot apply for other systems), to the constitution or stimulation of small initiatives that can generate employment
(in general, investments below the value of 20 000 contos (in Escudos, 20 000 00$, or in Euros, 99 759. The
escudo was the Portuguese currency before the introduction of the Euro);
populations and other entities, namely the local Councils (autarquias).

During the period 1994-1999, the PRAHP invested mostly in the following aspects:
- Infrastructures: road networks; supply and treatment of water; network and sewage treatment; network and
distribution of natural gas; electric power grid network and burial; installation and burial of cables for TV broadcast.
- Public buildings: interior and exterior recovery of public buildings and monuments; exterior recovery of housing
buildings.
- Creation and improvement of leisure areas;
- Recovery, adaptation and equipping of buildings for touristic purposes;
- Installation of pousadas (hostels);
- Stimulation of the socioeconomic tissue (to improve social and economical conditions in the area);
- Technical studies and projects;
- Promotion and stimulation of tourism;
- Support and stimulation for the activities of local associations.

One of the important aspects of the PRAHP was that it involved the Central
Government, the City Councils (Cmaras Municipais), the Parish Councils (Juntas de
Freguesia), and representatives of the local populations, namely Associations for Local
Development. This program forced all participants to establish an effective communication
framework, with regular discussion meetings and joint reports. This framework has been
maintained (although with many changes), even after the end of PRAHP.
Another important aspect of this regional planning program is that it does not limit
itself to restoring and preserving the physical patrimony, but it also intends to promote the
intangible patrimony. All 10 villages were viewed as part of a network, called the Historical
Villages Path, in which the villages organize and promote their cultural events, trying to
complement each other, thus creating a larger brand image. Finally, the transportation
infrastructure between the villages and the major cities (Lisbon, Porto and Coimbra in
Portugal, and other cities in Spain), was greatly improved, allowing for tourists to visit all of
the villages more easily. This aspect of improving the connection between the villages and
Spain was tackled by a separate program, called Interreg2-A, which was part of a separate
fund framework called Communitary Initiatives (Iniciativas Comunitrias, or IC). This
fund framework was designed to improve the relationship between bordering countries
within the EU, supporting programs which were not included in QCA II. However, the
funding source for both Interreg2-A and PRAHP was the same: FEDER (or, in English,
ERDF - one of the most important structural funds provided by the European Union).

3. Actors in Charge of Regional Planning and Main Instruments
The general management system for PRAHP (and PPDR) during the QCA II period
functioned in the following manner:
- There was a management system based on a computer database called SIDREG. This system had the objective
of managing all the information regarding the FEDER (ERDF) fund, as well as FSE and FEOGA-O funds. This
management system was also composed of a Main Unit of Management, and Sub-Units of Management.
- The Main Unit of Management was called the Unit for National Management of PPDR (UNM). Inside the
Unit for National Management of PPDR, there was a Manager for the PPDR program. The Manager of PPDR
was responsible for the technical, financial and administrative management of the Program. To do this job, he
was supported by a Framework for Technical Support (EAT: Estrutura de Apoio Tecnico) and a number of
Units for Management (or Management Units). After the Unit for National Management had processed the
information regarding all applications, they would send this information every 15 days to the DGDR (Direco
Geral do Desenvolvimento Regional, or General Office for Regional Development). When DGDR received the
information, they integrated this data inside the database for QCA II (SIDREG). .
- The main Sub-unit was a committee called CCR (Committees for Regional Coordination). These committees
were originally created in 1979. There are five main regions in Portugal, and each one had its own CCR office
(each with a slightly different name). For the most part, they were partially independent (autonomous offices)
from the Central Administration Government.
- In the case of the Historical Villages Program, it was the CCR office of the Central Region that handled the
implementation of the Program, which at the time was called CCRC. This office was responsible for receiving
the applications, and contained inside it other sub-units of management.
- These sub-units of management (called UGR, Unidade de Gestao Regional, or Unit for Regional
Development) existed inside the CCR (Committees for Regional Coordination). They were responsible for
giving their technical appraisal for each application.

The basic premise behind the PRAHP program was that besides the rehabilitation
interventions by public offices, private promoters (such as businessmen, investors, or other
individuals) could create a project and apply for funding from the FEDER fund. However,
the promoter had to support 30% of the costs by themselves. The other 70% would be
provided by FEDER (75%) and the Fund for Tourism (25%). The Main and Sub-Units of
Management would evaluate the project, and decide whether it fit the necessary criteria for
funding. The process for approving projects took place in the following way:
1. Promotor - presents an application or several applications to the CCR
2. CCR - analyzes and appreciates the application, and sends it to UGR for a decision
3. UGR - analyzes and makes a decision
4. CCR - sends the application and UGRs decision for the approval of the Unit for National Management
5. UNM - analyzes and approves the application
6. Manager of PPDR - prepares all of the necessary information for the ratification (official recognition) of the
application
7. DGDR - makes the final proposal for ratification of the application
8. Fund for Tourism, in agreement with the Secretary of State for Regional Development - they conduct the
ratification; Secretary of state informs DGDR of the ratification
9. DGDR - informs the Manager of PPDR of the ratification
10. Manager of PPDR - informs the Promotor of the ratification

As we can see, DGDR was the Government agency that officially recognized each project,
which had been approved by the autonomous UNM, and analyzed by the autonomous UGR
inside CCRC.
In terms of how payments were managed, the basic process for approval of payment to a
promoter (or a public entity) was carried out in the following way:
1. Promotor (or Public entity) - makes the request for payment of the applications (by filling an application form,
and showing documents that prove that they have already paid all the necessary expenses of the project).
2. Coordinator of CCRC - making use of the Framework for Technical Support (SAT), they analyze the request,
making sure that it is suitable for receiving the FEDER funds, and sends its favorable opinion to the UGR.
3. UGR sends the money directly to the Public or Private entity
4. Promotor (or Public entity) - receives the money.

Besides this, we can also explain how the FEDER funds were transferred to CCRCs
bank account:
1. Coordinator of CCRC - submits a request for Money Transfer
2. Manager of PPDR - making use of the SAT (Framework for Technical Support), he analyses the request and
submits the request to DGDR
3. DGDR - emits a document called "Order for Payment" to the Direccao Geral do Tesouro (General Office of
Treasury: it is the Government office that manages all the national funds and bank accounts. It is also the
accountant of the public finances, and inspects them to see if the money is being well used), with the knowledge
of the Manager of PPDR
4. Manager of PPDR - receives the notice that the "Order for Payment" has been sent to DG Tesouro, and informs
the Coordinator of CCRC.
5. Coordinator of CCRC - receives the information from the Manager of PPDR, and receives the money from the
DG Tesouro. The money is deposited into the FEDER bank account of CCRC.

As for the inspection process, the main agents were:
1. CCRC - inspects and accompanies the construction works of the projects that were approved. However, they
only inspect the usage of money, not the quality of the construction works. They merely wish to know if the
money is being well used.
2. Fund for Tourism - Has the power to inspect if the Regulation of the PRAHP is being correctly applied.

Having explained in general the function of each of the agents, we will now look in detail
at the composition of each agent:
1. The Manager of the PPDR was also the president of the Unit for National Management (UNM, or in Portuguese,
UGN).
2. The UNM was composed of:
- A representative of the Institute of Agrarian Structures and Rural Development (After 1996, this institute changed
its name, becoming the General Office for Rural Development. In Portuguese, it is called Direccao Geral de
Desenvolvimento Rural. This name should not be confused with Direccao Geral de Desenvolvimento Regional
(the DGDR that this text has mentioned before).
- A representative from the Institute of Employment and Professional Training
- A representative from the DGDR (Direccao Geral de Desenvolvimento Regional)
- A representative from the ministry of Commerce and Tourism
- A representative of the Program for Traditional Arts and Crafts
- Representatives from institutions that might benefit from the PPDR program

As for the Unit for Regional Management, here is the composition (the first 3
people in this list are permanent members of this Unit):
- A representative from CCRC, who was also the President of the Unit for Regional Management (UGR)
- A representative of the Regional Office of Agriculture (each region has its own Office of Agriculture. In this case, it
was the Office of the Center Region of Portugal that was involved in the process)
- A representative of the regional delegation (sub-office) of the Institute of Employment and Professional Training
(also from the Center Region)
- Representatives of regional institutions that might benefit from the PPDR program.

The competences of these 2 Units (National and Regional) were:
- To request approval of their Internal Regulations by the members of the Central Government
- To give their technical appraisal regarding the applications of each project for financing
- To give their technical appraisal regarding the reports of the execution of each project (or intervention)
- To accompany and provide their technical appraisal regarding the system of control and evaluation

During the QCA II period, the Unit of Regional Management had 17 meetings
related to the Historical villages program. In terms of rehabilitation of the built patrimony,
most of the interventions were planned and carried out by IPPAR (now called IGESPAR),
which is the main government institution charged with managing and preserving the
national heritage and patrimony.
They helped to establish the Detail Plans (Planos de Pormenor), which are a
series of maps and reports that analyze in detail a certain area of a city or village which
requires special protection. These documents are legally binding, and provide a framework
for rehabilitating that specific area.
In a larger scale, there is the Municipal Director Plan (PDM), which is the main
instrument for managing a specific territory (a city, a district, or a council) and contains a
series of legislations and directives, as well as Land Use maps, Infrastructure maps, Special
Designated Zone maps, and others. In general, they must be updated every 10 years,
although in practice there are many delays in this process. These 2 documents were the
most important instruments used when preparing and executing the PRAHP in each village.

4. Application of the PRAHP Program
Although it is outside the scope of this report, it is important to present a brief
summary of the physical execution of the PRAHP:
Approximately 72% of the investment funds (19.157.000 Euros) were directed to Touristic / Cultural / Recreational
structures, of which:
- 47% was used for urban rehabilitation, especially for the recovery of buildings and monuments;
- 23% for the rehabilitation of movable and unmovable assets of the cultural patrimony
Road Infrastructures absorbed approximately 12% of the investment (3.193.000 Euros), which includes:
- Construction/Remodeling of Municipal roads and paths (57%)
- Construction/Remodeling of Urban road networks (43%)

5. Significance and Problems associated with regional-scale planning in the case of
PRAHP:

The results of implementation of PRAHP during QCA II were mostly positive (Note 1).
The best results were the improvement of infrastructures, the improvement of tourism, and
a small increase in employment. However, in some points the objectives were not achieved.
In particular, Portuguese economy and industry is not competitive and productive. Portugal
produces much less than other countries and is not sufficiently competitive and
innovative. The management system contained some flaws, which were pointed out on the
QCA III report (Note 2):
The third field of action provided for in the regional operational programmes (Regionally decentralised
central government measures) is clearly one which poses the greatest problems, yet it aims to guarantee, from the
phase of the conception of the programmes, a full adaptation to the diversity of each region and a flexible
programming of measures. No model applicable to all sectors and regions exists. Thus, in some cases, the strategies
and objectives defined for the country as a whole are reproduced at regional level, while in others, measures and
schemes adapted to the specific nature of each region are proposed () As was pointed out in the ex-ante evaluation,
[with] this diversity of situations it became more difficult to determine to what extent overlaps between the national
and regional measures were prevented. This point was dealt with in depth in the negotiations of the CSF and it was
possible to lay down, for each sector considered, the precise criteria regulating the decentralised measure of the
regional programmes in accordance with objectives of a sectoral nature.

Although in this report we do not have the space to talk about the QCA III period, we
can mention that deeper reforms were made, and the level of monitoring was increased.
Several of the agents involved were restructured (by changing names or merging with other
government offices), and the names of the programs also changed, causing great confusion to
those who wish to follow the evolution of the PRAHP during this period. (Note 3)
Despite these challenges, there was a clear need to work on two levels:
- The small scale of a single village
- The large scale of the network that connects that village to the other 10 villages
One clear success was the implementation of immaterial interventions. One of
these initiatives was the publication in the whole country of a book, The Leisure Chart of
the Historical Villages ("Carta de Lazer das Aldeias Histricas") that has the listing and
location of all the possible touristic and cultural agents that exist in the 10 villages,
proposing paths and connections between them, allowing tourists to make the most of the
things that are available in the villages. The book became popular, and new editions had to
be printed in order to meet demand. There is also a yearly schedule of events encompassing
all the villages, which is jointly coordinated so as to avoid conflicts, and a website was
created to promote the brand (Note 4). Finally, the biggest challenge of the PRAHP was to
establish partnerships between sectors (commerce, industry, etc), local governments and
central government. For the most part, these partnerships became deeper and more durable
after the conclusion of the PRAHP program.



Maps 1 and 2: Location of the
Historical Villages within
Portugal.
Bibliography

European Commission. EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies: Portugal, Luxembourg : Office
for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1997.

Ministerial Dispatch number 319/2003 of January 9. Dirio da Repblica number 7/2003 - II Srie. Ministry of Cities,
Territory and Environment Management.

v.v.a.a. Programa de Recuperao de Aldeias Histricas de Portugal : Aco Piloto de Promoo do Potencial de
Desenvolvimento Regional, in Cidades & Municpios, Number 86, April 2000. Odivelas : I.M.M.L.Figueiredo

Notes

Note 1: For a general evaluation of the QCA II period, please consult the following document (written in Portuguese):
Direco-Geral do Desenvolvimento Regional. QCA II - Relatrio Final 1994-1999 Programa Operacional do
Potencial de Desenvolvimento Regional, Direco Geral do Desenvolvimento Regional, Lisbon, May 2002. The
PDF file can be accessed at: http://www.qca.pt/acessivel/n_qca/pdf/PPDR_Feder.pdf

Note 2: Although these evaluation reports are not exclusively dedicated to the PRAHP program, please see pages 146
to 151 of the following document: Direco-Geral do Desenvolvimento Regional. Community Support Framework:
Portugal 2000-2006, Direco Geral do Desenvolvimento Regional, Lisbon, 2000. The PDF file is accessible at
http://www.qca.pt/english/n_qca/pdf/qca3_en.pdf. Other mid-term evaluations and corrections of the QCA III
program can be consulted here: http://www.qca.pt/english/n_qca/avaliacao.asp.

Note 3: A detailed analysis of the full PRAHP program (QCA II and III period) was carried out by Yuko Inoue, in her
Master Thesis at Kyushu University, for whom I contributed several translated texts. Please consult the following
reference:
. For more information, please consult the following link:
http://planning.arch.kyushu-u.ac.jp/labo2/index.html.

Note 4: This website can be accessed at: http://www.aldeiashistoricasdeportugal.com/ (English language version is
available).