AUSTRIAN SOCIETY FOR ENVIRONMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

Österreichische Post AG · Sponsoring.Post · Benachrichtigungspostamt 1020 Wien · GZ 02Z034088 S ÖGUT-NEWS 3/2004

Shaping the future together ÖGUT-NEWS 1/2007 ÖGUT-NEWS

The Public Participation Manual

In collaboration with: Austrian Society for Environment and Technology

The Public Participation Manual Shaping the future together

Authors

Kerstin Arbter Büro Arbter Martina Handler ÖGUT Elisabeth Purker ÖGUT Georg Tappeiner Austrian Institute for Applied Ecology Rita Trattnigg Lebensministerium

Vienna, March 2007 The Public Participation Manual

Imprint:

ÖGUT-News 01/2007 Publisher and owner of medium: Austrian Society for Environment and Technology (ÖGUT), Hollandstraße 10/46, A-1020 Vienna and Federal Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry, the Environment and Water Supply (Lebensministerium), Stubenbastei 5, A-1010 Vienna

Project coordination (client): Rita Trattnigg, Lebensministerium Project management: Martina Handler, ÖGUT Edited by: Anita Zieher Layout: A BISS Z PRODUCTIONS, 1090 Vienna Cartoons: Klaus Pitter, A-1170 Vienna English translation: Andrew Kilpatrick Printed by: just-print-it, A-4020 Linz Copyright: Federal Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry, the Environment and Water Supply and Austrian Society for Environment and Technology (ÖGUT)

3 The Public Participation Manual

Contents Contents

Participating means helping to shape the future 5

Public participation – what exactly does that mean? 6

How public participation begins 14

How public participation succeeds 18

Case histories from Austria 22 • Case histories from Austria ...... 23 • Inline skater park Am Schöpfwerk,Vienna ...... 23 • Mediation process Natura 2000 Verwall, Montafon ...... 24 • Developing an overall approach for the Möll valley...... 26 • A place worth living in – G.O.A.L., Graz ...... 28 • Citizen jury for Obere Neutorgasse, Graz ...... 30 • Young people’s declaration, Bodensee ...... 32 • Local action plan for employment and education, Munderfing...... 34 • Hartberg regional cluster – developing a local economy...... 36 • Sustainable administration in Kirchdorf an der Krems...... 38 • Mobile communities – Mikronetzwerk Rheintal ...... 40 • Traffic calming in Himmelpfortgrund, Vienna ...... 42 • Open planning process for the 2nd tunnel on the A10 motorway...... 43 • Strategic environmental assessment of Vienna waste management plan ...... 44 • Different origins – shared future, Krems...... 46

Public participation – a vital task in future, too 47

Practical aids 50 • Benefits of public participation – arguments for various groups of stakeholders ...... 50 • Launching participation processes – checklist...... 53 • Preparing participation processes – checklist ...... 54 • Implementing participation processes – checklist ...... 55 • Public relations in participation processes – checklist ...... 56 • Funding participation processes – Where are grants available? ...... 57

Methods 58

Glossary 62

Literature, websites 63

List of authors, acknowledgements 64

4 The Public Participation Manual

Participating means helping to shape the future Introduction

More and more people want a say in shaping their surroundings: their part of town, their community, their region.They want influence on future developments, and thus on their own quality of life. Numerous decision-makers in politics and the administration are increasingly aware of the benefits of exchanging ideas and of working together with citizens concerned.

You may be familiar with one or When a variety of stakeholders more of the following situations: (➔Glossary) – ordinary citizens, lobbyists, entrepreneurs, politicians, ■ As a citizen you have been invit- administrators – participate in a ed to take part in a process of planning process, the number of ideas participation (➔Glossary). Or and the amount of knowledge on maybe you wonder how you can hand increase dramatically. The more seize the initiative and make your people are involved, the more ideas known in projects. perspectives and suggestions are presented and discussed. Compre- ■ Ordinary citizens approach you as hensive solutions that take a wide a politician with their wish to range of interests into account can contribute ideas of their own to a be developed in this way. Involving particular project. Or you would the general public in reaching a like to involve people in your decision can improve both the quality community in a development of the decisions reached and their process. acceptance.

■ As a representative of the This manual shows how you can take administration you are faced an active part in shaping your sur- with the wish – both from politi- roundings and in reaching decisions cians and from ordinary citizens – on issues important to society. to involve those interested in developing and/or implementing a You will learn project. ■ what involving the general public means, ■ As an entrepreneur you want to ■ how processes of participation expand your activities. You aim to can proceed, implement your project with the ■ what framework and what criteria widest acceptance possible, and of quality are essential for success therefore to start a dialogue with and you will get to know the variety stakeholders (➔Glossary). of ways in which the public can par- ticipate, on the basis of selected case ■ As the representative of a histories. common-interest group you aim to make the interests of the people you represent as well known as possible in decision processes.

5 The Public Participation Manual

Public participation – what exactly does that mean?

A new road is being planned, a regional tourism strategy developed, an industrial plant is to be expanded – examples of projects that affect our surroundings are legion. Basics Ordinary citizens, entrepreneurs and or as a lobbyist are coming to be seen lobbyists want to be informed in detail more and more as a desirable supple- before (political) decisions that affect ment to these established forms, to be them are taken. Or they want a say in called for and promoted. developments, an active part in current projects and quite possibly direct Where individuals or citizens’ initia- involvement in decisions. Participation tives participate in a planning process, comprises all this. so as to make their interests as private persons or as a group of private per- Participation is a basic principle of sons known, we call this “citizen democracy. Voting in elections/refer- participation”. The notion of enda, and supporting petitions, are “public participation” refers to established forms of participation. involving various groups of stake- Today opportunities of taking part in holders in a process of participation – planning and development processes in individuals or citizens’ initiatives just as the public sphere as an ordinary citizen much as representatives of lobbies such as environment organizations, youth clubs or professional associa- tions that make the concerns of the citizen participation group they represent known. Lobbyists and common-interest groups are known as “the organized public”. As far as possible any process of citizensccitizens’itizens’ participation should be open to all individualsindividuals initiativesinitiatives stakeholders and everyone interested, i.e. to a wide public. In some cases, though, that is not feasible, because llobbiesobbies the resulting group would be too large common-interestcommon-interest ggroupsroups to function effectively. Then it is up to “the organized public” to represent all stakeholders’ interests. organized public

participation by individuals and citizens’ initiatives + lobbies and common-interest groups = public participation

6 The Public Participation Manual

Fields of application for participation

What fields of application are possible for processes of participation? ➔ section on Which tasks can the public be involved in? case histories The answer: hardly any restrictions apply! p. 22 ff. The list of sectors and case histories from Austria below documents this. Basics

Transport and mobility Participation within Conservation • Mobile communities – multi-com- companies/organizations • Mediation process on using a munity mobility initiative in the • “Sustainable administration” – Natura 2000 zone in the Montafon Rhine valley (➔p. 40) inhouse development process in (➔p. 24) • Open planning process for the the district administration in Kirch- • Participatory process to conserve second tunnel on the A10 dorf an der Krems (➔p. 38) biodiversity in woodland in (Tauern) motorway (➔p. 43) • Mobility management in Austrian Mödling companies (involving the work- • Ozone consensus conference Waste management force) to promote environmentally between the provinces of Vienna, • Strategic environmental assess- acceptable means of transport Lower Austria and Burgenland ment of the Vienna waste manage- ment plan (➔p. 44) Community work Design and use of open • Mediation process for waste • Developing a community concept spaces, parks etc. incineration project at the Leube for integrating migrants in Krems • Workshop for girls on shaping the cement plant in St. Leonhard (➔p. 46) future in connection with arranging • Resolving a conflict between the Odeonpark in Vienna Leopold- Water management skaters and residents at the hous- stadt • Participative development of an ing estate “Am Schöpfwerk” in • Citizen jury on redesigning the overall concept for the Möll valley Vienna (➔p. 23) Neutorgasse in Graz (➔p. 30) (➔p. 26) • “Watermark” – project to return Regional development Renovating housing and the Große Mühl to its natural state • Regional cluster in Hartberg – improving residential developing a regional economy surroundings Energy supply (➔p. 36) • “GOAL – Gesund ohne Auto und • Citizens’ meetings and regular • Regional Agenda 21 in the Lärm” (= healthy without cars and discussions about the Oberzeiring Mühlviertler Alm noise) – improving the surround- wind power project ings of three residential areas in • Participative development of an Political/social development Graz (➔p. 28) energy concept in Güssing • Juveniles’ declaration on sustain- • Focus group on renovating housing able development for the region as part of the program “House of Tourism/leisure around Lake Constance (➔p. 32) the future” • Developing a tourism strategy with • Delphi process to obtain experts’ the people of Hinterstoder views on the future development Community development • Mediation process for a golf- of technology in Austria • Local Agenda 21 in Vienna Alser- course project in Telfs • Neo-socratic dialogue on ethical grund – traffic calming in Himmel- issues of transplanting organs from pfortgrund (➔p. 42) animals to human beings • Local action plan for employment and education – Munderfing (➔p. 34)

➔ See also www.partizipation.at

7 The Public Participation Manual

Putting public participation to work

Processes of participation can take effect at many different levels: Basics Policies and legislation ■ at the highest level, i.e. policy Define goals and general direction of development, (➔Glossary) – where strategies, usually expressed in an abstract way general approaches and overall e.g. Province of Vienna statute on waste management concepts are developed – and legislation (statutes and decrees), Plans and programs Bundle of highly differentiated measures to reach a given goal, ■ in planning activities and expressed in a more concrete way program development, e.g. Vienna waste management plan ■ in concrete projects. Projects Individual measures planned or described in detail e.g. third waste incineration plant in Vienna

Is the mediation process taking place here?

No misunderstandings, please: mediation is quite different from mediTation

8 The Public Participation Manual

Stages of public participation

How far opportunities for and rights of participation extend in a particular process depends on several different factors. Basics

How far the interests of ordinary citizens and/or lobbyists and com- Decision-influencing mon-interest groups can be taken Study group, into account largely depends on the Round Table, type of process involved (formal or Citizen jury, informal ➔p. 10) and on the method environmental selected. Independently of this, Consultation mediation etc. though, the willingness of decision- Public meeting with discussion, makers in politics, the administration opinion survey, and business to accomodate ordinary citizen panel, citizens’ ideas in planning and taking (requests for) comments etc. decisions is crucial. Information Notice-board, Depending on the framework mailing, public meeting to inform, ■ stakeholders and other interested opportunity to inspect official documents etc. parties are informed about the project and its effects, e.g. at a public meeting or where plans are made available for inspection. The ■ it is also possible for stakeholders aim of involving the public and other interested parties to informatively is to make plans have a say in developing and or decisions known and compre- implementing the project in ques- hensible to a wide public – which tion, as in the case of a Round in this case has little opportunity Table or of a mediation process of influencing the decision in ques- (= decision-influencing). tion. How much say those concerned actually have varies, from jointly ■ ordinary citizens and developing suggestions to the lobbyists/representatives of com- citizens participating exercising mon-interest groups can comment extensive powers of decision. on official proposals and contri- bute ideas and suggestions, e.g. in connection with making a zoning plan. The aim of consultative public participation is to obtain stakeholders’ reactions to propos- als, plans or decisions, so that these can be taken into account at the final decision stage.

9 The Public Participation Manual

Formal and informal public participation

In virtually all cases where constructing plants, roads or shopping centres is envisaged, ➔ section on approval is required from the authorities, and the relevant legal regulations lay down who methods is entitled to take part in the procedure. On the other hand, if the aim is to draw up a p. 58 ff. community program or to discuss the opportunities and hazards associated with new Basics technologies, there are no legal requirements applying to the participation process.

Formal processes are mandatory; Informal participation processes legal regulations lay down who takes are not rigidly regulated and can be part, how far rights of participation structured in various ways, depending extend, how the process is structured on the circumstances. They are entire- and what is done with the findings. ly voluntary; the central principle is The most extensive rights in a formal tackling an assignment together. The process go with party status (➔Glos- aim can be to gather information, to sary). As a party to the process you exchange ideas or to find a solution have wide-ranging powers: you are together – and in some cases to imple- entitled to ment it together, too. Who takes part, ■ obtain all the information available how the assignment is tackled and Example (inspect the files), what rules govern the procedure are Formal process ■ make a statement, which must be either determined in advance or initial stage of discussed, agreed by the participants themselves. environmental impact assessment ■ file a petition, e.g. requesting an The methods of informal participation additional expert’s report, are varied and flexible; they include ■ raise objections to decisions or Round Tables, Local Agenda 21 Informal process environmental mediation contest these at a higher adminis- (➔Glossary), mediation processes etc. trative level. How binding the solutions worked out in informal processes are depends on Formal process environmental impact Formal processes include approval what has been agreed about how to assessment restarts procedures such as environmental treat the results. As a rule the results impact assessment or project assess- consist of recommendations and serve ment as regards nature conservation to aid formal bodies such as local for plants or hydraulic engineering councils in reaching their decisions. projects, and planning procedures for Alternatively, a council resolution can zoning plans or regional programs. make results binding. A formal process results in an adminis- Formal and informal processes are trative decision (e.g. by a civil servant) often dovetailed (see diagram). The and/or a political decision (e.g. by a Austrian environmental impact assess- local council). ment act provides for such an audit to be interrupted by informal mediation, on application by the organization behind the project. The result of medi- ation – often made binding in the form of a contract – can be incorporated in the formal approval process when it restarts.

10 The Public Participation Manual

Benefits of and limits to public participation

Participation processes can yield substantial benefits for everyone involved. But they should not be regarded as a way of solving any problem anywhere at any time by magic. Basics

Benefits of public participation As a politician you acquire a clearer ➔ section on picture of the needs of different benefits / Participation processes bring togeth- groups of people from a participation arguments er people with differing interests, process, and you can therefore com- p. 50 ff. views and ideas, who might not oth- municate with ordinary citizens bet- erwise have met. As they express ter. Participation processes make it their various perspectives, needs and easier to accomodate conflicting stock of experience, a common pool interests, and promote a culture of of knowledge about the manifold collaboration and dialogue – in which facets of the project accumulates. people’s interest in politics can Subsequent decisions can take this reawaken, and ordinary citizens can pool of knowledge into account, be encouraged to get more involved which makes them more robust. in politics.

Where all interested parties are Participation processes can well take given the chance to collaborate on a pressure off you as an administra- project that would affect them, they tor, since the project in question has are much more likely to identify with been discussed or worked out the result and to accept it whole- together with the stakeholders – so heartedly. This means that in many you are less likely to be confronted cases the results of a participation with objections and subsequent com- process achieve more general accep- plaints. In addition, participation tance and are more durable; they are processes play an important part in implemented earlier and there is less increasing people’s trust in the likely to be need of subsequent administration. adjustment (i.e. time and money can be saved once again). If conflicts of Dialogue with stakeholders can help interest are tackled within the frame- you as an entrepreneur to defuse work of a participation process, this conflicts with neighbours, or to avoid may well help to avert the threat of such conflicts in the first place. Will- legal action. ingness to discuss things promotes mutual understanding and trust – As an ordinary citizen you benefit which can help to avoid appeals dur- from the chance to present your ing an approval procedure, and thus ideas, views and thoughts about a cut costs. topic or a project. In addition, your information about the project is For you als a lobbyist or a represen- more complete and up to date – and tative of a common-interest group you gain insight into how decisions taking part in a participation process are reached. is a way to make the interests and ideas of the group you represent

11 The Public Participation Manual

Benefits of and limits to public participation

better known and to improve your ■ there is no scope for action, chance of influencing the course of because the main decisions have events. Interaction with other points already been made. of view hones the group’s image, and Basics can make it more capable of negotiat- ■ social diversity and differing degrees ing acceptable compromises in future. of access to participation processes cannot be evened out, if (say) the When people with differing ideas, dif- organizers are unsuccessful in fering job backgrounds and differing involving groups that are hard to experience of life meet up, their views reach or disadvantaged (such as are likely to clash. That is why partici- migrants). pation needs time and a willingness to look hard at other ideas and to engage in discussion and argument. In many cases, though, confrontation between differing points of view is a prerequi- site for deeper insight into the prob- lem in question, leading to new ideas for solutions. So don’t shy away from argument – it can move you closer to a joint solution!

Limits to public participation

Participation processes can contribute significantly to improving the quality and acceptance of decisions on matters of public interest. But they do have limits.

Participation processes have little chance of success if

■ stakeholders are reluctant to take part, because (say) they are afraid of being “pocketed”, their previous experience of participation process- es has put them off, or they believe that they can achieve their aims better in other ways.

■ decision-makers do not support such processes, possibly because politicians and/or administrators are worried about their power to decide being curtailed.

12 The Public Participation Manual

Legal and political framework for public participation

There is a close connection between the aims of establishing public participation more firmly and of promoting sustainable development (➔Glossary) . Basics International agreements such as the The Austrian constitution includes Rio Declaration, the Charter of Aal- provisions for rights of participation, borg or the Aarhus Convention are in particular in the form of direct milestones on the road to sustainable democracy by way of petition, refer- development and to involving the endum and official opinion poll. public in decision-making. In the Which legal regulations apply to a meantime the ideas defined in these participation process depends on the documents have found their way into actual case in question. The best laws and policies (➔Glossary) – both place to start collecting information within Austria and at EU level. is either the administrative depart- ment concerned or (in Austria) the Examples of Austrian statutes that environmental ombudsman in your feature arrangements for public par- province. ticipation include the Gewerbeord- nung (trading regulations), the Wasserrechtsgesetz (statute on water and waterways) or the individ- ual provinces’ statutes on land use.

Milestones on the road to sustainable development and public participation Brundtland Report, 1987 Sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future genera- tions to meet their own needs”. So sustainable development must be aligned with four principles: conserving the environment, economic development, social justice and political participation. UN Conference in Rio de Janeiro, 1992 Resolutions accepting the Rio Declaration and the Agenda 21, the working program for the 21st century: comprehensive involvement of the population in political decison-making is a key prerequisite for sustainable development. A program of action at community level, the Local Agenda 21 (➔Glossary), is drafted. European Conference in Aalborg, 1994 Charter of Aalborg: the signatory states and communities commit themselves to developing long-term plans of action for their communities in tune with the Local Agenda 21, and to involve the population in this on a large scale. Aarhus Convention, 1998 Regulates public access to information about the environment, public participation in certain decisions relevant to the environment, and recourse to courts of law in environmental matters. White Paper on “European Governance”, 2001 Lays down general principles of good governmental and administrative practice, including public involvement in shaping policy and reaching decisions at all levels within the EU (national, local etc.). Austrian Strategy for Sustainable Development, 2002 Defines a comprehensive long-term policy in which ecological, economic and social aspects are integrated. Transparency and public participation are seen as the keys to implementing the Strategy. Aalborg +10 Conference, 2004 Resolution accepting the so-called “Aalborg Commitments”: measures to safeguard the quality of life in and the long-term future of cities and smaller communities in ten thematic fields (including planning, mobility, health and good governance).

13 The Public Participation Manual

How public participation begins

So what concrete steps does it take to launch a participation process?

Anyone can take the initiative here:

■ Ordinary citizens join forces to ■ Local politicians want to work out insist on noise abatement measures an overall approach to developing along the new motorway approach their community long term, in col- road. laboration with ordinary citizens.

■ Environmental organizations launch ■ An entrepreneur plans to expand a a campaign to preserve a protected production facility, and wants to or amenity area. agree a framework for this with the neighbours in advance, so as to ■ Administrators receive instructions ensure that the project is accepted How it works How to draw up a broadly-based regional and to avoid conflicts and delays. transport plan, and ensure assent by the various groups of stakehold- ers.

Monarch

the Ultimate Tyre

VACANT

14 The Public Participation Manual

How public participation begins

Get and spread information ■ As an applicant for project ➔ checklist on approval, a politician or an admin- launching ■ Gather full details of the circum- istrator, communicate information p. 53 stances and less obvious aspects. about the project in question (and Have activities already started? about access to information) What demands, ideas and/or sug- actively to the general public. All gestions are stakeholders putting information should be concrete, forward? What are they con- graphic and easy to understand. It cerned about? Where are the is important to present both the areas of conflict? Research the project’s advantages and its possi- issue in print media and the inter- ble drawbacks in a balanced way – net, and meet up with people this helps to create an atmos- from your community or locality. phere of trust. You can also make enquiries at Citizens’ Guidance Bureaus, the Find out whether the conditions regional environmental ombuds- necessary for a formal participa- it works How man’s office or your local council tion process are fulfilled offices. ■ If a matter of concern or a pro- ■ If you (as a lobbyist or an ordinary ject is brought before the authori- citizen) are looking for allies/sup- ties, they will check whether pub- porters for a campaign, publicize lic participation is mandatory, e.g. the issue – via newspaper articles, in an environmental audit, in public meetings, posters, mailings, strategic environmental assess- flysheets or face-to-face talk. If no ment (➔Glossary), in land use campaign is running on your par- planning or in water management ticular issue, and you intend to planning. launch one, get together with other interested people to define ■ As a lobbyist/representative of a your aims as clearly as possible. common-interest group or an What do you aim to achieve? ordinary citizen, find out when What should the result look like you can intervene and in what at the end of a successful partici- form, and watch out for deadlines. pation process? Imagine your You can enquire about this at goals in vivid, pictorial terms – your local council offices, at the visual images are excellent motiva- authority concerned or at the tors. The important thing is to regional environmental ombuds- concentrate on realistic goals; you man’s office. can distinguish between ones you are committed to reaching and ones where you could conceivably lower your sights.

15 The Public Participation Manual

How public participation begins

Welcome to our brain- storming session How it works How

Weigh up the possible benefits of Develop ideas for the course of an informal participation process the participation process

■ If obligatory forms of participation ■ If you’d like to carry out a more are planned, consider whether they intensive participation process, are adequate for reaching your par- think about what a suitable process ticular goal, or whether a more for your particular issue might look intensive participation process like. might generate better (sustainable) results. ■ Write your ideas down and draft an initial outline; this will make your ■ If no formal public participation is ideas accessible to other people planned, consider the possible ben- who you wish to convince that efits of an informal participation your aims make sense. At this stage process – particularly if the issue is you should also think about what controversial, if you as a politician benefits a participation process can or administrator are seeking new yield for other groups of stakehold- ways of involving ordinary citizens, ers, for politicians or for the admin- or if you want to achieve the istration, and where opportunities widest possible degree of accep- and risks are involved. tance for a given project. On p. 50 (➔section on benefits) you will find arguments that may help you to convince other people.

16 The Public Participation Manual

How public participation begins

■ ■ In the course of planning your Agree on who will take charge of ➔ section on participation process you can also managing/coordinating the partici- funding obtain useful tips and information pation process, and how it will be p. 57 from professional facilitators financed. (➔Glossary). ■ Agree the basic approach to the Identify the possible forms of a participation process with the participation process with other other people involved. stakeholders, politicians and the administration

■ As a lobbyist/representative of a common-interest group or ordi- Gather and spread information nary citizen, get in touch with the politicians or administrators How it works How responsible and find out whether Find out whether the conditions necessary for a they would support a participation formal participation process are fulfilled process in connection with the issue that concerns you. Present your basic approach for a parti- Weigh the possible benefits of an cipation process, and highlight the informal participation process benefits it would provide (➔p. 50). Develop ideas for the sequence of events ■ For lobbyists/representatives of a in the participation process common-interest group and ordi- nary citizens it makes sense to take the stage as a group, so as to Clarify the possible forms of a participation process with show that the idea in question is other stakeholders, politicians and the administration supported by large numbers of people, not just a handful of indi-

viduals. Step by step to a If you have succeeded in con- participation process ■ Discuss the next moves needed vincing other people, prepara- to launch the participation tions can start for carrying the process, and make clear arrange- participation process out. ments about who takes care of what with whom by when.

17 The Public Participation Manual

How public participation succeeds

➔ checklists on In-depth preparation is essential for the participation process to succeed. preparing and This way you achieve favourable conditions for the process to go well, before implementing the first event starts.While the process is being carried out, it is well worth p. 54 ff. checking repeatedly whether the necessary quality criteria are being observed, so that your project stays on course.

Clarify aims and ■ The outcome must not be a fore- assignment gone conclusion, so room to manoeuvre is essential. If decisions ■ It must be clear to everyone have already been taken in some involved what the aim of the partic- areas – if, say, it has been decided ipation process is and what the to build a road, and the process is actual assignment is. To get things concerned only with the details of into focus it helps to spotlight the implementation – these fixed points How it works How initial situation and recent develop- must be identified. For the process ments, e.g.: What is our concern? to succeed, it is important that How did we get involved? Who is everyone involved is aware which affected? issues are to be discussed and which are not (no longer).

pedestrian precinct

ic ff us ns trace

18 The Public Participation Manual

How public participation succeeds

Invite all stakeholders Allow sufficient time to take part and money

■ The participation process should ■ A participation process needs be open to all individuals and time. So that those affected/inter- groups with an interest in or ested can judge whether they affected by the issue. Where a have enough time to take part, it number of people have similar makes sense to draw up a time interests, they can nominate a sin- schedule. You must allow time for gle representative to champion (inter alia) taking part in events or their cause in the participation public meetings, for studying process. Environmental interests documents, for acquiring addition- can be advocated by environmen- al information, for negotiations tal organizations or (in Austria) by and for organizing meetings. The the environmental ombudsmen at time frame should be generous province level. It is important for enough to avoid time pressure, it works How invitations to go out to all groups and include leeway for additional of stakeholders. As far as possible, requirements that may crop up women and men should be unexpectedly. involved in roughly equal num- Get professional help bers. ■ Persons who take part in a parti- cipation process in their spare Any participation process ■ For collaboration within the par- time (free of charge) ought to will benefit from profes- ticipation process to succeed, receive a token of appreciation sional support; ideally, this rules need to be agreed about for their involvement. Apart from is a task for so-called facili- tators (➔Glossary). Their how to treat one another and financial compensation, one might job is to prepare, accom- how to handle information. For consider an award to be made at pany and structure the instance, the arrangement might the party to wind up the process participation process and be that all participants have the with the mayor, other public hon- to evaluate it in retro- same rights and duties, get the ours, outings together, publishing spect. same information, have the same photographs of the participants in opportunities to speak and can the regional newspapers with an influence the result of the process expression of thanks, or price to the same extent. reductions for facilities such as the local swimming-pool, the library, ■ Taking part in participation exhibitions, public transport etc. processes is invariably voluntary! Stakeholders will participate pro- ■ Making sure of the necessary cash ➔ section on vided that they can see benefits in for the participation process is an case histories doing so, and provided that possi- essential prerequisite. What p. 22 ff. ble fears can be dispelled. expenses can arise in a participa- tion process? How high the costs are depends on the method selected, the duration and scale of the project, etc. – each participa-

19 The Public Participation Manual

How public participation succeeds

tion process needs individual cost- Make it clear how much influence ing. The global figures listed for var- the participants have and what ious case histories in this manual will be done with the results will give you some idea of what to expect. If you intend to spend more ■ All those taking part must be aware than very modest sums, we recom- from the start how much influence mend that you obtain quotations they have on the result and who from several possible partners: for takes what decisions in the partici- instance, fees for facilitators and pation process. Are the participants experts’ reports, rent for meeting- simply informed, can they make rooms, the cost of food and drink statements, or do they actually have at meetings, producing and distrib- a say in decisions? uting informatory material, a web- ■ It must also be made clear what will site, possible financial compensation happen to the results of the partici- for persons taking part on a volun- pation process, how binding they How it works How tary basis, etc. are and how they will be incorpo- rated in subsequent formal decision ■ To make sure of the necessary cash structures such as a vote by the ➔ section on for the participation process, you local council. Will the result be funding should approach the organizations passed on to the local council as a p. 57 and groups that mainly benefit from recommendation for a decision, or it. That may be the administration will it be embodied in a private or politicians (e.g. the local council), agreement between stakeholders? or groups of stakeholders, or orga- nizations applying for project Tie the process in with existing approval. It is always wise to look decision procedures for more than one source of money; that ensures that the ■ For most tasks in the public sphere process is independent and credi- formal statutory decision proce- ble, and avoids giving any impres- dures exist, e.g. for an authority sion of “The one who pays the approving industrial plant. Informal piper calls the tune”. participation processes are not regulated in this way, and the results of such processes thus generally count only as recommen- dations. Public support can give the results of a participation process more weight. However, in most cases no legal right exists for the results to be incorporated in the actual decision. That is why it is important for informal participation processes to be tied into the formal decision procedures (➔p.10).

20 The Public Participation Manual

How public participation succeeds

■ It is also necessary to find out ■ Proper documentation of the par- ➔ checklist for how much support is forthcoming ticipation process in the form of public relations from politicians and the adminis- interim reports, minutes of meet- p. 56 tration at any early stage. Ideally ings, photos, etc. makes the the political decision-makers results intelligible even to people should agree to accept the results not involved in the process, and of the participation process and to facilitates argumentation vis-à-vis give reasons for any departures politicians who you want to from these results. A commitment decide to implement the results of of this kind contributes significant- the completed process. ly to the success of the participa- tion process, signalling as it does to those taking part that politi- cians and the administration support the process and take it Clarify aims and assignment seriously. it works How

Make sure that information Invite all stakeholders to take part reaches whoever needs it Allow sufficient time and money ■ To ensure that the participation process proceeds constructively and even-handedly, it is essential Make it clear how much influence the participants to make all the information rele- have and what will be done with the results vant to the process available to everyone involved in time and without a break. Tie the process in with existing decision procedures

■ In many cases people who are not directly involved or cannot take Make sure that information reaches whoever needs it part throughout are keenly inter- ested in the participation process none the less. Public-relations Proper preparation activities enable you to achieve sets the stage for successful transparency and may well result implementation in widening public support for the process.

21 The Public Participation Manual

Case histories from Austria

On the pages that follow you will find various examples documenting the recent participation praxis in Austria.

➔ website A total of 14 case histories are pre- A box at the top of the page lists key www.partizipation.at sented, covering a wide range of appli- data for each process presented; the cations for public participation – from text below describes in brief what led transport and mobility issues via to the process, its aims, how it went regional development all the way to and the results. More details about community work – and illustrating how each case history are available from varied participation processes actually the contacts and websites mentioned; are. Details are given of how participa- www.partizipation.at features full tion processes have been carried out descriptions of the processes (in in Austria, what methods have been German; some are also described in employed and what results have actual- English). ly been achieved. The case histories on the pages that The case histories have been selected follow cannot give more than a glimpse on the basis of criteria such as being of of the variety of participation praxis in current interest, how far implementa- Austria. But the resulting overview of tion has proceeded, how much innova- possible applications and methods tive content they possess and whether should encourage you to make use of they are applicable in other situations. public participation in your special Some examples are taken from fields field, too. in which a wealth of experience with Case histories public participation exists, others from areas in which only a handful of pilot projects have been carried out so far.

The examples chosen also vary as regards how intensive participation was. Some were mainly concerned with information and consultation; others allowed those taking part a considerable say in decisions. And the focus of the participation process varies from case to case, too: some address all aspects of a given planning procedure, others are restricted to differing variants of or to concomitant measures for a project.

22 The Public Participation Manual

Inline skater park

Opening ceremony on 24 July 2003 Am Schöpfwerk Photo: Bassena Location: Vienna Those involved: young people and adults living on the estate Am Schöpfwerk Facilitation and guidance: Stadtteilzentrum Bassena (the local community centre) Cost/funding: 46,000 Euro/City of Vienna and private sponsors Project duration: 01/2003 to 06/2003 Method: structured discussions between conflicting parties Contact: Renate Schnee, manager of Stadtteilzentrum Bassena (the local community centre) T +43 (0)1 667 94 80 E [email protected] Further information: www.bassena.at

Initial cue ty to point out what from the city council, ■ Conflicts between concerned them, that and a meeting with the young people keen on there is a shortage of borough chairperson, sport who inline skate space, on programs the decision was taken around the estate and broadcast on “Radio to convert the space adults living there who Schöpfwerk” (the radio into a proper inline need peace and quiet – station specially for this skating zone without “They’ve actually managed and thus feel bothered estate). delay. The young peo- by the resulting noise In the course of re- ple took part in plan- to get this difficult conflict Case histories search an acoustic test ning the zone. out of the estate – Goal took place in one of permanently.” ■ Jointly developing a the flats affected by Results A local politician solution that allows for noise; the inline skaters ■ The young people the adults’ need of were thus able to ex- were involved in how peace and quiet while perience the noise level the new skating zone giving the youngsters a generated by their was arranged chance to enjoy their sport. Subsequent me- ■ The zone was sport diation led to an agree- opened six months ment that the young after the conflict had Sequence of events people would stop in- become acute. When the conflict be- line skating on the es- tween the people living tate, and that the adults on the estate and the would help them to “I’m bound to recommend young inline skaters be- find an alternative site. this to other young people: came acute, the em- In the end the joint you just have to get ployees at the local search identified a suit- community centre got able site near the es- together and negotiate.We in touch with everyone tate. After inspection really got somewhere!” involved. The young- by youngsters, adults A youngster sters got an opportuni- and administrators

Many thanks to: Renate Schnee, Stadtteilzentrum Bassena 23 The Public Participation Manual

Mediation process Excursion to Silbertal: negotiating Natura 2000 Verwall on the spot Photo: Wolfgang Pfefferkorn

Location: Verwall (in the Montafon region), Vorarlberg Those involved: representatives of farming, forestry, hunting, tourism and conservation interests, the mayors of the four communities affected, representatives of the Bludenz district administration and of the provincial government of Vorarlberg (including the environ- mental ombudswoman) Funding: Vorarlberg provincial administration Facilitation and guidance: Rosinak&Partner, Vienna (a planning consultancy)

Initial cue Goal Sequence of events ■ Acute conflicts ■ Negotiating agree- At the suggestion of between landowners, ments about the future the environmental om- users and the authori- use of the designated budswoman, the ties in the Verwall area conservation zone provincial government after the provincial gov- between landowners, of Vorarlberg decided ernment had designated users, various other to implement a media- it a Natura 2000 zone lobbies and the authori- tion process. To start ■ Areas of conflict ties with, the mediators Case histories tourism, agriculture and held exploratory talks forestry in the zone in and informatory meet- connexion with conser- ings, so as to get a gen- vation issues eral picture of the con- “Step by step an ■ Communication flict situation and to atmosphere of trust was steadily deteriorating settle who should take established between the between the authorities part in the process for participants – making it and other stakeholders the time being. Initially the most im- possible to work together portant aspects were and to reappraise the pooling information and recent past and its legacy reappraising the previ- of resentment.Without the ous course of events. mediation process we After three rounds of would have been unable to negotiations, several meetings of the various implement the Natura study groups (agricul- 2000 zonal management ture, forestry, hunting scheme.” and tourism), excur- Max Albrecht sions and inspections, the participants had

24 The Public Participation Manual

The far end of The negotiating Silbertal in the team meets Verwall Natura Montafon 2000 zone Photo: Katharina Lins Photo: Katharina Lins

Project duration: 01/2001 to 10/2003; meetings of the consultative committee began in 2004 Method: mediation Contact: Max Albrecht, Amt der Vorarlberger Landesregierung (provincial administration of Vorarlberg) T: +43 (0)5574/511-24511 E: [email protected] Further information: www.partizipation.at (file with full details in German/English can be downloaded here)

jointly compiled an 2000 zone. After the Results the various lobbies are overall draft of the participants in the me- ■ Agreement regulat- represented. Since agreements. The core diation forum had dis- ing future use and how 2004 the committee of these agreements cussed this draft in the zone is to be moni- has met once a year to consisted of proposals their separate groups, tored (report on the discuss all matters of for harmonizing the the process concluded state of the zone and importance involving various forms of use in with an agreement. on implementation of the Natura 2000 zone, Verwall with the re- the measures defined, including the agree- quirements of a Natura based on specified indi- ments made. Case histories cators); the decree Structure of the mediation process for Verwall establishing the Natura 2000 zone refers to Client Mediation team provincial administration this 2 persons of Vorarlberg ■ Decree establishing the zone (based on the agreements reached in Negotiating team 33 delegates the mediation process), in force since October Study groups on 2003 Agriculture Forestry Specialists ■ co-opted at need Supplementary Hunting Tourism report listing all the viewpoints and propos- Organizations and lobbies als that no agreement N.B.: Departments within provincial Landowners administration, Agrarbezirksbehörde was reached on during You will find more (“Farming district authority”) Hill-pasture cooperatives the process. about the issue of Environmental ombudsman and BirdLife Owners of woodland ■ Establishment of a participation in connex-

Game management consultative committee ion with conserving District administration association heads (hunting) in which the authorities biological diversity and Mayors Tourism association concerned, those utilizing it sustainably at Source: Hiess/Pfefferkorn directly affected and www.biodiv.at/chm

Many thanks to: Wolfgang Pfefferkorn and Helmut Hiess, Rosinak&Partner; Max Albrecht, provincial administration of Vorarlberg 25 The Public Participation Manual

Discussing on the Developing an overall concept spot how best to regenerate the river Möll for the Möll valley Photo: Institute of Hydrobiology and Aquatic Ecosystem Management

Location: the Möll valley, Kärtnen Those involved: residents of the Möll valley, NGOs, other stakehold- ers (e.g. Nationalpark Hohe Tauern, electricity suppliers), representatives of local councils, the province and the federal government, a multi-dis- ciplinary research team covering hydrobiology, landscape planning, agriculture etc. Facilitation and guidance: University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Insti- tute of Hydrobiology and Aquatic Ecosystem Management, Austrian Institute for Sustainable Develop- ment

Starting-point Sequence of events Directive’s requirement ■ Research project The central element in of “good ecological “Types of river land- this research project status”. The current scape in Austria – over- was compiling a ecological status of the all concepts to develop- specialized scientific Möll and the ways in ing river landscapes approach/model with which the river was sustainably”. which to achieve a being used were good ecological status surveyed. Goal of the river Möll. The Case histories ■ Experts were to research project was ■ Discussion about compile a specialized supplemented by four the future approach/model with participatory elements. Meanwhile a discussion targets and measures about the future took for the Möll river land- ■ 1st Möll valley place, at which interest- “The best overall concept is scape, complying with workshop ed residents developed worthless – unless the Water Framework Public participation a participatory model st developed and backed by Directive and taking started with the 1 for the entire Möll ecological, social and Mölltal workshop to valley, featuring targets the people living in the economic aspects into inform stakeholders in and measures to be region.” account to the same administration, in the taken in the areas “Life- A participant extent; parallel to this, relevant fields of praxis line Möll”, natural and the general public was and the region in ques- man-made environ- to be kept informed tion about the content ment, agriculture and and ordinary citizens and aims of the re- forestry, society and were to work out a search project. The culture, business and participatory model for research team then tourism. the entire Möll valley. defined what the Möll ought to look like in order to meet the Water Framework

Many thanks to: Susanne Muhar, Sabine Preis, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology and Aquatic Ecosystem Management; 26 Josef Kaufmann, council office in Winklern im Mölltal; Angelika Staats, Nationalpark Hohe Tauern Water School The Public Participation Manual

Close-to-nature Student excur- stretch of the sion River Möll Photo: Institute for Hydrobiology and Aquatic Photo: Umweltbüro Ecosystem Management Klagenfurt

Funding: Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture, as part of a research program on man-made environments Project duration: 02/2000 to 06/2004 (research project plus participation process) Methods: workshops, discussion about the future Contact: Wilhelm Pacher, Mayor Obervellach T: +43 (0)4782 3055 E: [email protected] Further information: www.flusslandschaften.at

■ 2nd Möll valley for the actual river sup- quality of the river in Results workshop plements the participa- the light of the scientif- ■ Eight specific re- In the 2nd Möll valley tory model for the en- ic findings, the work- commendations for workshop the participa- tire Möll valley. shops and interviews measures to improve tory model for the The research team also with the stakeholders the Möll’s ecological entire Möll valley, the worked out specific involved. status survey of the current water management As this was purely a ■ Incorporation of status of the river and measures to improve research project, no these recommenda- requirements of the the ecology of the Möll final political decision tions in the river man- Case histories Water Framework (e.g. removing conven- was taken about the agement strategy (the Directive were pre- tional river engineering overall concept for the key planning instrument sented and discussed. measures, more water Möll valley. However, for water management for the Möll from the the recommendations in Austria). ■ Specialized reservoir upstream) were incorporated in approach/model and assessed these as the approach subse- The research team regards sustainability quently developed for then drew up a special- and cost effectiveness. managing the river. The ized approach/model strategy was finalized at for the Möll, designed ■ 3rd Möll valley the end of 2004, and a to achieve the sound workshop start made on imple- ecological status re- In the 3rd Möll valley menting its provisions. quired; it describes the workshop the results By the summer of 2005 typical features of the of this assessment were the project had been watercourse and the discussed with the par- successfully completed. animals and plants that ticipants and the direc- would live there if hu- tion taken was ap- man beings had only a proved. The research very limited impact on team then drew up the river. This special- specific recommenda- ized approach/model tions for improving the

Alfred Strigl, Austrian Institute for Sustainable Development; Gregory Egger, Institute for Ecology and Environmental Planning; 27 The Public Participation Manual

A place worth living in –

G.O.A.L., Graz A LAMA in a discussion

Location: Graz Those involved: residents of three districts in Graz, Local Agenda 21 MAnagers (LAMAs), City of Graz Department of the Environment Cost/funding: approx. 140,000 Euro / 50 % City of Graz, 50 % EU LIFE Facilitation and guidance: ARGE Müllvermeidung, Graz Project duration: 01/2001 to 06/2003 Methods: informatory meetings, opinion polls, animation, study groups

Framework Aims Focus ■ G.O.A.L. – Gesund ■ In the module “A The G.O.A.L. project Ohne Auto und Lärm place worth living in”: contained seven mod- (“Healthy without a car joint development of ules, all concerned with or noise”): campaign to measures to improve various ways of avoid- lower noise and pollu- the quality of life in ing traffic and noise and tion levels by diminish- three districts in Graz, improving the quality of ing motor traffic, and with residents actively life. The module “A “That was the first time to improve physical involved and with sup- place worth living in” Case histories the City ever showed up in wellbeing and fitness port from volunteers involved a new depar- my neighbourhood!” engaged by the council ture: in three residen- tial areas – in the Lend A resident district and on the two estates Laudongasse/ Starhemberggasse and Terrassenhaussiedlung (Terrace-House Estate) “Training as a LAMA is the – Local Agenda start of a continual process MAnagers (LAMAs) of learning, in which we LAMAs get to grips with our field of activity (together with our The LAMAs neighbours), amplify the LAMAs are residents from around the target areas who act as go-betweens between residents, housing estate managements and the city administration. skills required for this and A total of 14 applicants for voluntary work as LAMAs were given free training in structuring discussions, conflict then make fuller use of management, public relations etc., which the City of Graz publicly recognized with a certificate. Further special- ized training was available throughout. Practical work in one’s home area was supported by accompanying coach- them!” ing. At informal meetings the LAMAs had opportunities to pool and reflect on their experience. Lisbeth Postl, a LAMA An official pass – the LAMA Card – identifies the LAMAs as volunteers engaged by the council.

28 The Public Participation Manual

Agenda party Photos: Andrea Grabher

Contact: Peter Gspaltl, Agenda 21 Coordinator, City of Graz Environment Department T: +43 (0)316 872-4303 E: [email protected] Further information: www.goal-graz.at

developed measures housing estate manage- Results aimed at improving ments. ■ Improved relations ■ Improvements were quality of life and In each area a G.O.A.L. between tenants and made to the surround- promoting cooperation, committee was set up, housing estate manage- ings: for instance, together with and for consisting of project ments, e.g. after the an- guidelines were agreed residents, housing es- management, politicians nual accounts for rent for minimizing noise tate managements and and administrators, res- due were made clearer, during flat conversion, the city administration. idents and grassroots or because residents dog loos were installed, initiatives, plus the were consulted about an energy-saving pro- Case histories The LAMAs’ LAMAs. These commit- renovation projects ject was launched and activities tees identified key is- ■ Mediation processes plants were put in place The LAMAs and the sues for each area on were initiated in Lend ■ A “traffic and noise project management in- the basis of the wishes (noise) and St. Peter summit” was held in formed the residents in and problems brought (inline skating) Terrassenhaussiedlung the three areas about forward, while guaran- ■ A skating rink was ■ The G.O.A.L. project the idea behind the teeing reliable imple- initiated, support was module “A place worth project, and organized mentation of the re- forthcoming for the living in” was made a opinion polls and dis- sults. LAMAs and resi- idea of an inline skating permanent element of cussions on the issue of dents then worked out zone in a park (Volks- the City of Graz’ Local quality of life in each ideas for improvements garten), and training Agenda 21 activities area. The main topics and concrete sugges- courses in Hip Hop, ■ A second training that emerged were get- tions in study groups. streetball and football course for LAMAs was ting along with young were organized for conducted people (drugs and noise young people as problem areas), the impact of noise (both from traffic and from neighbours) and friction between tenants and

Many thanks to: Peter Gspaltl, City of Graz Environment Department; Andrea Grabher, ARGE Müllvermeidung 29 The Public Participation Manual

Citizen jury for Hard at work Obere Neutorgasse, Graz in a small group

Location: Graz Those involved: residents, shop- keepers, elected officials, lobbies representing employers and employ- ees, NGOs, ordinary citizens Facilitation and guidance: Forum b – Büro für Beteiligungs- verfahren, Fürstenau, Germany Cost/funding: 40,000 to 50,000 Euro/City of Graz Project duration: 11/2002 to 03/2003 Methoden: citizen jury, informatory meeting, workshop for target groups, Round Table

Starting-point Goal Sequence of events ■ Unanimous vote by ■ Developing propos- The participation the City Council to als for traffic calming in process started with an extend the pedestrian Obere Neutorgasse informatory meeting precinct in Obere aimed at the general Neutorgasse in Graz public to explain what and to conduct a public was meant to happen. participation project Next, residents and beforehand shopkeepers gathered Case histories ideas for traffic calming in Neutorgasse in a workshop for target groups. At a Round Table lobbyists added further suggestions. “For once, public-spirited Meanwhile 65 men and women from Graz citizens were able to were selected at provide a creative impulse in the shaping of the place The sequence of events where they live – a successful switch from PRELIMINARY GETTING CITIZEN FEEDBACK “moaning away in the PHASE TARGET JURIES Discussion of Council decision GROUPS AND • Four juries to results with background” to having an to implement the LOBBYISTS develop a basic lobbyists active say.” participation INVOLVED approach process • Informatory Peter Schmidl, meeting a citizen juror • Workshop for target groups • Round Table

30 The Public Participation Manual

Ideas in course of Inspection on development the spot Photos: forum b

Contact: Kurt Hörmann, Referat für BürgerInnenbeteiligung Graz T: +43 (0)316 872-5602 E: [email protected] Further information: jury report under www.graz.at/cms/beitrag/ 10025242/422020/ www.graz.at/cms/ziel/421934/DE/

random for four study calming in Neutorgasse ers for the City of Results groups, the so-called for one evening and Graz), including the ■ Proposals for traffic citizen juries. Their two full days. They Councillor responsible calming in and a new work began with an received token remu- for the project, who layout for Obere Neu- introduction and a neration for this. brought the results be- torgasse: concensus brainstorming session. The juries’ findings fore the inner council. recommendation incor- Experts from city and were discussed with All the political groups porating some novel transport planning pro- the lobbyists at a on the council accepted ideas vided them with basic Round Table. The facili- the juries’ recommen- ■ Presentation of the Case histories information, which they tator summarized the dations, and budget results in the inner supplemented on the results in the jury re- funds were earmarked council, support from spot in Neutorgasse. port, which representa- accordingly. all political groups on At this point the jurors tives of the four juries the Graz council, worked out approaches then counterchecked. financial provision for which they concretized Next, the jurors pre- implementaion as actual plans. All in all sented their findings to ■ Work began on the they were at work on the politicians con- first measures in solutions for traffic cerned (decision-mak- autumn 2004

JURY REPORT DECISION IMPLEMENTA- • Drafting • Presentation in TION • Feedback from inner council • Information juries • Funds ear- about implemen- • Presentation to marked in budget tation decision-makers • Initial steps taken

Many thanks to: Kurt Hörmann and Petra Gradwohl, Referat für BürgerInnenbeteiligung Graz; Peter Schmidl, a juror 31 The Public Participation Manual

Young people’s declaration, The Declaration is presented to Bodensee (Lake Constanz) politicians in Vorarlberg

Location: Bodensee region (Germany, Liechtenstein, Austria, Switzerland) Those involved: 1200 young people from Baden-Württemberg, Bayern, Vorarlberg and several Swiss cantons Facilitation and guidance: Jugenddornbirn Funding: Bodensee Agenda 21, Office for Future Affairs Vorarlberg State Youth Council Project duration: 08/2002 to 12/2003 Methods: conferences, workshops, project markets, Round Tables, internet forum

Background Sequence of events demands was drawn ■ In 1998 the Interna- The Youth Declaration up. tional Bodensee Con- was prepared in a vari- All in all, more than ference (IBK), a forum ety of settings with 350 young people from for the regions border- schoolchildren and rep- the region made an ing on Bodensee aimed resentatives from youth active contribution to at solving the environ- parliaments, councils drafting the declaration, mental problems in this and other organiza- which was then submit- region, launched the tions. ted to the First Interna- Case histories Bodensee Agenda 21; First of all, a list of tional Youth Summit, in 2003 the focus was topics that particularly discussed in depth by on children, young peo- interest young people the delegates there, ple and their proposals was put together. 18 of made more specific and for a sustainable future these were put to a finally adopted. Right vote in the internet. from the start care was “That was the first time Goal taken that the young ■ that politicians actually Children and young The topics people could formulate people draw up a • Forms of political their ideas and listened to young people Youth Declaration participation demands without adult from Vorarlberg. Now they on developing the • Human rights influence, and that they know about our wishes and Bodensee region • The job market structured their discus- demands, and can take sustainably • Energy and climate sions themselves. account of them in their problems decisions. I reckon they • Water take us seriously.” got the most votes; they were investigated A juvenile participant further (again in the internet), and a cata- logue of specific

32 The Public Participation Manual

Preparing for the Youth Summit

Photos: Office for Future Affairs

Contact: Florian Schiemer T: +43 (0)650 7902065 E: fl[email protected] Further information: www.bodensee-agenda21.net/

Results The First Youth Decla- ■ Sources of energy partments to provide International Youth ration on Sustainable and climate prob- expert assessments and Summit in Development in the lems: shifting more to think over possible Friedrichshafen on Bodensee region is cen- heavy traffic from road ways of implementing 14.11.2003: tred on the following to rail, promoting re- its demands. young people present topics and exemplary search on renewable The young people in and discuss the Youth demands (specific mea- sources of energy, tax- the region continue to Declaration on Sustain- sures are detailed in es imposed primarily have a say in the dis- able Development. the Declaration): on pollutants and harm- cussion process about Case histories More than 1200 young ■ Forms of political ful effects the future of the Bo- people taking part participation: intro- ■ Water: constant densee region the de- adopt the Declaration ducing elements of citizen involvement in mands presented in the and present it to the direct democracy (ref- regional decision Declaration; the inter- Minister for the Envi- erendum, petition), in- processes on water net platform is available ronment and Transport volving representatives use, closer monitoring to them for this, as is in Baden-Württemberg of the younger genera- of industry in the re- assistance at public dis- (representing the politi- tion in decision-making gion, ban on selling wa- cussions or in projects. cians in the Bodensee at council level ter supply systems or In addition, it has been region). ■ Human rights and rights to private firms agreed to continue the social integration: in other countries. process of dialogue be- respect for human tween the young peo- rights around the Young people in Vo- ple concerned and the world, importance of rarlberg adapted the politicians responsible. tolerance and social in- Declaration to the spe- tegration. cial situation there. To In November 2005 ■ Job market: better date several politicians progress with imple- education, “Work must have given the Youth mentation was dis- be rewarding”, aware- Declaration serious cussed at the Second ness-raising and infor- consideration, and in- International Youth mation structed specialized de- Summit.

Many thanks to: Bertram Meusburger and Doris Fink, Office for Future Affairs, State of Vorarlberg; Florian Schiemer, juvenile participant 33 The Public Participation Manual

Local action plan for employment and education

Location: Munderfing, Upper Austria Those involved: entrepreneurs, politicians, administrators, lobbyists, representatives of schools and other educational facilities, ordinary citizens Funding: Province of Upper Austria, European Fund for Regional Development Facilitation and guidance: Institut Retzl GmbH, Community Research & Consulting Linz Project duration: 11/2003 to 12/2004 Methods: future workshops, study groups, public meetings/events, network development etc.

Motives Goal Sequence of events ■ Building on positive ■ The “Local action Politicians, business experience with public plan for employment people, administrators, “During the conference it participation in and education” was in- educators, representa- dawned on us just how Munderfing (a commu- tended to intensify the tives of regional and nity of about 2700 links between business supraregional organiza- much potential is on hand people) in connexion people, politicians, ad- tions and interested in the community and with Local Agenda 21 ministrators, educators, citizens drew up the among the experts taking ■ Promoting long-term lobbies representing “Local action plan for Case histories part. In future one of the economic development employers and employ- employment and educa- most important tasks will in the community and ees, and ordinary citi- tion” together, aimed be to make conscious use keeping it competitive zens on the spot. Key at boosting employ- in the circumstances players at the local and ment locally. Council of these strengths in obtaining (such as regional levels were to officials talked to any collaboration with others.” globalization, structural be involved in intensify- number of people be- Erwin Moser problems in rural ing various forms of co- forehand, to make sure areas) operation, and employ- of getting all the impor- “Without an organized ment and economic tant partners (firms, process it is very hard for growth given new im- the local employment individuals to introduce petus. Special attention exchange, the local was to be paid to chamber of commerce, new ideas and implement “soft” locational factors schools, parents, inter- them successfully. On the affecting the quality of ested citizens etc.) other hand, the process life (environment, child involved in the project. alone has no effect unless care facilities etc.) it is given substance by people – with their ideas, visions and knowledge.” A facilitator

34 The Public Participation Manual

“Local action plan” conference Photos: Munderfing council

Contact: Erwin Moser, Munderfing council chief officer T: +43 (0)7744 62 55 E: erwin.moser@munderfing.ooe.gv.at Further information: www.munderfing.at www.institut-retzl.at

■ Conference for taken shape. A lot of Results • “Cooperation triangle employment and work went into setting ■ Development of the school – firms – par- education up a local network “Local Alliance for Em- ents” aimed at prepar- The “Munderfing Local made up of people will- ployment and Educa- ing young people for Conference for Em- ing to work on imple- tion” (extending be- the job world effective- ployment and Educa- menting the LABB long- yond Munderfing itself: ly tion”, which more than term. coordinated and sup- • “Munderfing business 50 people took part in, ported by the network workshops” (3 times a marked the official start ■ Conferences to management in council year) as a platform for Case histories of the process. The continue administration and by a exchanging information main focus was on find- These conferences network consultative and for networking ing ways of improving should go on taking committee) • Regional training facili- the employment situa- place – and involve in- ■ Munderfing council ties to enable entrepre- tion in the community, creasing numbers of vote to support “Local neurs and employees to in the interests of busi- people. Interested citi- action plan” obtain qualifications ness and the general zens can find out about ■ 7 projects imple- near where they live public. Standards for a the activities of the net- mented autonomously • “House of the long-term communal work, and put forward by more than 50 net- Generations” to create employment and eco- ideas of their own; this work partners: alternative child care nomic policy were laid way widespread sup- • Service point for local facilities in Munderfing down and strategies port for the “Local firms, operated by • “Munderfing rental defined, e.g. to establish action plan” should be Munderfing council agency” to find links between firms and ensured among the • “Boarding pass” net- production sites and schools in Munderfing. general public. work aimed at improv- office space for entre- After the workshop ing access to the local / preneurs. that followed, seven regional job market for specific projects had job seekers

Many thanks to: Erwin Moser, Munderfing council; Matthias Raßbach, Institut Retzl 35 The Public Participation Manual

Hartberg Future workshop in the Hartberg region – “First regional cluster visions, then deeds”

Location: Hartberg region, Styria Those involved: entrepreneurs, residents of the region, representa- tives of the public sector (local councils, district administration etc.), schools and numerous local and regional organizations, associa- tions and clubs Facilitation and guidance: Austrian Institute for Sustainable Development, Vienna (sociological management); Entwicklungs- förderungsverband Bezirk Hartberg, Hartberg; Ökologische Landent- wicklung Steiermark, Hartberg; Wallner & Schauer, Graz/Vienna; Integrierte Ländliche Entwicklung, Hartberg/Graz

Motive other service indus- the board of the ■ Regional cluster as a tries) development promo- pilot project to boost ■ Boosting exports tion association. the regional economy, from the region (slo- with the aim of improv- gan: “Export products ■ Starting events ing the quality of life in and services, not com- The project (sequence the region muters!”) of events planned, con- tent, goals and benefits) Goal Sequence of events was presented and the Case histories ■ Stimulating sustain- Roughly 150 partici- regional cluster able development of pants were active in the launched in a start-up the regional economy future workshop and workshop for the pro- ■ Linking up entrepre- the study groups, with ject team and a start-up neurs from all sectors up to 1400 others in- event. This motivated of the economy in the volved in the process at the participants to do region, people living in some stage. The nucle- their utmost in order the area and represen- us was made up of se- to strengthen the tatives of the public lected project partners region. “Future workshops are a sector who met at regular in- ■ ■ fantastic method of Linking up producers tervals to coordinate Future workshop in the Hartberg region their activities and plan More than 60 people maximizing the (collaboration between concrete measures such invested two full days opportunities for everyone producers and con- as regional cluster fora, in a future workshop at taking part to contribute to sumers) for instance. The pro- which a shared vision and have a say in the ■ Replacing imports ject team, which devel- of how to develop the results.” from outside the region oped the process de- region was worked out with local products sign together, was made and key issues for Ferdinand Zisser (from farmers, up of all project part- achieving the goals manufacturers, the ners, representatives of were identified. tourist sector and the administration, and

36 The Public Participation Manual

Regional cluster forum in Ecopark Hartberg Photos: Entwicklungs- förderungsverband in the Hartberg district

Funding: Federal Ministry of Eco- nomics and Labour, Federal Eco- nomic Chamber, Province of Styria, local councils in the Hartberg region, private sponsors Project duration: 10/2002 – 04/2004: initial setting-up phase Methods: future conference, idea- generating groups, study groups, informatory meetings Contact: Ferdinand Zisser, project coordinator and manager of development promotion association for the Hartberg region T: +43 (0)3332 63914 E: [email protected] Further information: www.regionalcluster.at

■ Regional cluster Results ministrators has been published, an instant fora ■ An overall approach set up, as has a mem- test for wideawake These are the transmis- was agreed for the re- bership scheme, etc.) consumers (“Aktiv- sion belt for ongoing gion and specific goals kunden Schnelltest”) activities. The fora are and measures defined During 2003 a start drawn up and a con- made as attractive as ■ Cooperation be- was made on putting sumer feedback/mark- possible, to ensure that tween firms, local the ideas developed in ing facility set up. local people are drawn councils and consumers the study groups into • Barrier-free Hart- to them. is being promoted practice. berg: steps are being Case histories ■ Projects such as an Concrete examples: taken to eliminate ■ Regional study innovation prize and an • Energy self-suffi- obstacles and barriers groups oratory competition ciency for the Hart- for people with handi- On the basis of the key for young people were berg region: pushing caps in everyday life issues identified at the implemented renewable sources of and employment future conference, ■ Young people and energy in the region to (including removal of various idea-generating schools are being made make it much less de- physical barriers). groups were set up. more aware of the pendent on imported • Sustainability at regional economy energy. school: various activi- ■ Awareness of inno- • A consumers’ plat- ties confront teachers, vation as an issue is form has been pupils and institutions being promoted, and launched: producers responsible for school support provided for and consumers in the upkeep with the issue specific initiatives by region can now com- of sustainability and the entrepreneurs municate with each effects on the region. ■ An institutional other much more structure has taken effectively (e.g. about shape for the regional consumers’ preferences cluster (a committee and similar issues). made up of politicians, A regional shopping entrepreneurs and ad- catalogue has been

Many thanks to: Ferdinand Zisser and Susanne Beyer, Entwicklungsförderungsverband in the Hartberg district; Birgit Neges and Karl Resel, Wallner&Schauer 37 The Public Participation Manual

Sustainable administration The develop- in Kirchdorf/Krems ment concept is presented

Location: administrative district of Kirchdorf an der Krems, Upper Austria Those involved: staff of the district administration Funding: State of Upper Austria – Referat Bildung und Personalentwicklung; Upper Austrian Academy for Environment and Nature Facilitation and guidance: SPES Akademie, Schlierbach Project duration: autumn 2002 to autumn 2004 Methoden: lectures, study groups

Motives Goal Sequence of events ■ Regional Agenda 21 ■ Developing an over- ■ Spreading aware- in the Kirchdorf district all approach for the ness, doing research as a stimulus for the district administration After preliminary dis- district administration with all staff taking part; cussions with decision- to follow on with a the practical relevance makers within the process of internal of sustainable develop- district administration, development ment to daily routine in the pilot project “Sus- ■ Strengthening the over-the-counter deal- tainable administration” Case histories links between the staff ings with the public began with a lecture on of the district adminis- (“What can I personally “People are what tration and their do?”) was a central counts”. The first aim “Working together has customers (the popula- issue. was to spread the real- revealed how we can tion of the district) ization that sustainabili- ty is something that structure our dealings with people – such as the the people in the district staff of the district with a view to sustainability administration – live and in harmony with our and implement. The local identity.The participants were asked touchstone was that the to research the subject new guidelines should on the internet. improve and facilitate our ■ Large study group work processes.” The next step was a Knut Spelitz, head of the large study group to district administration consider issues such as • How can the district administration promote (or hinder) the dis-

38 The Public Participation Manual

The citizen service point is opened Photos: Kirchdorf district administration

Contact: BH Kirchdorf/Krems (district administration) T: +43 (0)7582 685-303 E: [email protected] Further information: www.bh-kirchdorf.ooe.gv.at

trict’s developing to- ■ Working in teams Results ■ Practical example: wards sustainability? After the large study ■ Together the staff the district administra- • Economy – ecology – group, eleven depart- developed an overall tion staff think over the social dimension: mental teams were concept for the Kirch- ways of structuring what are the most im- formed (grouped by dorf district administra- their workflow, and portant goods, funda- areas of responsibility). tion – more than 80 % thus their dealings with mentals and values that Each team defined its of the roughly 100 staff the general public, so we should preserve and primary tasks from the took part in the inter- as to minimize the total guard in our district? point of view of sus- nal process number of journeys Case histories • What can the goal tainable administration ■ Staff enhancement: needed to the district “Sustainable develop- (What takes up the teamwork, holistic administration offices. ment” mean for (say) most time? Where is thinking, expanding the This improves local the departments con- our responsibility ability to organize one’s people’s quality of life, cerned with equipment particularly heavy?) and work, personality contributes to reducing or security? the yardsticks for development etc.; traffic and CO2 emis- • How can I personally success (What results deepening awareness of sions – and the district help to promote sus- show that we are the issue “Sustainable administration staff are tainable development? successful?) Each team development” pleased about the • Where can we collab- specified three to six ■ Developing a new positive echo from the orate more effectively measures with which to “sustainable system of public. across administrative implement sustainability values”: guidelines and boundaries? in the specialized area values oriented to- • Model region as re- in question. At a sub- wards sustainable gards sustainability: sequent meeting these development, to be put which areas should we measures were pre- into practice in daily set an example in? sented. routine What does that mean in economic, ecological and social terms?

Many thanks to: Peter Jungmeier, SPES-Akademie; Knut Spelitz and Karl Schachinger, Kirchdorf an der Krems district administration 39 The Public Participation Manual

Mobile communities – Future Mikro-network Rheintal Workshop in Frastanz (A)

Location: the communities of Frastanz (A), Grabs (CH), Mäder (A), Mauren (FL), Schaan (FL) in the Rhine valley Those involved: ordinary citizens, administrators and politicians Facilitation and guidance: Austrian Institute for Applied Ecolo- gy, Vienna Cost/funding: 285,000 Euro/ 50 % Interreg grant, 50 % local councils Project duration: 08/2002 to 08/2004 Methods: future workshops, study groups, drawing competition, public discussions, opinion surveys, network meetings

Motive Sequence of events ■ Project team ■ Spotlighting the ■ Future Workshops meetings connexions between in the communities For one and a half regional and interre- Each of the five councils years the 14 teams gional traffic problems taking part in the pro- worked on their pro- and drafting proposals ject invited the popula- jects, planned measures for action within the tion to a one-day and implemented them. region Future Workshop, at To ensure an exchange which anyone could of ideas between both Case histories Goal point out problems, the councils involved ■ Developing ecologi- sketch visions and put and the individual cally sound, socially wishes on record. The teams, meetings were acceptable measures to resulting ideas were de- organized for everyone reduce the volume of veloped further in a taking part in the pro- car traffic structured public meet- ject, as well as meetings “Involving several ■ Optimizing commu- ing in the community specially for the team communities and working nal transport manage- concerned, to a point leaders. across frontiers has ment where specific projects ■ ■ definitely proved its worth: Setting up a cross- took shape. 14 project Drawing border network linking teams were formed: competition we discovered that very the communities in- two each in Grabs and In autumn 2003 the similar problems exist volved, to pool experi- Mäder, three each in mayors of the five com- elsewhere, and that ence, search together Frastanz and Schaan, munities in the “Mobile interesting solutions have for new solutions and and four in Mauren, communities” micro- already been generate synergies at with a total of 65 indi- network launched a implemented.” the implementation viduals taking part. drawing competition stage These teams put in aimed at inducing chil- One of the five mayors more than 3000 hours’ dren and young people voluntary work on their to have a go at the respective projects. “tough nuts” in traffic.

40 The Public Participation Manual

Sketch for a proposal to install traffic lights to meter traffic flow in Future Schaanwald, produced Workshop in by participants in the Schaan (FL) Future Workshop in Photos:Austrian Institute Mauren (FL) for Applied Ecology

Contact: Rainer Siegele, mayor of Mäder T: +43 (0)5523 5286012 E: [email protected] Further information: www.ecology.at/projekt/

■ List of demands ■ Winding-up event Results ■ Mobility DVD addressed to politi- On 9 July 2004 an in- Examples of measures “Changing over is fun” cians: ternational conference already implemented or as an awareness raiser all 14 project teams was held in Grabs, at in process of imple- in connexion with traf- collaborated on a list of which the project mentation: fic, for firms and demands addressed to teams presented the ■ 30 km/h speed limit schools politicians, to imple- results of their work, throughout built-up ■ A roundabout has ment sustainable trans- and a list of demands, areas been built and the road port systems at region- to politicians at ■ Route for a new layout changed Case histories al level and across bor- community, regional, community bus service ders. The list contains interregional and (feasibility study in demands connected cross-border level. progress) with: soft mobility, road ■ Cycle route to link safety, guidelines for communities (installed) coordinated land use ■ Analysis of hazard and transport planning, points in road network, the alternatives to the plus list of countermea- private car, improve- sures (pedestrian cross- ments to public ings, traffic mirrors, transport, spreading road markings, pave- awareness, networks of ments) paths/routes for walk- ■ Arrangements for ing and cycling. schoolchildren to eat lunch at school, thus avoiding extra journeys ■ Package of measures “Roads as living space”

Many thanks to: Rainer Siegele, Mäder council; Karin Klas, Austrian Institute for Applied Ecology 41 The Public Participation Manual

Traffic calming in Celebrating successful Himmelpfortgrund implementation Photo: Marc Diebäcker Location: Vienna, 9th District (Alsergrund) Those involved: ordinary citizens, representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, administrators and politicians Facilitation and guidance: Lokale Agenda 21 Alsergrund; Martin Forstner, transport consultant Funding: LA 21 Alsergrund Project duration: 09/2003 to 06/2004 Methoden: study group, citizen panel, workshop Contact: Marc Diebäcker, Projektleiter LA 21 T: +43 (0)1 315 78 76 E: [email protected] Further information: www.agenda21.or.at

Backdrop Goal contacted more resi- cussed there. The ■ Considerable growth ■ Reorganizing the dents and (as a first traffic commission then in through traffic in the road network to calm step) collected data on came to a majority Himmelpfortgrund traffic effectively in the the current situation. decision in favour of neighbourhood, with neighbourhood, with With the help of a the solution proposed. more and more car the residents affected transport consultant In June 2004 the new drivers taking detours participating as much as they then worked out arrangement was in- through the area possible. various different possi- stalled provisionally for ■ Residents complain ble ways of reorganiz- six months. After the Case histories about resulting danger Sequence of events ing traffic. The aim was successful test phase it on the roads and about Several residents got in to identify an arrange- has now been made the impact of noise and touch with the LA 21 ment that would go permanent. pollutants. office in Alsergrund, down well in the neigh- hoping for their neigh- bourhood concerned, Results bourhood to be traffic- without shifting the ■ Reversing the direc- calmed. There they problem to adjoining tion of traffic in several were encouraged to areas. The variants one-way streets generate their own so- worked out were pre- effectively eliminated “Ordinary citizens have lution to the problem. sented and discussed in through traffic, and jointly worked out a Some years earlier a a citizen panel; all the led to a noticeable solution for the neighbour- planner engaged by the residents present were reduction in noise and hood that meets with district administration unanimously in favour pollutants in the neigh- general acceptance – had failed to find any of one particular pro- bourhood. something that traffic arrangement (to deal posal, which was later planners and council with the unsatisfactory presented to politicians situation on the roads) from the district traffic employees had regarded as that met with general commission and a rep- impossible some years acceptance. The resentative from the earlier.” residents in question Chamber of Commerce Marc Diebäcker formed a study group, in a workshop and dis-

Many thanks to: Paul Angeli, resident; Martin Forstner, transport consultant; Marc Diebäcker and Sabine Haslinger, Lokale Agenda 21 Alsergrund 42 The Public Participation Manual

Open planning process for the A study group meets in nd Flachau 2 tunnel on the A10 motorway Photo: ÖSAG

Location: Tauern motorway from Hüttau/ Pongau (S) to Seeboden (K) Those involved: representatives of 10 communities, the office of the environmental ombudsman for the province of Salzburg, representatives of the provincial governments of Salzburg and Kärnten, Spirk & Partner, Chartered Engineering Consultants, Salzburg (as the communities’ advisor), the ÖSAG (motorway agency) planning team Facilitation and guidance: no external structuring Funding: ASFINAG Project duration: 08/1999 to 08/2004 Methods: local study groups, regional information fora Contacts: Alexander Walcher, project manag- er and head of planning department, ÖSAG-Vien- na, T: +43 (0)1 53134-14445, E: walcher.alexan- [email protected]; Veronika Pfeifenberger, Verein für ein lebenswertes Zederhaus, T: +43 (0)664 1403062, E: [email protected] Further information: www.partizipation.at

Initial cue affected an opportunity Results ■ Decision to con- to take part in planning ■ Noise abatement struct a second motor- environmental relief measures were worked “For all parties to the way tunnel through measures. During a to- out jointly process a willingness to Tauern and Katschberg. tal of around 60 ses- ■ A joint declaration compromise was essential. sions the participants on implementing envi- The process is ultimately Goal drew up proposals for ronmental relief mea- credible only if the relief ■ Working out envi- relief measures and dis- sures, specifying the measures agreed are ronmental relief mea- cussed the advantages type, scale and location implemented without delay Case histories sures together with the and drawbacks of vari- of the measures agreed, local communities. ous measures. Exhibits was signed by the may- – otherwise we would feel were used to throw ors of almost all the that we had been misused Sequence of events light on complicated is- communities con- to spread optimism among Planning the construc- sues and to make the cerned, the Minister of local people.” tion of a second tunnel associated plans clear. Transport, the Gover- had begun as long ago Regional fora provided nors of the provinces Veronika Pfeifenberger as the 1980s, and was information on the cur- of Salzburg and accompanied by mas- rent state of planning Carinthia, and by sive resistance from the to the local population. representatives of local population right While parallel develop- ASFINAG and ÖSAG During the planning process from the start. The ments (see box) seri- ■ A consultative com- the Austrian statute on envi- Ministry of Transport ously annoyed people mittee responsible for ronmental impact audits was amended; the Ministry of finally gave the green in the communities implementing the decla- Transport then classified the light for implementing concerned, prolonged ration was set up. tunnel project as not requiring the project in 1999. An close collaboration in an audit. The office of the en- open planning process the planning process vironmental ombudsman for was intended to keep gave all those taking the province of Salzburg ap- local people informed part more insight into pealed against this decision to the Supreme Court, but in throughout and to give the conflicting interests vain; so no audit was carried the local councils involved. out.

Many thanks to: Brigitte Peer, office of the environmental ombudsman for Salzburg; Veronika Pfeifenberger, Arbeitskreis für ein lebenswertes Zederhaus; 43 Alexander Walcher, ÖSAG The Public Participation Manual

SEA* of the Vienna

Waste Management Plan Key postulates for the SEA

Location: Vienna Those involved: representatives of the city administration, environmental organizations, external consultants and scientists (20 different depart- ments and organizations in all) Facilitation and guidance: Büro Arbter – Strategic Environmen- tal Assessment Consulting & Research, Vienna Cost/funding: about 330,000 Euro for Waste Management Plan and SEA/ City of Vienna – departments 48 and 22 Project duration: preparation phase 02/1999 to 06/1999; implementation phase 06/1999 to 10/2001 Methode: Strategic Environmental Assessment Round Table

Backdrop Goal ■ Drawing-up the the SEA team reached a ■ Steadily increasing ■ Drawing-up a Vienna waste management broad consensus about volume of waste, capac- waste management plan the best package (in the ity bottlenecks in the plan, taking environ- The SEA team’s first team’s view) for Vien- existing waste treat- mental aspects into job was to define the na’s waste management. ment facilities in Vienna account and with the aims of the Vienna The result, the Vienna ■ Key issue: does relevant lobbies partici- waste management waste management Vienna need additional pating. plan; these included en- plan, was documented waste treatment capaci- vironmental aims such in the environmental Case histories ty, or is it sufficient to Sequence of events as reducing emissions. report and recom- do more in the fields of ■ Preparation Next the current situa- mended to the city prevention and recy- In the preparatory tion was surveyed and council for adoption. cling? phase the organization- the unsolved problems While the plan’s recom- al and financial frame- in Vienna’s waste mendations were not work for the SEA was management were legally binding, the SEA set up, the goal of the discussed. Then the team identified very process defined and the participants worked out strongly with its con- SEA team brought to- possible ways of achiev- tent. “The big plusses were that gether. The SEA for the ing the aims initially de- points of view were listened Vienna waste manage- fined. The alternatives ment plan was a team considered ranged from to and discussed, not just process which the city new waste treatment The sequence of events blithely ignored, that administration, environ- facilities to waste pre- experience was pooled, PRELIMI- PREPARA- mental organizations vention measures; they NARY TORY which meant that one’s and external experts were assessed in terms PHASE PHASE own horizon was widened, collaborated on. All of their impact on the Decision to Planning the carry out an course of the and that people learnt those taking part had environment, the an equal say in produc- economy and society. SEA to produce process with from one another.” a waste man- public parti- ing the Vienna waste After several rounds of agement plan cipation A participant management plan. fine-tuning proposals, for Vienna

44 *) Strategic environmental assessment The Public Participation Manual

SEA team with the overall results in the background Photos: Florian Gerlich

Contact: Sonja Sciri, City of Vienna – department 22 T: +43 (0)1 4000-88313 E: [email protected] Further information: Accompanying scientific study (in German) at www.umweltnet.at/ article/archive/7243 environmental report (in German) at www.wien.gv.at/umweltschutz/pool/ abfall.html experts’ report (in German) at www.wien.at/ma48/sup/index.htm www.partizipation.at

■ Adoption ed, work began on gas plant has been Results The city council adopt- implementing the initial completed successfully. ■ Vienna waste man- ed the Vienna waste recommendations A special monitoring agement plan: catalogue management plan by a (setting up a strategic group is supervising the of measures to prevent clear majority. The rel- planning group on implementation of the waste, to recycle waste evant decision-makers waste prevention, results and monitoring and to treat waste in have welcomed the search for suitable sites the actual effects of the various types of facility. plan’s recommenda- for new waste treat- waste management tions and set about ment facilities). Later an concept on the en- Case histories implementing them. environmental impact vironment. assessment was per- ■ Implementation formed for the new in- After adoption, the cineration plant. The SEA’s results were fact that an SEA had incorporated in the been carried out made statutory waste man- this assessment much agement concept for more straightforward. Vienna. As soon as the The approval proce- SEA had been complet- dure for the new bio-

OPERATIVE PHASE ADOPTION PHASE IMPLEMENTATION • Define aims Adoption of Vienna waste PHASE • Analyse current management plan by the Monitoring implemen- situation city council tation of the various • Develop alternatives measures involved • Analyse effects of these alternatives • Produce environmental report

Many thanks to: Sonja Sciri, City of Vienna, department 22 45 The Public Participation Manual

Different origins – Participants in the course on intercultural shared future education Photo: Maria Zwicklhuber Location: Krems/Donau, NÖ Those involved: residents of Krems, representatives of political parties, of the town council, employers’ and employees’ organizations, social facilities and clubs Funding: Interkulturelles Zentrum Vienna, Institute of Conflict Research Vienna Facilitation and guidance: Interkulturelles Zentrum Wien, Institut für Konfliktforschung Wien Project duration: 12/2002 to 08/2005 Methods: informatory meeting, study groups Contact: Sandra Kern, town council- lor, T: +43 (0)699 12207944, E: [email protected] Further information: www.krems.at

Approach Goal part. A total of around ■ An 18-month course ■ Participation in the ■ Overall approach to 100 people helped to on intercultural educa- EQUAL project social integration, plus develop the overall tion was held “Different origins – package of measures, approach and worked ■ Intercultural get-to- shared future” in order both to be developed out specific proposals gethers took place in to improve intercultur- by people in Krems for areas such as ad- various institutions, for al life in the community (including migrants), ministration, education, natives of Krems and ■ Developing social in- politicians, administra- culture, health and migrants to get to tegration further (work tors and representa- employment in six know these institutions Case histories on this had started in tives of employers’ and study groups with better Krems in the 1990s) employees’ organiza- between ten and 25 ■ Prototype intercul- tions, social facilities members. The output tural parties (one each and clubs from these study for adults and children) groups was merged took place Sequence of events into a single set of prin- ■ A migrants’ liaison The town council voted ciples, which the coun- committee was formed, in favour of taking part cil formally adopted as a link between the in the project “Differ- (with all the groups on town administration ent origins – shared the council in favour). and migrants future”. The first step ■ An intercultural was to analyse the Initial meeting-place was “The lengthy process of current state of play implementation established in the discussion has made me and identify possible ■ An intercultural Lerchenfeld neighbour- much more sensitive in my ways in which migrants specialist was taken on hood perception of cross-cultural in Krems might be dis- for the nursery school ■ Within the regional interaction.” advantaged. At a public sector hospital a network of kick-off meeting the ■ A post specially for interpreters was set up Helma Spannagl-Schmoll, findings were presented social integration was a participant and everyone interest- created in the town ed was invited to take administration

Many thanks to: Maria Zwicklhuber and Azem Olcay, Interkulturelles Zentrum Vienna; Sandra Kern, town councillor; Simone Göls, social integration 46 officer in Krems; Brigitte Halbmayr, Institute of Conflict Research Vienna The Public Participation Manual

Public participation – a vital task in future, too

Public participation will be an important task in the 21st century, too – as the UN Conference resolved in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. A large number of successful participation processes in many different countries (including Austria) are evidence that we are on our way. So that this sustainable approach can continue, it is essential to work for improvements to people’s right to and opportunities to participate in political decision-making.

Public participation is coopera- Encouraging and motivating tion and dialogue people to take part Promoting public participation is a Democratic participation involves as key element in up-to-date thinking many individuals and sectors of the about politics and administration. population as possible having a say in Good governance involves taking how living space and living conditions especial care in future that new are managed. This goes beyond mak- forms of collaboration between ing use of statutory rights, such as politicians, administrators, ordinary voting in elections or signing a peti- citizens, business and NGOs tion, and embraces a wide range of (➔Glossary) take shape. This applies applications (as the examples from all at all levels, from specific projects via over Austria reveal). Participation is plans and programs to the develop- an expression of voluntary civic com- ment of strategy and policy at the mitment. The task of politicians and most general level. administrators is to promote and facilitate participation – as something that reinforces the social fabric and a culture of democracy, and encour- ages the development of a sense of responsibility for the community.

Recognizing and supporting participation Over and above their jobs and daily duties, individuals are active in any number of projects and organiza-

tions: people from all sectors of so- Perspectives ciety, youngsters, senior citizens, women and men, involved in fields “It isn‘t new structures or such as the environment, welfare, health or culture. Public participation, models that make the voluntary work and commitment future come alive, but presuppose interest, motivation and a people – ith their skills, willingness to “get down to it” on ideas and visions.” the part of individuals. At the same Ambros Pree* time, committed individuals need structures that provide purchase for their commitment, and opportunities

*) OÖ. Technologie- und Marketinggesellschaft 47 The Public Participation Manual

Public participation – a vital task in future, too

to shape the future. Settings and meet- Small units and the global ing- points are important where exper- perspective iments are feasible, where democratic Participation starts small-scale – in participation can be tried out and people’s immediate surroundings, in a where a group of people can learn neighbourhood, in the community: together. Specialists to assist, facilitate here the individuals affected can grasp and encourage are needed here as how decisions are reached, and here well. People expect commitment of people can detect what effect their this kind to pay, too, in the sense that own activities have. Direct feedback they share successes and enjoy work- and visible success turn commitment ing together. to the public interest into a source of personal satisfaction. If opportunities From private interests to the to participate at a local or regional public interest level are enhanced, people are more How committed someone is depends likely to want to participate. This acts crucially on his or her personal moti- as a counterweight to the seemingly vation. One learns to understand ineluctable progress of globalization: other people’s standpoints by dis- small units are strengthened, without cussing things with them and in the the overall perspective being lost. Even give and take of debate. Individual quite small initiatives can achieve a lot, demands and special interests can be just as decisions each of us takes every merged into a harmonious whole of day can and do have effects beyond service to everyone – yielding surplus our own community. value that may have been unimaginable previously. And this process can give birth to a network of personal rela- tionships that permanently reinforce the social fabric of a neighbourhood or a community, too. Perspectives

48 The Public Participation Manual

Public participation – a vital task in future, too

From “administering” to them. That works only if participa- “sharing in decisions“ tion is not just tolerated as window- The goal is to construct a mutually dressing, and if a climate of trust and supportive partnership in which support develops. The political politicians, administrators, ordinary process should be structured – in a “Many little people doing citizens and lobbyists from business dialogue with all those affected and NGOs collaborate and everyone and/or interested – so that projects many little things in many benefits. For this we need administra- worked out together are implement- little places can cahange tors with a new attitude toward the ed, and then do in fact improve the the face of the world.” general public: “We are all in this quality of the local environment, of African proverb together” (i.e. on the same level). the economic location and of social What also needs to be clarified: how life. elected bodies such as the local council and the general public should collaborate. In no circumstances are the responsibilities of elected representatives watered down: they remain the decisionmakers and responsible for imple- menting their decisions together with everyone taking part. Rather, participation is a way of improving both the quality of decisions and people’s willingness to accept

Opening Perspectives

49 The Public Participation Manual

Benefits of public participation – Arguments for various groups of stakeholders

Public participation can benefit As a decision-maker in politics everyone involved.They all gain you can benefit further from a from participation processes, participation process, because ... because ... ■ communication and the exchange of ■ exchanging perspectives and tack- information with ordinary citizens ling issues together make it possible and lobbyists are improved; to reconcile diverging interests; ■ you promote a culture of collabora- ■ innovative ideas and new solutions tion and dialogue with ordinary to the problems on hand are born; citizens, lobbyists and common- ■ willingness to engage in dialogue interest groups, thus strengthening and find a consensus improves rela- democracy at the local level; tions with the others taking part; ■ you obtain a clearer picture of the ■ personal relationships can be estab- interests and needs of various seg- lished, facilitating future contacts; ments of the population; ■ from the arguments and perspec- ■ you can reduce the pressure of tives provided by others everyone expectations and the amount of can fill in gaps in their knowledge; backstairs intrigue by openly involv- ■ “multiplied“ knowledge is a better ing the various lobbies in the basis for decisions; process; ■ people’s competence in negotiating ■ you can integrate so-called “fringe is improved for the future; groups“ in the community by means ■ each individual can gain recognition of a participation process; and sympathy, whether as a deci- ■ you can strengthen people’s confi- sion- maker, citizen, applicant for dence in political decision-making; project approval, etc. ■ political decisions have more authority if made on the basis of a participation process; ■ you can improve your image by get- ting closer to ordinary citizens; ■ you can get more of the local peo- ple to identify with their community

Aids to implementation or region (again); ■ individual council responsibilities may even be taken over by active citizens who organize themselves.

50 The Public Participation Manual

Benefits of public participation – Arguments for various groups of stakeholders

As an administrator you benefit As a citizen or member of a from a participation process, citizens’ initiative you benefit because ... from a participation process, because ... ■ subsequent administrative processes can often be completed ■ you can table your own values, sooner (since there are fewer ideas and interests and realize objections and affidavits during the them; process and fewer complaints ■ you can have a direct say in deci- afterwards), so your work is made sions affecting your own quality of easier; life; ■ you learn of doubts and reserva- ■ you have (better) access to rele- tions about a project or plan at an vant information; early stage, and can thus deal with ■ you gain more insight into deci- these actively; sion- making processes and learn ■ you can reduce the pressure of how politics and administration expectations and the amount of work; backstairs intrigue by openly ■ self-organization opens up new involving the various lobbies in the fields of activity and possibilities of process; effective action; ■ you thus promote a culture of ■ you can harvest recognition and cooperation and dialogue with esteem for your commitment and ordinary citizens, lobbyists and your knowledge as an “expert on common-interest groups, which the spot“. strengthens democracy at the local level; ■ you obtain a clearer picture of the interests and needs of various seg- ments of the population; ■ involving those interested and/or affected makes it easier to weigh “It all about achieving goals up and reconcile diverging inter- that one person in isolation ests; Aid to implementation would not have reached.” ■ individual responsibilities may even be taken over by active citi- Fritz Ammer* zens who organize themselves; ■ you can strengthen confidence in what the administration does.

*) SPES Akademie, Upper Austria 51 The Public Participation Manual

Benefits of public participation – Arguments for various groups of stakeholders

As a lobbyist or representative of As an applicant for project a common-interest group you approval you benefit from a benefit from a participation participation process, too, process, because ... because ...

■ you can table your own values, ■ the outcomes of participation ideas and interests and realize processes are usually widely accept- them; ed, so the solutions involved “keep ■ you can give your organization better”; more weight; ■ projects tend to get implemented ■ you gain more insight into decision- sooner, because there are fewer making processes; complaints and court cases after ■ a participation process improves approval has been granted; the chances of tabling interests and ■ thus legal certainty is improved and points of view that do not often entrepreneurial risk is reduced; receive attention; ■ you can obtain more understanding ■ you have (better) access to relevant – e.g. for your firm’s business information; requirements; ■ you can demonstrate both to mem- ■ you can embed your firm more bers of your organization and to solidly in the community/region; the general public that your organi- ■ you can create an atmosphere of zation is competent and acts on its trust as a basis for future collabora- principles; tion, and also strengthen trust in ■ trust can develop as a basis for your firm’s products and services; future collaboration. ■ you can boost the image of your firm. Aids to implementation

52 The Public Participation Manual

✓ Launching participation processs

As early as the launching phase essential steps can be taken to maximize the chance of a given participation process being brought to a successful conclusion.The checklist below will help you to think through the most important aspects.

YES NO Information  Have you utilized all the relevant sources (e.g. council offices, citizens’ guidance bureau, news- I I papers, environmental ombudsman’s office, etc.) to get hold of information about your issue?  Is it clear what activities there have already been in connection with this project/issue I I (e.g. preliminary planning, opinion surveys already carried out, etc.)?  Have other stakeholders and the general public already been informed (e.g. by means of hand- I I bills, newspaper advertisements or similar) above the initiative to set up a participation process, with the idea of finding additional proponents and/or linking up with other such initiatives?

Framework  Is it clear whether public participation is mandatory (e.g. prescribed in the environmental impact I I assessment act, the statutes on land use or water and waterways)?  Have all stakeholders been contacted and informed (specially important in the case of mandatory I I public participation!)?  Have you (as a stakeholder) obtained information about any relevant deadlines from the authorities? I I  Has anyone looked at the possibility of an informal process supplementing and enhancing a I I mandatory participation process?

Approach  Have you put your ideas for a participation process down on paper – possibly with the help of I I professional facilitators?  Have you considered what benefits the participation process may offer other stakeholders, and I I how you can persuade them to take part?  Have you considered what depth of participation (information, consultation, decision-influencing) I I the process should have?  Do you know exactly what you want to achieve with the participation process? I I  Are you aware what opportunities and hazards a participation process involves? I I

From launching to preparation  Have you contacted the politicians responsible and informed them about your ideas for I I participation? Aid to implementation  Do you know what the next steps are to get the participation process started, and have you I I informed the other stakeholders about these steps?  Is it clear who will take on which assignment in preparing and implementing the participation I I process?  Is it clear how the process will be funded, or (at the very least) have commitments to provide I I funds been made?  Have all the important groups of stakeholders (e.g. politicians, administrators, ordinary citizens, I I lobbyists, applicants for project approval) agreed to take part in the process or to support it?

53 The Public Participation Manual

✓ Preparing participation processes

The quality of a participation process largely depends on how well it is prepared as regards content and organization.The checklist below will help you to think through aspects important for a successful process.

Aims and assignment I C DI *) I Are the aims of and the assignment in the participation process clear to everyone involved? xxx I Is the outcome of the process open, so that sufficient scope for navigation exists? xx Participants I Have all the potentially interested individuals received enough information about the content of and procedure xxx during the process, so that they can decide whether to participate? I Are all the relevant segments of the population and lobbies represented (possibly by nominees) in balanced xx proportions (e.g. women/men, parents, young people etc.)? I Have attempts been made to inform relatively hard-to-reach groups about the participation process and to arouse xxx their interest in it? Results I Do all those taking part know about the ways in which they can act and exert influence? xxx I Is it clear who is entitled to take which decisions during and after the process? xxx I Do all those taking part know what will be done with the results of the process, and to what extent they will be xxx binding? I Is support from politicians and administrators certain, and have these committed themselves to adopting the xxx results of the participation process / giving reasons for deviating from the results? Time + money I Is an adequate timescale planned for the participation process (including a safety margin)? xxx I Does a precise plan/timetable for the sequence of events during the participation process exist? xxx I Has the amount of time to be invested by all those taking part (particularly by unpaid participants) been xx estimated, and have all those taking part been informed of the amount? I Are the participants to receive token remuneration / has thought been given to the issue of how to express xx appreciation for unpaid work (e.g. by means of public acknowledgement, letters of gratitude, discounts on communal services etc.)? I Has the overall expense for the entire participation process (including a safety margin), e.g. for facilitation, xxx disseminating information, assessments by experts etc., been calculated and funding ensured? I Will details of the sums needed, and of what they are to be spent on, be published? x I Do all those taking part know who is/are providing funds, in what way and on what scale? x Structuring the process I Has a competent, impartial facilitator been entrusted with steering the participation process? xxx I Have preliminary talks been conducted with groups and individuals about their perspective on the participation (x) x Aids to implementation process and their role in it, and about the benefits from and limits of the process? I Is the layout of the process adapted to the specific issue involved and to the resources on hand (time and xxx money)? I Are the interfaces between formal and informal participation processes defined, e.g. where an environmental xxx audit is interrupted for a mediation process? Organization I Is it clear who is responsible for the various organizational tasks? xxx I Are suitable premises and the necessary equipment (flipchart, overhead projector, microphone etc.) available for xxx meetings? *) Legend: see p. 55

➔ 54 Basis: worksheet no. 1 from ÖGUT Strategy Group on Participation www.partizipation.at The Public Participation Manual

✓ Implementing participation processes

What aspects need consideration in connection with implementing participation processes largely depends on which method is selected, how the process is designed and whether a competent facilitator steers the process and takes care of quality assurance. At any rate you should bear the following points in mind during the process:

IC DI*) Participants I Are the roles of all those taking part clear (e.g. who represents which group and with what powers)? xxx I Is it ensured that the same people will take part throughout? If not, is it ensured that subsequent x newcomers will be integrated properly?

Rules I Are there clear agreements about the sequence of events, about the participants’ rights and obliga- x tions and about how decisions are reached (e.g. consensus versus majority voting)? I Have the facilitator and the participants agreed rules for how they deal with each other and about x communicating with the outside world? I Can all the participants express their point of view and take part in discussions? xx I Is care taken to keep to the plan/timetable for the sequence of events? x

Information I Do the participants get all the information relevant to the process in easily digestible form and in xxx good time? I Is external expertise obtained as the need arises, so that decisions can be taken on a solid knowledge xxx base? I Is the general public kept informed about the process and its progress, and is the flow of information (x) (x) x agreed with the other participants? (See also checklist on public relations, p. 56) I Is the process documented intelligibly for outsiders (minutes of meetings, interim reports etc.)? xxx

Results I Have all the participants agreed to present the results as a collective achievement? x I Are structures established to make it possible to watch over and understand how the results are x implemented? Aid to implementation

*) The crosses in these columns show which aspects are particularly important for I informatory public participation C consultative public participation (standpoints are presented) DI public participation leading to decission-influencing (cf. Stages of public participation, p. 9) (x) = applies to long-term process-oriened forms of participation, but not to single events

➔ Basis: worksheet no. 1 from ÖGUT Strategy Group on Participation www.partizipation.at 55 The Public Participation Manual

✓ Public relations in participation processes

Informing the general public about a participation process at the planning stage is specially important, since those affected/interested learn of the project and of ways to take part in the process. Public-relations activities enable interested citizens to keep track of the process even if they themselves do not participate in it.

YES NO Information and media activities  Is enough money for public-relations activities on hand? I I  Is it clear who is responsible for information and media activities? I I  Is it clear what goal public-relations activities (initial information about the project, getting I I people to participate, ongoing reporting etc.) are intended to achieve, and what forms of information are most suitable for the specific task?  Is it clear which target groups (young people, immigrants etc.) are to be addressed and which I I message is most suitable for this?  Are there ways of delivering information to the population (official circular, newsletter, mailing, I I contributions on TV or on the radio, advertisements in newspapers etc.)?  Are there ways of making information available (public access to plans, exhibition, informatory I I meeting, website, hotline, call-in phone service, advice surgery etc.)?  Can ordinary citizens express their point of view about the project (suggestions box, I I eMail address, hotline, public discussion etc.)? Is it clear what happens to the points of view expressed/questions raised?  Will all suitable media (daily newspapers, local weeklies, specialized periodicals, club media, I I the internet, radio, TV etc.) be utilized to inform the general public?  Are the participants involved in deciding the content and timing of information released to the I I press and the general public?  Have all the participants jointly laid down rules for dealing with the press and the general public I I (answering enquiries, press releases, organizing press conferences etc.)?  Is it clear what information about the participation process is to be treated as confidential and I I what can be passed on to the press and the general public?  Have all the participants agreed not to leak confidential material, and to refrain from ”loner” I I public-relations activities (vis-à-vis both the press and the general public)?  Will journalists be invited to certain events which would benefit from public attention? I I Aids to implementation

56 The Public Participation Manual

Funding participation processes Where are grants available?

Adequate funding is extremely important for any participation process. Normally those interested in the process fund it. If funds are short or funding is uncertain, it may make sense to look around for additional sources of cash, i.e. grants.

■ Local Agenda 21 ■ EU programmes ■ In CEE countries processes Institutions such as the fol- Funding arrangements for e.g. ERDF e.g. EUROPE FOR lowing exist specifically to conducting Local Agenda http://ec.europa.eu/regional_ CITIZENS fund participation process- 21 processes vary from policy/funds/prord/prord_en. http://ec.europa.eu/ es in CEE countries: country to country and htm citizenship/index_en.html may be operative at nation- The European Regional intends to encourage coop- The REC, Regional Envi- al, regional or community Development Fund (ERDF) eration between citizens ronmental Center for level. The best thing to do supports regional develop- and their organisations Central and Eastern is to ask the national co- ment, enhanced competi- from different countries to Europe (Szentendre, Hun- ordination office in your tiveness and territorial bridge the gap between cit- gary) http://www.rec.org/, country for details. cooperation. izens and the EU. Financial conducts awareness-raising instruments promote and training projects, ■ Official partners for e.g. LEADER+ active European citizenship. makes grants to NGO’s common-interest http://www.leader-austria.at, and supports network groups http://ec.europa.eu/ e.g. YOUTH IN activities in CEE countries, Each country has its own agriculture/rur/leaderplus/ ACTION all within the framework of funding strategies for Funding mechanism for http://ec.europa.eu/youth/ its public participation pro- involving a variety of com- developing rural areas as index_en.html gramme. mon-interest groups. You places to live, work and do intends to develop solidari- should therefore contact business in. ty among young people and The Environmental the departments con- to increase their sense of Partnership cerned with your particular e.g. LIFE+ initiative, creativeness http://www.environmental issue at national, regional http://ec.europa.eu/ andentrepreneurial spirit. partnership.org/ or community level. environment/life/news/futureof is a line-up of six institu- life.htm tions in Bulgaria, the Czech promotes environmental Republic, Hungary, Poland, relief and conservation Romania and Slovakia and projects. Funding is avail- is focussed on supporting able primarily for projects public participation aimed at conserving and processes. Amongst other renaturizing habitats. things, it provides technical support and facilitates the transfer of know-how. Aid to implementation This is not an exhaustive list of funding and support mechanisms.You should ask the relevant institutions in your region/country for more information about how to fund your participa- tion process!

57 The Public Participation Manual

Methods

Legend

Stage of public There are numerous methods available for conducting public participation. participation An appropriate method can contribute significantly to Information • conducting participation processes in a structured and efficient way, Consultation Decision-influencing • making them interesting and avoiding monotony, • tracking down new solutions “off the beaten track“. Duration (implementa- tion, without preparation phase!) 1 day to at most 1 week Below you will find an overview of various methods that have proved their several weeks worth. A more detailed description is to be found on www.partizipation.at several months (for instance). To select the most suitable method for your particular Number of participants participation process, consult your facilitator. ☺ up to about 15 persons ☺☺ roughly 15 to 30 persons ☺☺☺ also suitable for large groups of participants

Activating opinion survey Consultation Duration: to Numbers involved ☺☺☺

In an activating opin- Suitable for Sequence of events Participants ion survey ordinary • investigating the interests • Trained interviewers poll interested citizens citizens are asked and needs of people living residents of the area in in a particular area question about their views and • promoting the self-deter- • The survey results are attitudes; at the same mined involvement of evaluated time they are encour- ordinary citizens • Common-interest or aged to stand up for action groups form their interests and to join in working out improvements to the area where they live.

Citizen panel Information, Consultation Duration: Numbers involved ☺☺☺

A citizen panel pro- Suitable for Sequence of events Participants vides a way of inform- • informing the public about • Information about the Interested citizens, lobby- a project or plan at com- project or plan is presented ists, representatives of ing those interested munity level if it is intended to the public common-interest groups, and/or affected about to gather points of view • This is followed by discus- politicians, administra- a project and of dis- and suggestions from ordi- sion (possibly by work in tors, possibly experts cussing the various nary citizens small groups) aspects of the project in public. Methods in common use

58 The Public Participation Manual

Methods

Internet forum Consultation Duration: to Numbers involved ☺☺☺

Internet fora are Suitable for Sequence of events Participants on-line discussion • as an additional channel of • an internet forum on a interested citizens with information and communi- particular issue is set up access to the internet platforms which offer cation for ordinary citizens, • internet users input their ordinary citizens a with no restrictions on views on-line and can com- way of expressing time or place ment on contributions views on and dis- • sounding out public from others cussing a particular opinion on a particular issue with others. issue or project

Consensus conference Consultation, decision-influencing Duration: Numbers involved ☺ to ☺☺☺

In a consensus confer- Suitable for Sequence of events report detailing the consen- ence mixed-composi- • handling explosive issues, • Roughly ten to 30 inter- sus achieved (points of tion groups of select- where interested non- ested citizens are selected view, recommendations); experts are supported by • Those selected familiarize this report is then present- ed citizens work out experts themselves with the issue ed to the decision-makers an answer to a politi- • sounding out public opin- (by means of informatory (politicians) cally or socially con- ion on a particular question material, such as state- troversial question in ments, background reports, Participants direct dialogue with newspaper cuttings etc.) selected citizens, experts, • A three-day conference is politicians, administrators experts. held: the experts involved cover the subject from all angles, the participants question the experts and discuss the issue in depth, before composing a written

Mediation Decision-inîuencing Duration: to Numbers involved ☺ to ☺☺☺

Mediation is a volun- Suitable for Sequence of events – • Implementation: showing tary, clearly structured • in the case of latent or 4 phases: up the diverging interests process in which open conflicts connected • Initiating the process: and needs, gathering miss- with specific planning pro- convincing all the parties to ing information, tracking those involved in a cedures and problems a conflict that mediation down solutions and reach- conflict search for a • to help the parties to a would be helpful, searching ing a decision permanent solution conflict (provided that they for suitable mediators • Final agreement: drawing together and profes- want to resolve the conflict • Preparation: analysing the up a written mediation sional mediators sup- consensually) conflict in one-to-one ses- contract about the results sions, defining exactly who achieved and how they are port them in this. will take part, drawing up a to be implemented working agreement specify- ing procedure, goal, con- Participants tent etc. of the mediation citizens affected, lobbyists, process representatives of common- interest groups, politicians, administrators Mthods in common use

59 The Public Participation Manual

Methods

Open space conference Consultation, decision-influencing Duration: Numbers involved ☺☺☺

At an open space con- Suitable for Sequence of events Participants ference there is a • in cases where a large • the dominant issue is citizens affected, lobbyists, number of participants are presented and interesting representatives of dominant issue or to tackle complex issues questions it raises are common-interest groups, topic, but no specified • as a way of kicking off a collected politicians, administrators speakers or prepared project that is intended to • these questions are tack- study groups. The par- start by gathering ideas led in small groups of con- ticipants themselves from a fair number of stantly changing composi- decide spontaneously people tion; minutes are taken in each group who wants to work • all the minutes taken are on which topics for subsequently published how long.

Citizen jury Decision-influencing Duration: Numbers involved ☺☺ to ☺☺☺

In a citizen jury unor- Suitable for Sequence of events • planning assignments at • around 25 citizens are • they discuss and work ganized citizens select- local and regional level, selected at random and dis- through the various aspects ed at random draw up for developing overall engaged from their routine of the project in small a ”citizens’ assess- concepts obligations (loss of income groups which are repeated- ment” in response to • where it is important that is made up, child-care ly reshuffled a specific question, as many segments of the facilities are organized for • the results obtained are population as possible are parents) written up in the form of a based on their own represented in balanced • all those taking part are ”citizens’ assessment” to be experience and know- proportions informed in detail about presented to the organiza- ledge. In specialized • where stakeholders’ the project; they have tion that has commissioned areas they receive everyday experience and opportunities to talk to the process assistance from experts’ specialized know- stakeholders, specialists, experts. ledge are both needed the authorities etc.; they Participants may inspect the site of the selected citizens, experts project

Round Table Decision-influencing Duration: to Numbers involved ☺☺ to ☺☺☺

At a Round Table Suitable for Sequence of events Participants stakeholders’ repre- • resolving controversial There is no standardized stakeholders’ representa- sentatives discuss issues with people repre- procedure for Round tives, experts, politicians senting conflicting interests Tables. For them to work and administrators a factual issue • where conflicts are properly it is important to democratically and looming up provide an impartial mod- attempt to find a solu- erator, to take minutes of tion acceptable to the discussion and to everyone. ensure that each group of stakeholders is represented by the same number of persons entitled to vote, regardless of its actual (political) strength Methods in common use

60 The Public Participation Manual

Methods

Strategic Environmental Assessment Round Table Decision-influencing Duration: Numbers involved ☺ to ☺☺

This is a special form Suitable for Sequence of events Participants of Strategic Environ- • drawing-up programs and • the goals of the program stakeholders’ representa- strategies that do justice to or strategy are defined tives, experts, politicians mental Assessment the environment • the current situation in the and administrators ( Glossary) in which planning area is described stakeholders are • the scope of investigation actively involved in is defined drawing-up a program • alternative ways of reach- or strategy (e.g. waste ing the goals defined are developed management plan, • the various alternatives transport strategy) are analysed and assessed together with adminis- as regards their environ- trators and external mental impact experts. • the findings are docu- mented in a the environ- mental report

Future Workshop Decision-influencing Duration: Numbers involved ☺ to ☺☺

In a Future Workshop Suitable for Sequence of events – Participants the participants are • where visions are to be 3 phases: Citizens, stakeholders’ developed, e.g. in producing • Criticism phase: analysing representatives, possibly stimulated by an mission statements, develop- the current situation and experts, politicians and atmosphere designed ment scenarios, projects identifying the problems administrators to promote creativity, to shape the future etc. • Fantasy phase: developing so as to develop imag- ideas and suggestions – inative, unconventional these can perfectly well be solutions to current utopian, factual constraints are ignored at this stage problems. • ”Back to reality” phase: investigating how these suggestions can be made capable of implementation and how implementation could function

Future Conference Decision-influencing Duration: Numbers involved ☺☺☺

At a Future Confer- Suitable for Sequence of events Participants ence hand-picked par- • long-term planning proce- • thinking over the past and ordinary citizens, stake- dures and projects at com- current developments holders’ representatives, ticipants representing munity level or in organiza- • sketching blueprints for experts, politicians and all stakeholders work tions the future, reaching a con- administrators out plans of action • questions concerned with sensus on which blueprint and packages for the future to adopt, planning specific future projects; the measures sequence of events is fixed in advance. Mthods in common use

61 The Public Participation Manual

Glossary

Actors / agents Facilitators / Party status Strategic environ- Individuals or represen- moderators In a statutory official mental assessment tatives of institutions Persons qualified by procedure party status (SEA) actively taking part in the their professional train- entitles one to raise Strategic environmental course of events. ing, their practical expe- objections, to inspect assessment is a tool for rience and their impar- official documents, to taking environmental Agenda 21, Local tiality (i.e. they are under put forward one’s point aspects into account in Agenda 21, Regional the same obligations to of view, to appeal etc.; it defining policies, plans Agenda 21 all the stakeholders) to is accorded to citizens and programs, on a level Comprehensive world- organize and steer a par- and legal entities who with social and econom- wide program of action ticipation process. They satisfy the criteria laid ic aspects. In contrast to for sustainable develop- assist the participants in down in the relevant environmental impact ment in the 21st century working out possible provisions (in Austria: assessments, the focus (agenda: Latin for “what solutions, but leave all the provisions of the here is not on individual needs doing“). The key decisions to them. AVG (statute on admin- projects but on resolving issue is striking a balance istrative procedure) and issues of principle in the between economic, NGO of the various material planning field with public social and ecological Non-Governmental statutes, such as that participation. requirements, including Organization. NGOs are governing environmental reducing the discrepan- organizations indepen- impact assessments). Sustainable cies between rich and dent of governments development poor countries. The idea who (in most cases) are Policies Refers to a form of is for ordinary citizens, active in the public inter- Policies are relatively development that meets politicians, administra- est. NGOs work in the long-term strategic deci- the needs of the present tors and entrepreneurs environmental or social sions by a government, generation without com- to work out and imple- field; Greenpeace, parliament or the top promising the ability of ment strategies for Caritas and MSF are level of the administra- future generations to developing their area examples. tion, embodied in state- meet their own needs. sustainably at the local ments of principle, The concept of sustain- or regional level (Local Participants strategies or mission able development or Agenda 21, Regional Persons who take part in statements, such as the sustainability involves Agenda 21). a participation process, Austrian Strategy for both conserving the either as private individ- Sustainable Develop- environment and Environmental uals or as representa- ment, the Austrian Cli- resources long-term and impact assessment tives of groups of stake- mate Strategy or the achieving economic The Austrian environ- holders. National Action Plan for prosperity and social jus- mental impact assess- Employment. tice. ment act (UVP-G) pre- Participation process scribes an environmental Sequence of steps in Stakeholders audit with public partici- which decision-makers All those whose inter- pation for certain types and those interested in / ests may be affected by a of projects which are affected by a plan or project (plan, program, expected to have a con- project collaborate; it policy, legal transaction), siderable impact on the can range from an both individuals and environment. exchange of information groups, e.g. neighbours, all the way to active firms, clubs, politicians,

Glossary involvement in shaping administrators, etc. communal life.

62 The Public Participation Manual

Literature, websites

Literature Communication and sations in International Websites Public Participation in Environmental Cooper- ALEXANDER, Nadja Environmental Decision ation. Legal Basis and www.partizipation.at (2003): Global Trends in Making (Communica- Practical Experience, Basic information, sugges- Mediation, Cologne tion Studies), New York Berlin Systematic analysis of tions for further reading, Focuses on mediation from Communication practices the relationship between details of forthcoming a comparative perspective, of various stakeholders in a the legal basis and the prac- events, worksheets and covers both common law variety of environmental tical influence of NGO’s in case histories of participa- and civil law jurisdictions, decision-making contexts different areas of interna- tion and of participation concentrates on the diver- are explored, aligned by tional environmental coop- processes in Central and sity of legal cultures and case studies. eration; background of Eastern Europe systems on four continents NGO’s, constraints, case and provides a rich analysis ELLIOTT, Janice; studies, options for enhanc- www.wegweiser- of mediation models, stan- HEESTERBEEK, Sara; ing the role of NGO’s. buergergesellschaft.de dards and practices. LUKENSMEYER, Carolyn Practical aids, background J.; SLOCUM, Nikki (2005): PFEFFERKORN, Wolfgang; information, details of BEIERLE, Thomas C.; Participatory Methods GOLOBICˇ, Mojca; ZAUGG forthcoming events, details CAYFORD, Jerry (2002): Toolkit.A practitioner’s STERN, Marc; BUCHECK- of specialized literature, Democracy in Practice: manual. ER, Matthias (2006): New grants and useful organiza- Public Participation in Joint publication of the Forms of Decision Mak- tions in connexion with Environmental Deci- King Baudouin Foundation ing, Vienna–Ljubljana– civic activity sions, Washington, DC and the Flemish Institute Zürich– Schaan Extensive empirical studies for Science and Technology Concerned with theques- www.toolkitparticipa- (data from 239 cases) Assessment (viWTA). tion which new forms of tion.nl examine what to expect Download: decision-making are the Detailed descriptions of from public participation http://www.viwta.be/files/30 most promising with case histories from all over and how participation 890_ToolkitENGdef.pdf regard to sustainable devel- the world, tools for citizen processes can be made opment when it comes to participation, forum for more effective. HERRMAN, Margaret S. negotiating regional plan- discussions, links and (2006): The Blackwell ning demands. brochures associated with CREIGHTON, James L. Handbook of Mediation. local governance (2005): The Public Par- Bridging theory, research, SCHMIDT, Michael; JOAO, ticipation Handbook: and practice. New York Elsa; ALBRECHT, Eike www.resolv.org Making Better Deci- Takes an interdisciplinary (2005): Implementing Public policy dispute reso- sions Through Citizen approach to mediation, Strategic Environmen- lution organization in the Involvement, San Francisco presents different perspec- tal Assessment, US, tools and techniques of Is a toolkit for designing tives of experts in the field, Berlin–Heidelberg consensus building, cases of and facilitating public par- and shows which interven- Handbook describing the environmental and public ticipation in environmental tion techniques might work implementation of SEA in policy issues, links and pro- and public policy decision when, how and why. 18 countries around the ject list making, featuring practical world, with analysis of dif- advice, checklists, work- OBERTHÜR, Sebastian; ferent SEA methodologies, www.communityplan- sheets, and illustrative BUCK, Matthias; MÜLLER, discussion on best practice, ning.net examples. Sebastian; PFAHL, Stefanie; capacity building and the Basic information about TARASOFSKY, Richard G.; future of SEA. local government, methods, DEPOE, Stephen P.; WERKSMAN, Jacob; scenarios, case studies, DELICATH, John W.; PALMER, Alice (2003): checklists, broad range of AEPLI ELSENBEER, Participation of Non- contacts and websites Marie-France (2004): Governmental Organi- Literature and Websites and Literature

63 The Public Participation Manual

List of authors Acknowledgements

Kerstin Arbter Our grateful thanks Expert on strategic environmental especially to everyone in the ÖGUT assessment and participation, facilitator, Strategy Group on Participation, an managing director of Büro Arbter – interdisciplinary group of experts who Technisches Büro für Landschafts- helped us write and structure this planung manual, for their ongoing contributions [email protected] and numerous stimulating ideas: Thomas Alge, Ökobüro Karolina Begusch-Pfefferkorn, Federal Martina Handler Ministry for Science and Research Responsible for the participation issue Dieter Beisteiner, Federal Ministry of Agri- at ÖGUT; political scientist and media- culture, Forestry, Environment and Water tor, in charge of the Public Participa- Management tion Manual project Andrea Binder-Zehetner, Lokale Agenda [email protected] 21 Vienna Jens Dangschat, Vienna University of Technology Oliver Frey, Vienna University of Elisabeth Purker Technology Urban and regional planner; scientific Herbert Greisberger, Austrian Society for assistant on the participation issue at Environment and Technology ÖGUT (until 03/2006) Barbara Hammerl, Joanneum Research [email protected] ForschungsgesmbH Felix Heckl, Environment Agency Austria Peter Iwaniewicz, Lebensministerium Ulrike Kozeluh, Vienna Centre of Urban Knowledge Management and Institutional Georg Tappeiner Learning Responsible for the competence area Fritz Kroiss, Environment Agency Austria stadt.bau.region at Austrian Institute Maria Nicolini, IFF – Klagenfurt for Applied Ecology; development Michael Ornetzeder, Institute of Technolo- planner, mediator and trainer gy Assessment,Austria Academy of Sciences [email protected] Wolfgang Pfefferkorn, Rosinak & Partner Astrid Rössler, mediator Sonja Sciri, City of Vienna

We also thank Rita Trattnigg several people who were involved in Expert on sustainable development and and helped with the making of this man- participation in the Federal Ministry of ual in one way or another: Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Monika Auer, ÖGUT Water Management, political scientist, Margarete Endl, freelance journalist facilitator in participation processes Elisabeth Freytag, Lebensministerium Rita.Trattnigg@ Daniela Ingruber, ÖGUT (until 12/03) lebensministerium.at Inge Schrattenecker, ÖGUT Anita Zieher, PR,Training & Theater

64 Public participation

■ helps people to understand other points of view and promotes a reconciliation of interests.This improves the chance of finding a sustainable solution consensually.

■ promotes the pooling of information and experience among the participants, and makes a network of like-minded people possible.

■ can improve the quality of decisions, since the participants’ knowledge is available.

■ improves the chance of solutions with wide support, i.e. generally accepted solutions.

■ puts decisions on a sounder footing in political terms, and makes it easier for outsiders to understand them subsequently.

■ can save time and money, because delays and expense in connection with objections and court proceedings when the project is being implemented may be avoided.

■ has proved its worth as an instrument for awakening interest in politics and in democratic participation, and to provide settings in which people can learn and practise democracy together.

with generous support from

www.partizipation.at