Civic Engagement and Public Space: What is it and Who is responsible? For the purposes of this paper, civic engagement is understood to be the attempts by individuals or groups to infuence policy-makers and decision-makers involved in public places – public space, the public realm and the urban design and masterplanning of those areas. Dr Henry Tam1 has emphasised a distinction between the two current interpretations of the phrase: “the term civic engagement is often used to refer to two quite different things. One is volunteering and helping strangers. The other sense, quite different, is about democratic participation. You can do one without the other. Many analysts tend to conflate the two, and a lot of policy development tends to give support to one in the name of helping the other” (House of Lords, UK: Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, 2018, p10; para12)2. In this context, there is no single entity clearly idenfied as being „responsible‟ for civic engagement. Central government often depends on it, seeks and encourages it, and sometimes creates frameworks for managing it; local and regional government, cities and municipalities, designers, commissioners, „free-floating‟ campaigners galvanising others into action – all could be credited with being the driving force behind a mobilised and engaged civic people to create public places and deploy their passion to motivate and mobilise people towards social cohesion and productive outcomes. Each should clarify its meaning and purpose for them, or they risk it becoming an empty rhetorical declamation, with little substance. This confusion within civic engagement, as a concept, is apparent across Europe; in April 2010 Citizens Lab published a paper, Mapping New Forms of Civic Engagement in Europe exploring how European citizens are actively seeking alternatives to the estbalished wisdom of „civic engagement and participation‟ and how they can engage in the decision-making processes that „reflect the real concerns‟ of humans in their habitats3. Research was based on nine countries – Sweden, the United Kindgdom, Poland, Hungary, Croatia, France, Spain, Portugal, and Greece. Common themes emerged – people-centred approaches to civic engagement were recurrent in all country profiles; social issues had become politicised and vice versa; proximity politics and locality; the idea of „the Commons‟ – that resources and heritage of a given society should be held in common, or at least used widely, rather than privately-owned) and in turn, the growth of civic engagement to influence the discourse from a voluntary base, rather than only in the context of formal public consultation. 1 Formerly Director of Cambridge University’s Forum for Youth Participation and Democracy, and prior to that the Government’s Head of Race Equality 2 The Ties that Bind: Citizenship and Civic Engagement in the 21st Century, House of Lords 2018 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldcitizen/118/11802.htm), p10 3Mapping New Forms of Civic Engagement in Europe, MItOst/CitizensLab, 2010, p5 1 One of the more notable tendencies was for the „floating‟ nature of engagment – in the Prologue, Yael Ohana notes that the historical importance of belonging to a formal organisation is no longer as important to civic engagement. Rather, this „belonging‟ has been replaced by „free-floating‟ participants who engage in projects or campaigns when they consider them important, and on more issues, for less time, but not necessarily less intrusively. Of significance, in this context, is the inclusion of the acknowledgement that when country profile authors were asked a specific question about Europe – „What is their relation to Europe and European values?‟ – their answers pointed to a European civil society which was no longer being bound together by the glue that was Europe. Indeed, some of the observations by profilers went as far as criticising European institutions and European integration. Profilers were found to be focused on their local concern, unaware of any potential support to their causes elsewhere in Europe and the extent of benefits of any collaboration.4 In seeking further answer(s) to this question, we examined the UK standards or protocols. On 27 June 2017, the United Kingdom‟s Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement was appointed by the House of Lords with the remit “to consider citizenship and civic engagement”. The Committee has prepared a report which sets the out the challenges and makes several observations, one of which is the use of the term civic engagement. Evidence submitted to the inquiry suggested a lack of coordination across Government, a lack of leadership – or identified responsbile department or individual – resulting in a lack of long-term commitment to intitiatives. Early in the report, the Committee states “We believe that coordination of policy would be helped if a single minister in a single department, presumably the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, was given responsibility for coordinating all matters related to citizenship and civic engagement” 5 (Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, 2018, p12;para 22) and sets out how this could be achieved in the concluding chapter Summary of Conlusions and Recommendations 6 (p123-129; para 1-79). Defining “public space” It is generally accepted that a public space is a place that is generally open and accessible to people. Roads (including the pavement), public squares, parks and beaches are typically considered public space. 4 Mapping New Forms of Civic Engagement in Europe, MItOst/CitizensLab, 2010, p5-15 5 The Ties that Bind: Citizenship and Civic Engagement in the 21st Century, House of Lords 2018 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldcitizen/118/11802.htm),p12 6 The Ties that Bind: Citizenship and Civic Engagement in the 21st Century, House of Lords 2018 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldcitizen/118/11802.htm), p123-129 2 To a limited extent, government buildings which are open to the public, such as public libraries are public spaces, although they tend to have restricted areas, opening times and greater limits upon use. Although not considered public space, privately-owned buildings or property visible from sidewalks and public thoroughfares may affect the public visual landscape, for example, by outdoor advertising. Recently, the concept of Shared space has been advanced to enhance the experience of pedestrians in public space jointly used by automobiles and other vehicles. This part of the paper focuses on public space and the role of engagement, or participatory planning in the creation of those spaces. International Standards on Public Consultations (from OSCE: https://www.osce.org/odihr/313111?download=true) Public consultations are one way to ensure the effectiveness and inclusiveness of law-making processes. By conducting public consultations, public officials and institutions engaged in legislative processes are able to gather views and experiences from different stakeholders, representing various groups and backgrounds, on matters that are to be regulated. Public consultations constitute a means of open and democratic governance; they lead to higher transparency and accountability of public institutions and help ensure that potential controversies are identified before a policy, law, or other public decisions are adopted. The process of consultation “should be understood as an interaction between the bodies responsible for regulation and parties that are likely to be affected by or interested in the regulation in question”. Developing policies and legislation in a participatory and inclusive manner increases all stakeholders‟ understanding of the various factors involved, enhances confidence in the adopted policy and legislative measures, and ultimately tends to improve implementation of the new legislation. Such a participatory approach to the adoption of laws not only leads to greater democratic legitimacy of a regulation, but also nourishes confidence in institutions. One of the main international instruments recognizing the value of public participation in general is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights4 (hereinafter “the ICCPR”) which, in its Article 25 par 25 a) emphasizes the right of every citizen to “take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives”. The conduct of public affairs is a broad concept covering all aspects of public administration, as well as the formulation and implementation of policy at all levels, including local, regional, national and international ones. As set out in General Comment No. 25, the modalities of citizens‟ participation, which include public debate and dialogue, should be established by the constitution and other laws of a state concerned. More detailed provisions concerning public participation in decision-making in environmental matters are included in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe‟s Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision- 3 making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (hereinafter the “Aarhus Convention”). While the Convention specifically covers the environmental field, its Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation (set-up on 7 November 2000 by EU Ministers in charge of Civil Service and Public Administration), Final Report, November 2001, page 26, available at https://ec.europa.eu/smartregulation/better_regulation/documents/mandelkern_repor