Kein Folientitel

1
1
R.E.S.C.U.E. plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N5 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
WP 5 Description of work
According to the general time schedule of RESCUE
for 2003/beginning of 2004, WP 5 has worked/works
on the following tasks -   Elaboration of a
questionnaire as a basis for the analysis of the
eight case studies, investigating specifically
the WP 5 related process, content and activities
of the projects and also including the
sustainability indicators -    Evaluation and
assessment of the collected data of the eight
case studies in terms of citizen participation
resp. cross check with the principles of
sustainability (April September 2003), -   If
needed evaluation and adjustment of the WP
5-indicators in terms of applicability,
suitability and data availability during the
previous step, -   Identification and description
of strengths/weaknesses/gaps within the analysed
projects external examples (October December
2003), -   Derivation and development of tools
according to best practice and sustainability
(starting in January 2004).
2
2
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N5 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
WP 5 Reminds on objectives

• 7 OBJECTIVES
• According to the agreed methodology, WP 5
  concretised the overall definition of sustainable
  brownfield regeneration by the deduction of 7
  objectives for the specific content of the work
  package.
• The 5 first objectives concern the quality of the
  decision-making process (information, resolution
  of conflicts, legitimacy, efficiency in terms of
  duration and costs),
• The last two objectives focus on the conditions
  which are favourable for participation in the
  social context on brownfields. This approach aims
  at defining citizen participation on brownfields
  in terms of economic, ecological, social and
  institutional aspects.

3
3
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N5 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
7 Objectives

•  1. The first set of objectives concerns the
  quality of the decision-making process
•  
• Objective 5.1 To obtain a better quality of the
  information itself,
• Objective 5.2 To obtain a better quality of the
  information flow inside the decision-making
  process and a more efficient use of information
• Objective 5.3 To have a fairer discussion
  process and a better resolution of conflicts
• Objective 5.4 To increase the legitimacy of the
  decision-making process
• Objective 5.5 To improve the efficiency of the
  process in terms of duration and costs
•  
• 2. The second set of objectives focuses on
  conditions favourable for participation in the
  general social context
•  
• Objective 5.6 To empower citizens, especially
  those representing non-organised interests
• - To improve the general publics or
  stakeholders information and education.
• - To improve decision-makers strategic ability.
• - The issue of the representation of
  non-organized interests

4
4
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N5 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
WP 5 reminds on indicators
 
Ind5.1. Equal access to information  Ind5.2.
Symmetry of information flow  Ind5.3.
Alternative sources of information/contradictory
expertises  Ind5.4. Publicity and documentation
of debates and (intermediate) results  Ind5.5.
Transparency of the process management  Ind5.6.
Practical methods in the process
management  Ind5.7. Representativeness of the
range of participants/citizens  Ind5.8. Early
involvement of stakeholders and power of
influence in the different steps of the process
management  Ind5.9. Satisfaction/contestation of
results  Ind5.10. Lowest level where control
over budget and process exists  Ind5.11. Budget
allocated by authorities Ind5.12. Existence of
a community information and participation plan
5
5
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N5 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
WP 5 Strengths/Weaknesses/Gaps analysis (1)
 

• INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION
• Ind5.1. Equal access to information
•  Ind5.2. Symmetry of information flow
•  Ind5.3. Alternative sources of
  information/contradictory expertises
•  Ind5.4. Publicity and documentation of debates
  and (intermediate) results
• Ind5.12. Existence of a community information
  and participation plan
• STRENGTHS Ind5.1. Equal access to information
• A diversified range of information and
  communication tools
• - A strong contact with press (press articles
  for all the 8 sites) mostly local and regional
  press except for Loisinord and Gateshead
  (national press) local radio press
  announcements, information board and posts in the
  City (Sosnoviec)

6
6
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N5 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
WP 5 Strengths/Weaknesses/Gaps analysis (2)
 

• INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION
• STRENGTHS Ind5.1. Equal access to information
• Specific efforts to organize a direct access
  to information
• - a City information Centre, open without
  limitation in Sosnoviec (data in the plan), a
  Visitor information centre, located within
  Gateshead Quays in Gateshead,
• - a direct contact with city office in
  Espenshain,
• a free phone number for the Tertiales (accueil
  quartiers) implemented by the Valenciennes
  Municipality.
• An initiative to reduce the delay to obtain
  information
• for les Tertiales, all citizens can fill in a
  special form (fiche dintervention B2) which
  mentions that a letter will be sent
  systematically to the inhabitant who expressed a
  need whether the technical Departments answer is
  positive or negative.
• If it is negative, the answer has to be argued.
• The interventions (to be done) are classified
  in three categories immediately, within a
  week, is taken into account in a
  short/mid/long-term program. The technical
  Departments have to answer on this basis.

7
7
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N5 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
WP 5 Strengths/Weaknesses/Gaps analysis (3)

• INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION
• GAPS Ind5.1. Equal access to information
• - No scientific popularisation of studies,
  official documents (except Sosnoviec which plans
  to hold a popular and scientific conference)
• - No information and communication plan
  (indicator 5.12)

 
8
8
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N5 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
WP 5 Strengths/Weaknesses/Gaps analysis (4)

• INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION
• Ind5.1. Equal access to information
• Tool for assessment of participation quality
• Access to information
• no access to planning documents for citizens
• limited, delayed access to planning documents
  (e.g. bureaucratic obstacles)
• delayed, but full access to planning documents
• full access on time (allowing distribution,
  discussion, feed back,)
•  
• Quality of information
• no information given
• bad quality, incomplete information not matching
  local needs

 
9
9
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N5 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
WP 5 Strengths/Weaknesses/Gaps analysis (5)

• INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION
• GAPS Ind5.2. Symmetry of information flow
• NEED FOR EXTERNAL EXAMPLE
• Tool for assessment of participation quality
• Does the information flow ?
• one way from experts to citizens / stakeholders
• one way from citizens to the project
• two ways mutual information on certain steps
• two ways permanent and open communication
  process

 
10
10
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N5 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
WP 5 Strengths/Weaknesses/Gaps analysis (6)

• INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION
• WEAKNESSES Ind5.3. Alternative sources of
  information/contradictory expertises
• NEED FOR EXTERNAL EXAMPLE The
  Permanent Conference of the Nord-Pas de
  Calais Coal Basin (MBM)
• Tool for assessment of participation quality
• Control over use of information
• available information has not been used, no
  chance to consider alternative expertise,
  citizens without decision about use of
  information
• time and amount of information release and its
  consideration controlled by experts, no feed back
  if information given by citizens is used
• release of information according to interests of
  experts, feed back if citizen information is used
  but no verification mechanism for citizens
• common agreement on information use, information
  proof checked by alternative expert

 
11
11
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N5 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
WP 5 Strengths/Weaknesses/Gaps analysis (7)

• INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION
• WEAKNESSES Ind5.4. Publicity and
  documentation of debates and
  (intermediate) results
• NEED FOR EXTERNAL EXAMPLE 1)
  Recklinghausen Zeche II
• 2) Gelsenkirchen Bismarck
• (ZEFIR)
• Tool for assessment of participation quality
• Documentation and publication of process and
  results
• no documentation and publication

 
12
12
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N5 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
WP 5 Strengths/Weaknesses/Gaps analysis (8)

• QUALITY OF PROCESS MANAGEMENT
• GAPS Ind5.5. Transparency of the process
  management
• NEED FOR EXTERNAL EXAMPLE
• Tool for assessment of participation quality
• Quality of process management bad (0)
  indifferent (1) well (2)
•  timing, schedules
• location (suitable)
• procedures (transparent)
• methods (manipulative)
• participants (representative)
• participants (number)
• Information and participation plan (existent)
•  

 
13
13
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N5 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
WP 5 Strengths/Weaknesses/Gaps analysis (9)

• QUALITY OF PROCESS MANAGEMENT
• GAPS Ind5.6. Practical methods in the
  process management
• NEED FOR EXTERNAL EXAMPLE the
  Grande-Synthe Urban Workshop (MBM)
• Tool for assessment of participation quality
• Quality of process management bad (0)
  indifferent (1) well (2)
•  timing, schedules
• location (suitable)
• procedures (transparent)
• methods (manipulative)
• participants (representative)
• participants (number)
• Information and participation plan (existent)

 
14
14
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N5 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
WP 5 Strengths/Weaknesses/Gaps analysis (10)

• QUALITY OF PROCESS MANAGEMENT
• GAPS Ind5.7. Representativeness of the range
  of participants/citizens
• NEED FOR EXTERNAL EXAMPLE
• Tool for assessment of participation quality
• Quality of process management bad (0)
  indifferent (1) well (2)
•  timing, schedules
• location (suitable)
• procedures (transparent)
• methods (manipulative)
• participants (representative)

 
15
15
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N5 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
WP 5 Strengths/Weaknesses/Gaps analysis (11)

• WEAKNESSES Ind5.8. Early involvement of
  stakeholders and power of influence in the
  different steps of the process management
•  
• NEED FOR EXTERNAL EXAMPLE RECKLINGHAUSEN
  ZECHE II
• Tool for assessment of participation quality
• Influence on decisions, procedures and process
  evolution ?
• - - no influence on decisions, procedures and
  process evolution
• - weak, indirect influence on decisions,
  opinions of citizens are considered
• -- influence on decisions, procedures and
  process evolution
• -- strong, direct influence on decisions,
  procedures and process evolution, no unilateral
  decisions are possible
• WEAKNESSES/GAPS ? Ind5.9. Satisfaction/contestati
  on of results
• NEED FOR EXTERNAL EXAMPLE ?
• Tool for assessment of participation quality
• o   - opposition against project exists without
  contestation by elections
• o   - results of project have passed local
  political elections
• o   - no organised opposition against project
  exists

 
16
16
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N5 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
WP 5 Strengths/Weaknesses/Gaps analysis (12)

• CONTROL OVER RESOURCES AND BUDGET
• GAPS  Ind5.10. Lowest level where control
  over budget and process exists
• NEED FOR EXTERNAL EXAMPLE The
  Inhabitants Participative Fund (MBM)
• Tool for assessment of participation quality
• Control over resources and budgets
• no control over resources and budget by local
  level stakeholders
• control in hands of local and superior level
  administration
• substantial control in hands of low local
  administrational level
• full control in hands of local level
  stakeholders, shared between administration and
  other stakeholders
• GAPS  Ind5.11. Budget allocated by
  authorities
• NEED FOR EXTERNAL EXAMPLE

 
17
17
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N5 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
WP 5 2 Deliverables
D 5-1 Methodological guide of the best
practices of citizen participation in project
management D 5-2 Incentives to support the
citizen participation process
18
18
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N5 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
D 5-1 Key-concepts and definitions (1)
D 5-1 Methodological guide of the best
practices of citizen participation in project
management 1) RESCUE general sustainability
definition for the context of brownfield
regeneration Sustainable Brownfield
Regeneration is the management, rehabilitation
and return to beneficial use of brownfield land
in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and
continued satisfaction of human needs for present
and future generations in environmentally
sensitive, economically viable, institutionally
robust and socially acceptable ways within the
particular regional context. ? 2) WP 5
definition of citizen participation
Participation is a systematic attempt to
involve the citizen in the design, planning
decision, implementation and evaluation of
brownfield regeneration projects to ensure their
social acceptability.
19
19
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N5 SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
D 5-1 Key-concepts and definitions (2)
1) Who participates ? 1-1) A complex definition
Citizen ? Actor ? Stakeholder ? 1-2) Where/when
do citizens fit in the decision-making process
? 2) What is participation ? 2-1) Backgrounds
of citizen participation in each country 2-2)
Definitions of participation 2-3) Typologies of
participation degrees 2-4) Conclusions on the
best aspects and limits from these typologies a
model for further work ? 3) The right to
participate description of the legal tool box
in our 4 countries
20
20
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N9 DISSEMINATION AND EXPLOITATION
WP 9 Description of work

• Before WP9 was launched, communication and
  dissemination matters haven been mainly dealt by
  the WP Leaders
• Rescue first Logo,
• Rescue download presentations,
• Rescue web-site,
• calendar of events etc ..
• The first task of WP9 was to elaborate a
  communication strategy and a methodology proposal
  for dissemination and exploitation of project
  information and results, commented by WP Leaders
  and submitted for approval to the Steering
  Committee of Bochum in December 2002.

21
21
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N9 DISSEMINATION AND EXPLOITATION
WP 9 Description of work
WP9s communication strategy and a methodology
proposal for dissemination and exploitation of
project information and results Proposals
include        Designation of one PR
officer per participating region to WP 9 in
order to facilitate accumulation of information
to be diffused by WP 9        Designation of
RESCUE ambassadors in topic related networks
and structures inside the Rescue team (already
active in networks such as Nicole, Cabernet...)
and designation of RESCUE ambassadors from
other topic related structures in which RESCUE
members do not systematically take part or have
access to. This would offer the opportunity to
open RESCUE to other professional
categories.      Establish a graphical chart
(template) for RESCUE presentations and a
presentation kit composed of communication
tools such as a Newsletter, Posters, glossary,
Contact list ....
22
22
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N9 DISSEMINATION AND EXPLOITATION
WP 9 Description of work and methodology (2)
              Establish a data base of
contacts (international and national public and
private experts, media, government links ....) in
order to be able to spread information on a
regular basis        Encourage closeness of
dialogue through participation of RESCUE at
conferences, workshops, exhibitions, professional
networks and organizations, national and European
administrations ...           Detect topic
linked media support (national and
international)       Define priority interest
events on a permanent base (conference calendar
eg EPA conference, NICOLE workshops ... etc )
23
23
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N9 DISSEMINATION AND EXPLOITATION
Achievements and results (1)
According to the defined objectives and aims of
the RESCUE project, and with regard to the time
schedule and work plan, the following results
have been achieved since launching WP9  1)     A
strategy for communication discussion paper
proposed in December 2002 (Bochum meeting) o     
calendar of events o   promotion of the RESCUE
project in regional, national and international
institutional bodies, thematic networks and
scientific research units (eg. Regional Council,
Regional Land-Planning and Development Agency,
CERDD - Center for Research on Sustainable
Development, INTERSOL-CEE-UNO network, for RESCUE
presentation 2005, the Nord - Pas de Calais
Regional Councils liaison office in Silesia
Poland, the CNRSSP National Center for Research
on Site Contamination, MASURIN-INERIS o       cre
ation of the RESCUE logo and NEWSLETTER
(graphical chart)
24
24
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N9 DISSEMINATION AND EXPLOITATION
Achievements and results (2)
2)      Participation in the organization of the
first international RESCUE workshop, to be held
in Katowice Poland on November 19th 2003, with
Central Mining Institute (GIG), Katowice, Poland
o      Elaboration of RESCUE 1st international
workshop program, approved by SC/Editorial Board
o        RESCUE/MASURIN conference coordination
issues, in cooperation with GIG, MGG and MASURIN
o       Elaboration of budgetary approach for
the workshop in liaison with GIG and MGG
o        Constitution of the first RESCUE
data-base international topic related, public
and private experts, VIPs and media included to
be completed on a regular basis for re-use for
further RESCUE events o        Elaboration of
RESCUE Newsletter N 1 (final announcement of
workshop etc)
25
25
R.E.S.C.U.E. Plenum meeting, G.I.G. Katowice,
November 17, 2003
WORK PACKAGE N9 DISSEMINATION AND EXPLOITATION
Achievements and results (3)
      o        Proposal for Katowice Conference
Folder (content) o       Preparation and
dissemination (on- and off-line) of the Katowice
Workshop kit composed of invitation letter,
2-day conference program (RESCUE MASURIN),
track-session resume sheet, conference
registration form, travel and accommodation
sheet, RESCUE Newsletter, Conference map..)
o   Preparation and expedition of regular
conference mailing sent to 623 international
experts (RESCUE data base) conference
registrations return to MBM who transfers to
GIG o   International press and public relation
issues proposal of common RESCUE/MASURIN press
conference to be organized during the Katowice
workshop (approved by MASURIN), preparation of
press folders to be addressed to media before and
after the event