Medsos Life Dvc Manual en-GRE 100309

8/9/2019 Medsos Life Dvc Manual en-GRE 100309

1/19

Deliberative Community

Visioning Process ManualCollaborative Environmental

Regeneration o Port-Cities

Elesina 2020

,

LIFE EnvironmentParticipatory Environmental Regeneration in City-Ports:

The Elefsis Gulf in 2020

LIFE

-:

2020

LIFE EnvironmentParticipatory Environmental Regeneration in City-Ports:

The Elefsis Gulf in 2020

LIFE

-: 2020

(LIFE05 ENV/GR/000242)

(LIFE05 ENV/GR/000242)


2/19

Deliberative Community Visioning Process

Manual

The content o this manual does not necessary refect

European Committees opinion (Lie Environmental Union).

MEDITERRANEAN SOS Network team:

Nikos Chrysogelos, Niki Pardalou, Loukia Kalaitzi, Stellina Koulouzaki, Patricia Gourgoura, Alekos Pantazis,

Mary Vitaliotou, Anni Mitropoulou, Michalis Theodoropoulos, Theoharis Konstantatos, Dimitris Keramidas,Tasos Krommidas, Charis Nikokavouras, Nikioros Plytas, Melita Lazaratou.

SOS:

, , , , , , , , , ,

, , , ,

Co-nanced by /

LIFE-ENVIRONMENT / LIFE Project: LIFE05 ENV/GR/000242

Edited by /

MEDITERRANEAN SOS Network / SOSwww.medsos.gr

Table of contents

I - Introduction

II - The methodology and basic steps o a

public participation procedure

III - Adapting the expectations and the

methodology to the practice

IV - Conclusion

I -

II -

III -

IV -

ATHENS, SEPTEMBER 2009 / , 2009


3/19

IntroductionThe main objective of the LIFE Elefsis 2020 project was to achieve environmental improvementof the Elefsis Gulf and the surrounding area through participatory processes. The partnershipsaim was the development of an Action Plan, which involves the relevant stakeholders and uses

participatory methods as the main tool for the regeneration of the area until 2020.

The methodology on public participation recommended in this paper has been drafted afterthe end of the project and has been based on the theory on public participations method-

ologies as well as the practice gained by the project. It is also based on the experience thatMediterranean SOS Network has gained on public participation issues through other Europeanprojects (e.g. WAter REsources MAnagement/CADSES, COstal PRActice NETwork/INTERREGIV). The methodology is also based on the rich literature on public participation theory andpractice.

In brief, public participation falls within the general concept of the Civic or Citizens Society.

From the direct democracy in Ancient Athens to public participation as a con-vention

The idea of public participation in the decision-making procedures at all levels of governance

goes back to Ancient Athens. Direct democracy in Ancient Athens allowed (even urged) allpeople recognized as citizens of Athens to take part in the political life. Idiot was the Greekword to characterize the man who did not participate in public affairs.

The political theory of the 18th century and onwards highlighted the social contract betweenthe rulers and the people, as the cornerstone of democracy. For the past 30 years, the discus-sion on Civic Society has gained a new momentum, in the light of globalization and the increas-ing concentration of political and economic power in the hands of few countries. Additionally,

political power has been depending upon centers of economic and communication power.

At the same time, the model of every-day life and the modern massive culture promoted bythe TV programs and the media, have been leading to passivity and individualism. Internationalcrucial issues render people feeling powerless and incapable of controlling and influencing the

decision-making centers.Fortunately, there is the other side of the coin; a growing Citizens Society which is depictedthrough the proliferation of the Non Government Organizations (NGOs) and the various socialmovements all over the world. International organizations and the E.U. are encouraging public

participation in decision making, especially on environmental issues. The very term sustain-able development has been established upon the idea of public participation.

he Program for Action agreed upon in the Rio Summit, in 1992, places a lot of emphasis at

the local level, where public participation can be achieved in a relatively easier way. The Lo-

LIFE- 2020 -, -

. , 2020.

, -, -. , SOS -

(.. WAter REsources MAnagement/CADSES, COstal PRActice NETwork/INTERREG IV).

-

-

. , -

, , . -

(Idiot) .

18 -

, .- 30 -

. , -

., , , , - .

.

, , - ()

, . ..

, . .

, 1992, - () 21.-, ,

, . , , - , -, ,

, , 25

2 3

I

-: 2020


4/19

cal Agenda 21 is a key instrument for local authorities, that wish to move from the traditional

hierarchical, up-to-bottom style of management to a democratic and participatory one. Addi-tionally, the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making andAccess to Justice in Environmental Matters, known as the Aarhus Convention, was adopted atthe Fourth Ministerial Conference Environment for Europe in Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June

1998. Thirty-nine countries and the European Community have since signed it. The AarhusConvention is a new kind of environmental agreement. It links environmental to human rights.It acknowledges that we owe an obligation to future generations. It establishes that sustain-able development can be achieved only through the involvement of all stakeholders. It links

government accountability to environmental protection. It focuses on interactions betweenthe public and public authorities, in a democratic context, and it is forging a new process forpublic participation, in the negotiation and implementation of international agreements. TheConvention is not only an environmental agreement; it is also a Convention about government

accountability, transparency, and responsiveness.

Nowadays, there is a rich experience in public participation methods, especially on the imple-mentation of the Local Agenda 21 and the Aarhus Convention. However, for many countries

and regions, public participation is still a terra incognita.

Principles and Methodology for Public Participation

What do we mean by public participation? Is something different from a conference or a hear-

ing?

These principles are based on systemic thinking in organization management. The relevant

theory can be searched in the Internet using as key words appreciative inquiry and systemicapproach in organizations. A pioneering example of application of this methodology in a localurban community is the Imagine Chicago project by Blist Brown.

A public participation procedure is not just a conference or a forum or a panel of some experts

1998. .

. - . . -- .

. , , , . -, , -

.

, , -21 . , -

, .

;

;

, . -- .

Blist Brown.

- 100-200 . , -

, , -

2 3

The 5 Ds in the systemic approach of public participation:

Discover (past successes)

Dream (the vision)Design (the action plan)Deliver (implement)Destiny (keep the dialogue about the destiny of the organization, in our case the

human system which is the local community).

PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONs a tool for Mediterranean SOS N t ork(M d OS).

Civil society Information and awarr ness

Enhancing and mobilizing the l cal s ci ty

Enabling stakeholders

Mutual understanding enhancem nt

Reduction of conflicts in decision akin

Improvement of decision quality-- co

nse sus

SOS (MedSOS).

.

/

*:

( )() ()

() ()

* The 5 Ds in the systemic approach of public participation: discover, dream, design, deliver, destiny.

Collaborative Environmental Regeneration o Port-Cities Elefsina 2020 - DCV Manual -: 2020


5/19

and some 100-200 listening. A public participation procedure is a number of citizens and stake-

holders who meet on a regular basis to act as a hearing board of an issue of concern (e.g.implementation of an urban rehabilitation master plan, coastal management, deciding on aplan for a pedestrian zone etc.). Users panels have been used extensively in the utilities sector.These may consist of 50 to over 750 people, who are provided with the information and then

reconvene in smaller groups or forums (potentially divided upon some common characteris-tics) of participants to discuss an issue or assess a policy (orally in-group work or with the use ofquestionnaires). Panels and forums can be linked to environmental or social impact assessmentprocesses.

Public participation covers a broad spectrum of participation levels, depending on the degreeof power given to the people. Most analysts of public participation identify this spectrum asan ascending scale from the first step, which is information (informing people about decisions

already taken or decisions to be taken) to the upper part of the ladder, which is co-deciding andco-acting in implementing the decisions.

A public participation procedure can apply all these steps at various phases, depending on

what is needed at a particular time.

Do you need an expertise in order to be able to organize a public participationprocedure?

An appropriately designed public participation procedure must have the following character-istics:A starting and an ending date.A clear objective, which can be broken down in more specific objectives for every public

participation action.A clear plan of the tools and the approach to be used.

After we have designed the public participation methodology, each event has to be announcedappropriately to the people who will participate. Three things should be communicated clearly:What is the purpose of the public participation event?Who organizes the procedure?In what way will the results of the event be used? How will the participants be informed?

How will the opinions and views, expressed during the procedure, be used?

Why do we need public participation?

The participation of the public in decision making usually leads to more balanced decisions,that can be implemented more easily. It is a fact that as a society we havent learned how to

participate actively and to shape together, through processes of dialogue and deliberation, thedecisions that concern us. This of course pre-supposes on the one hand a culture of dialoguebetween the important social partners and citizens and on the other hand a suitable institu-tional framework, that facilitates the participatory shaping of the decisions.

Deliberation for shaping and making decisions is certainly a more complex and time-consum-ing process, compared to decisions that are taken solely by a civil authority. However, a deci-sion that has been mutually shaped by the stakeholders and affected parties is possibly more

balanced, because it will have taken into consideration the various viewpoints and approaches.

(..

, , - ). . 50 750 , - -

( ), - (- ). - .

, . -

( -) - - .

, .

-;

-

: ,

.

, . -: .. .

. -

.

;

, . ,

, . , , .

2 3



6/19

As a consequence, it is possible that such a decision will not face difficulties and objection in

its implementation.

In many cases, the absence of deliberation and public participation, even on issues like envi-ronmental protection, has led to conflicts and delays or the inability to promote policies, due

to incorrect information, proliferation of stereotypes or the prevailing of misunderstanding mistrust. Many of these problems would have been resolved and overcome if there was a more

prevalent culture of deliberation and public participation in decision making, from the earlystages of the planning process.

, -. , , . , -

.

, , -, ,

, , -, . , .

2 3



7/19

The methodology and the basic stepsof a public participation procedure

Why a public participation procedure in Elefsis, a city-port?

The Elefsis Gulf is an area of conflicts. It is a fact that for many decades decisions were madewithout the inclusion of local bodies and citizens, which shaped the present harsh- reality.

The area was selected as a site concentrating heavy industry, without considering factors such

as the environment and its capacity to adapt, the fragile marine ecosystem (a closed gulf withan inability to refresh its water), its archaeological and historic significance. Perhaps, many ofthe mistakes made over the last century, could have been avoided if during these times a

culture of dialogue between the local bodies, if not the local citizens, existed that could haveinfluenced the outlook of the area. Today, however, it is not possible to make decisions that af-fect conclusively a given area, without having a structured dialogue with the local people andstakeholders.

How does the theory of public participation relate to the methodology of theLIFE-Elefsis 2020 project? Which theory and tools were used?

The program LIFE-Elefsis 2020 applied the Community Vision methodology, an organizedeffort to discover the common elements of a community under the context of a relatively rep-

resentative forum. In the case of Elefsis, an area of strong conflicts, the idea was to identify and

promote the common goals of the various stakeholders which have different starting pointsand interests.

The forum of public participation, aiming to define through dialogue a common communityvision, is always a steady broad partnership with the main stakeholders involved in the devel-opment of each area. It shall include representatives from the various authorities, partners withstatutory role, representatives from the academia and experts, social unions, environmental

groups, enterprises, users, educators. The creation of relatively small (up to 20-25 people) Fo-rum/Committee would be more realistic, effective and flexible.

A necessary element for the success of a deliberation process, apart from the assembly of a rep-

resentative deliberation forum, is also the manner in which the discussion is structured in the

, -;

.

, . , , - , (-

), . , . , -

.

-

LIFE- 2020; -;

LIFE-Elefsis 2020 - (Community Vision method),, --- .

, ,

, - .

,

, , . , - , , , , -, , , , .

( 20-25 ) / , -

.

,

, -. - , ,- -- -

.

, -

.

6 7

II

-: 2020


8/19

context of that forum. Beginning the deliberation process with those issues that are conflicting

and divisive, it is impossible to find a common ground and a common plan of action, even forissues that an agreement and a coincidence of interests, for a more sustainable outlook for theregion could be reached, potentially.

Under the Community Vision methodology, the deliberation begins with issues that maycreate the foundations for collaboration for the achievement of at least some medium-reach

goals. This can lead to a common vision for the future of the area (how the Gulf of Elefsis willbe in 2020, how we would like it to be and how that common goal could be achieved). Such

a methodology for deliberation can lead to interaction, to understanding of different startingpoints, but also to an ensemble of common actions and goals and even to a matching of opin-ions on all issues that are relevant to a particular region.

In brief the process of community visioning has the following stages:

By Creating a team the participants feel needed and shift from a culture of demanding to a

disposition of contributing and acting together, which becomes the cornerstone of success ofany participatory procedure. Presenting the current situation appropriately, i.e. stressing thecontributions of the people to the community as a whole is a good start to understand the

process. The way we set the questions determines the kind of answers we will get.

Conflict resolution /problem solvingIf the above described dreaming /visioning sequence is followed problems are minimized.Problems do not become the central focus. If, however, there are problems that need to bedealt with, there are innovative techniques that move from the negotiation to discovering the

common values and interests, working together for the benefit of everyone.

Polyphony is a key concept. Keep also in mind that every problem is a frustrated dream (say-ing of Peter Lang, a researcher and very well known practitioner of systemic thinking in organi-

zations). This means that we have to investigate the dream behind the problem.Except for a detailed Action Plan, the outcome of the whole procedure ideally should also be amechanism for the continuation of the dialogue.

Dialogical wisdom is a key concept. The whole process should work as a capacity buildingexercise on dialogue, for the communities and their representatives.

( 2020

). - , , .

, :

, -

. - , .. , . - .

/

. . - , .

. - ( Peter Lang, -).

.

, -.

. , .

8 9

Identification of the vision of the local community about their place . Identification of ways and means to reach the vision. Presentation of the current situation. Identification of gaps and problems as major chal-

lenges. Creation of an action plan to reach the vision and to respond to the challenges.

. . .

.

.

A linear process will be:

Vision Goals Measures Implementationconsensus consensus consensus

:



9/19

Which where the basic steps of the preparation and implementation of the pub-lic participation procedure of the LIFE-Elefsis2020 project?

The basic steps of the public participation procedure of the LIFE-Elefsis2020 project was:

(a) S tart up phase stablishment of the project team.

Assessment of the situation in the area. (Pollution, conflicts, changes, etc) Context analysis, what is at stake? Define main problems. This can be made through the

review of the relevant literature (reports, management plans, research studies, statisticaldata etc.) as well as questionnaires and interviews with key people.

Stakeholder analysis at the local level (city of Elefsina) as well as at the the surrounded area(institutional stakeholders)

(b) Project phase Invitations to stakeholders and establishment of the participatory committee Neighbor-

hood Committee Elefsina 2020

Establishment of the participatory procedures of the Elefsina Bay Committee 2020 Political commitment of the main stakeholders (municipality of Elefsina, Elefsina Port Au-

thority, main industries of the area, universities involved in the area etc) Common vision development, Community Vision approach Setting goals

Finalization of the schedule and the function of the procedures of public participation

Dealing with difficult issues/conflict management Identification of indicators to monitor progress

(c) Implementation phase Meetings, workshops, conferences, etc

(d) Assessment phase - Follow up

Decide on Indicators (eg. number of participants, qualification of participants, differentstakeholders (No stakeholders from one single interest or profession).

Monitoring /reports after every meeting. Dissemination of results/reports Follow up (documentary, dissemination of the procedure and its results, training- transfer

of experience)

These phases correspond to the main stages of every public participation procedure.

Which structure was elected for the forum?

Efforts in citizens participation in the deliberation process had two directions:

a) Participation of Elefsina citizens in the process of final format of the actions that were imple-mented during the project LIFE-Env Elefsis 2020, andb) The cultivation of the dialogue between institutionals and stakeholders targeting to themodulation of common agreed actions, projects and structures that need to be promoted in

the area, in order to accomplish the environmental regeneration of Elefsina area, which wasdescribed in the Action plan: Environmental Regeneration of Elefsina Bay 2020.

For this aim during the LIFE Env Elefsis 2020 project, two participatory institutions were es-

tablished to act as consultation forums:

- LIFE- 2020;

LIFE- 2020 :

()

. (, , , .)

, ; () -

()

() ,

2020 2020

(, , , )

/ .

/

() , , , .

()- (.. , ,

/ / . (, , ,

)

-.

;

:

() - LIFE 2020, () - , -

, - 2020. -

LIFE 2020:

8 9



10/19

1) Neighborhood Committee Elefsina 2020, which had a consultative role in the process of

designing, monitoring, checking and implementing of the specific works of urban reformation.This was the consultation institution that was cultivating dialogue with Elefsina citizens, whilepromoting citizens active participation in decision making, related to the quality of living inElefsina.

2) Elefsina Bay Committee 2020, which targeted to the configuration of an Action plan re-

garding the environmental regeneration of Elefsina Bay until 2020, through consultation be-tween institutionals and local authorities of the wider region. This forum was actively promot-

ing dialogue among social stakeholders: Municipality of Elefsina, Elefsina Port Authority, Univer-sity, Research Centers, Industries, citizens committees, educational community.

Through the project implementation process, the systematic briefing of citizens and stake-

holders was intended, through several activities: meetings, publications (poster, leaflet), movieproduction, article publication in local and national press, continuous updating of MEDSOSwebsite specific project unit, publication and mailing of newsletters and information letters.

Who are the stakeholders in Elefsina and in the wider area? How do we identifythem?

In order to identify and record the key social stakeholders of the area, MEDSOS Network workedclosely with the Municipality of Elefsina, in order to create a catalogue with all istitutionals and

organizations that usually participate in Municipalitys events. MEDSOS Network searched andcontacted all the citizens committees and initiatives that were active in the area, and alsoorganized meetings with the representatives of Environmental Educations Bureaus, in order

to promote the projects aims. Press releases and articles publication in local press, newslettermailing and web announcements, also helped to the wider publicity of the projects targets.

As a result of this process two lists of interested social stakeholders were delivered:

a) One list included all interested citizens and organizations representatives from Elefsinacity that had the willing and were able to participate in the consultation process through theNeighborhood Committee Elefsina 2020. This type of participation was voluntary, non profit-able and on personal basis.

b) The second included all institutionals that could participate in dialogue process under theframe ofElefsina Bay 2020 Committee. The dialogue through this committee would delivera common agreed Action plan regarding the Environmental Regeneration of Elefsina Bay. Inthis second category stakeholders like Municipality, Elefsina Port Authority, University, Research

Centers, Industries, Citizens committees, Environmental NGOs, Local Associations, did partici-

pated.

There was also a big effort in Governments representatives systematic participation although

this was never achieved. Governments representation in the forum would improve the pro-cess and would bring a sense of collaboration in designing of Action Plan, or at least wouldinfluence the central authorities decisions regarding the area of Elefsina.Unfortunately such processes of public participation and consultation absent from the present

Greek political culture.

In order to locate the key social stakeholders there were many meetings and discussions amongthe projects partners, while MEDSOS Networks contacts (through the long-lasting action and

experience) turned to advantage in the process.

1) 2020 (Neighborhood Committee Elefsina 2020)

, , -. - -

.

2)2020 (Elefsina Bay Committee 2020) , -

, 2020. : , , , , , , .

-, (, ), -

, , SOS , -, -.

; ;

(stakeholders) SOS - - - -

.

, SOS -, - - - , -

.

(stakeholders) :

()

- 2020. , -.

() , , 2020 -. ,

, , , , , , -.

-

, -

8 9



11/19

The more successful the public participation procedure is, the more people from all sectors of

the society will want to participate. Ideally, a public participation procedure will have involvedevery sector of the society at a certain point.

At the beginning, we record all stakeholders with an in interest in the issue under discussion

(in our case environmental regeneration of Elefsis Gulf. This does not mean that we inviteeverybody in all meetings, workshops, seminars and committees. We have decided to invite all

stakeholders in the basic workshops for the determination of the vision and the action plan orconferences, but for each special workshop were invited stakeholders with a special interest or

knowledge on the topic. It is better for the discussion and more effective for the participationprocedure, if the individuals/representatives of stakeholders dont exceed the number of 25-30persons in each workshop/meeting of the Committees.

We have to be careful when we identify the representative of each group. Sometimesrepresentatives do not really represent their group. It is also important to include also thestakeholders of the adverse side, those who might oppose the idea of sustainable devel-opment or even the very idea of a public participation procedure or they are always nega-

tive. They express feelings and thoughts of the society that nobody else dares to express. Their contribution is important as they help the local community, the Committees, theForum define its role and identity. But of course the role of the moderator is very crucial forthe guiding of the discussions.

How do I go about setting up the Partnership Forum? How do I discuss with thestakeholders?

In order to make our list of stakeholders we have to start discussing with them.

The creation of an informal deliberations forum, such as the two Committees (Neighborhood

and Elefsina Bay) which were chosen to function in the framework of the program, requiresa period of preparation and dialogue with each social partner separately, in order to convincethem about the significance and the role of deliberation. In a procedure like this, the motivationof each partners participation may vary and this has to be taken under serious consideration,

during the formulation of the dialogues forum.

Before we started the public participation procedure we collected all the relevant literature.People who are interviewed or give data become aware of the procedure and become pos-

sible allies and multipliers of the message (what the procedure seeks to achieve). It is therefore

important for the researcher (the person who gathers this data) to explain clearly the frame-work of the methodology, its objectives and the identity of the organizers.

It is also at this stage where we are presented with an opportunity to involve people fromthe beginning and make an effective invitation for participation. One of the major difficultiesin public participation procedures that are led by external bodies and agencies (and do notemerge from the people themselves as an NGO) is to make people tust the procedure, be in-

terested in it and devote time to participate.

Separate meetings of Mediterranean SOS Network, conversations and common actions tookplace for example, with the educational community or with academics, in order to create the

necessary communication trust to the aims of the program and the significance of deliberation.

, -. , , .

-

, SOS .

- . , - , -

, .

, (- -

). , -, . , /

/. - , /-

25 30 /.

. -

. , -

. -

. , , . -

.

; ;

.

, ( -) ,

. , . -

.

8 9



12/19

Mediterranean SOS Network also had meetings with representatives of the industry, in order to

formulate the appropriate collaboration and dialogues circumstances between the environ-mental departments of the industry in the area.

Letters, e-mails, informatory files regarding the program, its aims and the deliberation proce-

dures, were sent to a much wider circle of individuals and organizations than the ones thatactually took part at the deliberation procedures. Most of them received phone calls in order

to discuss in detail the framework of the collaboration, while at the same time, meetings withthe basic social partners took place in order to have a direct discussion about the aims of the

proposed agreement.

How do I convince stakeholders and people to participate?

Taking as fact that the dominating opinion is that even if dialogue takes place for certain issues,the administration does not take under consideration the proposals and the views that are

formulated through the deliberation, its only natural that one of the basic questions asked wasthe potential commitment of the administrations representatives to the materialization of theAction Plan that would come out of the deliberation procedure. This is a matter that influencesthe quantity and the quality of participation in the deliberation procedure.

The Mediterranean SOS Network and the rest of the partners couldnt come up with the re-

insurance that the formulated proposals and the Action Plan would be taken under consid-eration by the administration and the decision makers of Elefsina. Still, they could reinsurethat a commonly formulated through deliberation Action Plan with aims, activities, volunteer

commitments suggested implementations tools creates a huge dynamic and from one handpresses the state to take it under consideration and from the other it can be gradually material-ized, since its implementation is not relied on only to one authority but it includes actions andapportionment of responsibilities and roles to many stakeholders that took part in the delibera-

tion and voluntarily committed to promote their share. Taking as fact the gap of institutionalprotection of the deliberation procedure, this bottom up procedure is realistic and formulatesa dynamic of influencing the decision makers.

How do I set committees up? What is their role?

The structure, the names and the terms of reference of groups who supervise a public par-

ticipation procedure vary in each case. On the whole, however, we can distinguish the 3 mainbodies:

(i) a Forum with many representatives from a wide range of stakeholders with an advisory role.

(ii) a Steering Committee, a smaller group that includes people from decision making bodies(local authorities etc.) with a decision making role. The Steering Committee is the body respon-

sible for taking action and proceed with the public participation procedure and the creation ofthe detailed action plan of it.

(iii) an Advisory Committee or Committees including technical experts with an advisory role,

mainly making proposals for specific issues.

().

, , ( ) - , .

.

( , ) - , .

SOS, , , , - -

. , SOS , , -.

- , e-mail, , . -

, .

-;

-

, .

.

SOS -

,

., , , , - -

- , - -

. - , bottom-up ,

10 11



13/19

A varying degree of power is given to each of the above-mentioned bodies.

When the above (or a similar) structure is established, a major step to a public participationcommitment has been made. When representatives from management authorities and stake-holder groups accept to take part and undertake responsibilities in a structure like this, there is

a certain political commitment. There is always, of course, the question how to keep people inthe table after the initial stage of enthusiasm.

Since I have Committees, Workshops and Meetings of stakeholders, why do Ineed conferences?

It is obvious that the public participation procedure is not a linear series of events, from infor-mation to taking action together, but rather a mix of the various steps of the ladder accordingto the needs of each occasion.

In regard to the tools available for public participation, there is an enormous variety of them,ranging from leaflets and brochures to vision development workshops, citizens juries, inter-views etc. It must not be forgotten that Forums, Committees and Working Groups are alsomethods of public participation. In these groups stakeholders discuss the issues so they arealready a forum discussion. However, public participation needs to reach more people, not just

the elected representatives of various sectors of society. The philosophy of public participation

is to extend the dialogue to the basis of the society. This is why a complete public participationprocedure includes a wide range of tools that encourage public dialogue and extends it to thebasis of the society. Workshops, citizens juries, interactive internet sites, public hearings and

many other tools are available to open the dialogue to the society.

On the other hand, the more extended the dialogue is, the more difficult it becomes to reachdecisions. So, public participation procedures are usually designed in a way that alternates

open and more closed procedures. The dialogue opens to wide strata of the society wherepeople express their opinion in a systematic way. Then the Committees, the Forum and the Ad-visory Groups have the responsibility to process the wishes and views expressed by the peopleand come up with viable propositions and action plans which are then put forward to the pub-

lic for approval. So the whole procedure is like an accordion, it opens (open public debate) andcloses (closed sessions of the working groups) to create a harmonious result.

In the framework of deliberation that was implemented during LIFE Elefsis2020 in parallel with

the meetings of the two Committees and the Workshops, all day meetings also took place

dealing with the issues such as urban renovation, environmental management of the ports,public participation etc. These all day meetings aimed to the experience exchange not onlyfrom Greece but also from transnational partners of the program and from other guests. The all

day meetings also give the chance not only to present the outcome of the Committees and theWorkshops to the public but also provides material, experiences, information and questions forthe discussion that take place in them.

If there is a lack of data and knowledge or disagreement on the diagnosis of important issuesabout the situation in the area, these should be written down from the beginning on, fromdiagnosis phase, and action should be decided to cover these gaps (e.g. conferences, speechesby experts, by further research to be undertaken by key stakeholders, etc.).

; ;

, - . , , -:

(i) -

.

(ii) , (.), . .

(iii) , , .

.

() , . -

-

, . , -

- .

, , -;

-, , , .

, , , , -, , . ,

.

, . , -, - . -

. .-, , ,

.

, , -. ,

-

10 11



14/19

Collaborative Environmental Regeneration o Port-Cities Elefsina 2020 - DCV Manual

. , -

., - , . , (-

) () - .

LIFE 2020 -

, - / Workshops, , , .

. , - /Workshops, , , .

-, , ,

(.. , , -, .).

4 5

-: 2020


15/19

Adapting the expectationsand the methodology to the practiceThe above-mentioned methodology is flexible and has to be adapted to the needs and localcircumstances. Key questions to be considered for each public participating procedure are:

Who is the project partner? To what degree is the partner in the system of decision taking?

Does it have a statutory role? Does it have a decision making power? Is it an NGO, a local au-thority or an academic institution?

If the partner is not an institutionalized body in the system of decision taking (a State body)then its power is limited. A lot depends upon political commitment of local bodies (local and

regional authorities mainly) and local pioneers. A lot of effort has to be invested in findingthese allies. A relevant legal framework (eg Aarchus convention, Water Framework Directiveetc) offers a more stable basis for the public participation procedure.

The role of the Steering Committee undertook a team of MEDSOS scientists in cooperationwith the other partners of the project and mainly the municipality of Elefsis in order to motivatelocal communities and stakeholders in the public participation procedure of the project. Theeffort to participate in the Steering Committee other entities with an institutional role (repre-

sentatives of central government, regional authorities) was not successful.

A team of collaborators of Mediterranean SOS Network offered the secretariat and technicalsupport in the consultation process. They were responsible:

To send invitations and prepare the various meetings

To report and prepare the drafts of every meeting To collect all papers and audio-visual material To send both to the participants in consultation processes and in the media and other

entities concerned, the material resulting from the consultation processes.

Related information tools used in the consultation process, was to send information newsletter,the posting of the reports of the meetings and the presentations on the website (in a special

section concerning the program), information of the press and cooperation with them in theform of and interviews and articles. The task of sending invitations to Neighborhood Com-mittee Elefsina 2020 took over the City Eleusis, while the Mediterranean SOS Network had acomplementary role (telephone, email).

- . :

; ;

;; , - ;

(/-

) . - () -. . , (.. , , .)

.

LIFE, - SOS -

, , . -

(-, ) .

SOS - :

.

, - (-), .

2020

, SOS ( , - email).

- 2020 -, - (, , -, )

LIFE- 2020.

H - 2020 - (-

2020 ). , , -

12 13

III



16/19

The Neighborhood Committee Elefsina 2020 has worked primarily as a forum-meeting

of all stakeholders at scheduled meetings and each time with predetermined topics relating topilot projects (urban development, pedestrian precincts, assistance to the coastal front, envi-ronmental port management) planned to Program LIFE-Elefsis2020.

The Elefsina Bay 2020 Committee worked mainly as a forum for consultation on the long-term planning (action required to be made by 2020 in order to regenerate the wider area of

Eleusis). Smaller, flexible, sub-committees-working groups were also formed, which discussedspecific topics. Advisory committees were informally created with specialists from each work-

shop that had custody of the conclusions - results in relation to the technical-scientific issuesdiscussed in their respective workshops. The reports were sent to the group of participants forfinal comments and promoted the latter at the final form in the wider public, at the website etc.

The first draft of the Action Plan resulted from the composition of the work of individual sub-groups / work tables (coordinating from the team of scientists of MEDITERRANEAN SOS Net-work). The Advisory Committee translated the propositions made by the stakeholders and thepublic to an action plan and this was put into discussion in various ways such as Internet,

workshops, questionnaires etc. To draft Action Plan was sent to everyone involved for com-ments corrections, and additions so as to finalize the final Action Plan for the EnvironmentalRegeneration of the Gulf of and Eleusis.

The Committee finalized the plan taking into account the remarks and new proposals. The final

Action Plan for the Environmental Regeneration of the Gulf of Eleusis in 2020 resulting from the

consultation was signed with the completion of the European program LIFE-Env Elefsis 2020in late September 2009.

The Mediterranean SOS Network will act voluntarily to keep promoting the activities describedin the Action Plan and will undertake to remind participants of voluntary commitments, alongwith institutional authorities that have signed the Action Plan.

, -, -

. - - . -

, .

- (

SOS). - , -, , . , -

.

.-

2020, , LIFE-2020, 2009.

SOS

- , -

.



17/19

ConclusionWe have presented in detail a methodology that is based on visioning workshops and a soundstructure of Partnerships, Committees and Working Groups with representatives from stake-

holders. Some conclusions from this procedure follow:

1. The advisory process or simple information is not an involvement. It requires the introduc-tion of a full engagement of local communities so that the contribution of residents and in-stitutions should have a crucial role in shaping the final plans that affect them. An important

element in all this is face-to-face communication through workshops where they can be

direct communication between participants.

2. A discussion at a Neighborhood Commission or another institution of consultation should

be organized and guided by an experienced moderator. For a public participation pro-cedure is important one moderator to put forward questions for discussion not to give theanswers ready.

3. It is not only active listening and discussing. Keeping records and notes of the procedureis also very important. A Power Point presentation (or any other form of presentation thathelps people understand the situation: a slide show, posters with maps, pictures and dia-grams, videos etc) can be prepared to be used in the public participation procedure. The

information of all the participants as well the dissemination of presentations, results, conclu-sions is necessary for establishing a feeling of effectiveness, continuation and importanceof the participation.

4. Gathering data is not enough. One has to make a story out of them, a story that makes sense

for both the organizers of the public participation procedure and the public/stakeholders, towhich at some point these data have to be presented and put forward for discussion.

5. A major difficulty for some stakeholders may be the lack of their statutory role. This, how-ever, does not mean that the whole effort cannot be successful. A key factor of success willbe the degree to which people will find a meaning in the whole procedure. It should not bejust another project but something meaningful for the daily life of the local community.

For this reason, linking the personal with the public sphere is an important feature of thestyle and the philosophy of the public participation procedure.

6. It is important to highlight the positive aspects of the local community and their mobiliza-

tion for the protection of their environment even if these do not have direct relevance with

, -

, . :

1. H . -

, - -. -, -

.

2. .

.

3. . -

. Power Point ( : -

, , , .) - . -

, , -

, - .

4. .

- , /, -.

5. . , , . - . , -

. , -

- .

6. - , . - . -

.

7. , . -

. -

14 15

IV

-: 2020


18/19

the decision-making. People must feel proud of what they have achieved collectively so far.

Conflicts and problems are of course presented but as challenges.

7. In a vision determination procedure, the diagnosis of the situation should not become thefocus of discussion for a long time. People must move from the reality to the desired fu-

ture. Participants will come back to the reality when they design their solutions and action.

8. The consultation phase with the local community starts from the stakeholder analysis phaseand the political commitment-management structure phase. As we are doing the first con-

tacts with people for making a list with the possible stakeholders of the public participationprocedure, we start to have an idea of their views and the roles of each group and individual.We also start to understand who is for and who is against sustainable development, who isfor and who is against public participation procedures etc. We start to understand values,

interests and positions. So by this step, we have a feeling about the stakeholders viewsand characters. This information has to be taken into consideration and evaluated by theorganizers of the procedure.

9. Political commitment/mandate from local or other authorities is crucial for the success ofthe public participation procedure. This could mean: (a) support of the participatory plan-ning procedure, (b) implementation of the collectively designed action plan and (c) continu-ation of the procedure even after the completion of the concrete project.

10. The ideal situation can be achieved if the initiator of the procedure is an institutional au-

thority (the Region, the prefecture, the municipality, the management body of the relevantdecision making body at the local level). If the initiator does not have a decision makingpower (this is the case of an NGO or an academic institution), then the task to gain political

commitment becomes more difficult. The participation in the procedure of a relevant au-thority is necessary in this case.

Public participation is the cornerstone of the Citizens Society. A major constraint is the lack

of the necessary knowledge by the public. How can laymen decide upon environmental re-generation methods without the necessary technical knowledge? How can people overcometheir individualistic concerns? Public participation is not a panacea but it is the only way to ademocratic society. It is also the only way to sustainable development.

The ideal mix of public participation techniques depends upon the local circumstances. Ingeneral, what inspires people and makes them active is the opportunity to change their realitythrough a visioning process. What if, imagine.; change starts from these words...

.

8. --. -

, .

, . - , . ,

. .

9. /

. : () - , () () .

10. - (, , , ). (-

), . .

. -

. -; -

; , -

. .

. ,

, -. , -

14 1514

-: 2020Collaborative Environmental Regeneration o Port-Cities Elefsina 2020 - DCV Manual


19/19

National Technical University of Athens, Department of

Architecture, Urban Environment Laboratory: Provided the twoCommittees with the scientific support regarding the Urban Renovationworks., -

, : -

.: +30 210 7723590-1, F: +30 210 7723592E: [email protected]: www.ntua.gr

Autoridad Portuaria de Valencia & Fundacin de Estudios y

Cooperacin de la Comunidad Valenciana: They provided thetechnical support for the adoption and implementation of theECOPORT/EMAS guidelines in EPA.

& -: ECOPORT/EMAS.valenciaport:T: +34 96 393 9571, F: +34 96 393 9559

E: [email protected]: www.valenciaport.comfeports:T: +34 96 353 3100, F: +34 96 394 4898

E: [email protected]: www.feports-cv.org

For more information please contact::

Elefsina Port Authority S.A.: LIFE-projects Beneficiary. In charge for

the implementation of Ports Environmental Management and for theAutomatic Identification System.

..: LIFE .-S.T: +30 210 554375, F: +30 210 5545965

E: [email protected]: www.life-ole.gr

MEDITERRANEAN SOS Network: Responsible for planning andimplementing Participatory Processes, sensitizing and informing onenvironmental issues and for the diffusion/publicity of the programsresults. MEDSOS is responsible for the environmental education

activities and in cooperation with the Elefsina Municipality, for the

proper operation of the Direction Committee Elefsina 2020 and theNeighborhood Committee Elefsina 2020, and the development ofan Action Plan for the regeneration of Elefsina Gulf, based on a shared

vision.SOS: - , -

, -

. - - 2020 - 2020,

, ./F: +30 210 8228795E: [email protected] / [email protected]: www.medsos.gr

Municipal Authority of Elefsina: In cooperation with NTUA the

Municipal Authority of Elefsina was in charge of all Urban RenovationWorks in their jurisdiction.: , .

: +30 210 554375, F: +30 210 5545965E: [email protected] / [email protected]: www.elefsina.gr

16

Documents

Medsos Life Dvc Manual en-GRE 100309